Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[Gingers Dad]

Holding my hands up - I wanted Ake in to mark Saleh, pre match. My fears were totally unfounded as NOR was one of several stand-out performers. Saleh did fuck all and with a ittle more confidence, Nico might have had 2 goals.

A very impressive performance against a revitalised Liverpool. It's hard to laod enough praise on City after that performance: it'll go down in the anals as one of the great displays. That 2nd goal was historic. Special mention for Doku who was the stand-out a breathtaking display and that 3rd goal alone that was definitely worth the admission money.

Happy days! Anyone know any Arsenal fans? Check the arses for twitchiness.

Current Ake isn't up to it. He needs to get match fit before he can take on someone like Salah. NOR was perfect for the job until right near the end when he was blowing. Salah wasn't tired as he had done fck all for 80 mins.

 

[Blue Budgie]

Stop whinging you scouse twats!

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

All deflection tactics from Liverpool and their media chums. The current champions of England had their arses handed to them by a revamped emerging City team.

They’ve lost Klopp and now have a manager that is being found out when he is being put under pressure. They’ve broke up Klopp’s team at the same time and spent big and not getting a return on it.

Crying about a goal won’t help Liverpool’s deteriorating situation if they aren’t careful their chums in Stretford could end up finishing higher up the league than they do.

 

[toffee balls]

Cry more you fucking mard arsed scouse rats. We've been fucked over at Anfield and at the Etihad so many times against these cunts we were overdue one in return even if I think it's subjectively not unreasonable to give Robertson offside.
Stevie starfish in the League Cup, Salah diving for multiple penalties and who can forget the Trent hand of god followed by a Sane offside and a Jesus disallowed goal. Get fucked.

Plus the Micah handball, Milner not sent off et al

 

[Blue Til Death]

Cannot believe (actually I can) I’m still reading articles on how the dippers were robbed of a goal last week FFS..
Aided and abetted by a sycophantic media ..

Will you all please just…..

 

[BringBackSwales]

All deflection tactics from Liverpool and their media chums. The current champions of England had their arses handed to them by a revamped emerging City team.

They’ve lost Klopp and now have a manager that is being found out when he is being put under pressure. They’ve broke up Klopp’s team at the same time and spent big and not getting a return on it.

Crying about a goal won’t help Liverpool’s deteriorating situation if they aren’t careful their chums in Stretford could end up finishing higher up the league than they do.

Diaz second top scorer in Bundesliga, Wirtz yet to score, good business that’s looking plus £50m on top. Frimpong and Kerkez both decent players going forward but can’t defend. Van Dick has been carrying Konate for a couple of years and now looks old and a bit shit. Salah has stopped being a miracle worker since he got his new contract and now looks less interested. Isak is good but was he ever great - plus injury prone and a bad character. Ekiteke looks decent but no world beater. Slot looks a bit lost. Half a billion spent and below the rags in the league. I dare say they will end up top 4 but not top 2, and after winning the league by 10 points and investing half a billion that’s a poor show. Without their lucky start to the season they’ve done well to be eighth. And all they do is moan. And thank you to wee **** andy for standing where you did

 

[Gordyola]

The only way Robertson doesn't affect the decision making of GD is if GD completely disregards Robertsons presence.
Either GD knows he's offside and the goal will be chalked off, or he is in two minds and doesn't know if Robertson is onside and will deflect the ball past him into the goal.
Because the refs also work on this assumption.
For the goal to stand you will have to prove the opposite.

He was offside it's clear that he was interfering with play because he ducked if he hadn't then the ball would have hit him, and not been a goal. Well he certainly thought that to be the case

 

[mancboy]

It was out of the keeper's reach either way. The keeper freely moved towards the middle of the goal as the header was coming in putting him out of position to make that save regardless of Robertson. Robertson could have been there or not and there was no way Donna was saving that header. Ducking the ball is not an action that causes it to be offsides, per the LOTG. In order for it to be offsides, he has to impact the ability of the keeper to physically play the ball, not just being close to the action or ducking the ball that is out of the reach of the keeper.

U cant say that he wasnt reaching it either way, if robertson wasnt there and he didnt have to hedge his bets and be able to fully commit to the dive then he may well have reached it and thats exactly where interfering with play comes in, his presence alone impacts his ability to play the ball just like any dummy anywhere on the pitch would.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

U cant say that he wasnt reaching it either way, if robertson wasnt there and he didnt have to hedge his bets and be able to fully commit to the dive then he may well have reached it and thats exactly where interfering with play comes in, his presence alone impacts his ability to play the ball just like any dummy anywhere on the pitch would.

If that were the case, then they wouldn't have concluded that it was the wrong decision. I'm not saying you can't argue interference, but rather than the laws as they are written do not cause this to be interference.



You're reaction to that might be "they're bent" but there's a reason why they came to that conclusion. Now their other conclusion, that it was "correct for there to be no intervention from VAR" is BENT because if by the AR doing what he did, making that conclusion (that he saw interference) and communicating that to the ref, causes the goal to be chalked off and doesn't allow VAR to be used, then they've taken VAR out of the question instead of using it to make the correct decision!

 

[Whether or not]

All deflection tactics from Liverpool and their media chums. The current champions of England had their arses handed to them by a revamped emerging City team.

They’ve lost Klopp and now have a manager that is being found out when he is being put under pressure. They’ve broke up Klopp’s team at the same time and spent big and not getting a return on it.

Crying about a goal won’t help Liverpool’s deteriorating situation if they aren’t careful their chums in Stretford could end up finishing higher up the league than they do.

It is all a bit more sinister than deflection I think. They know exactly what they are doing in keeping the issue alive in this way. It is designed to undermine PGMOL, and get into the heads of every referee going forward, that they dare not give a big decision against them. It is precisely what they did a few years back after the disallowed game at Spurs. It is a toxic mix of bullying, intimidation and victimhood.

 

[mancboy]

If that were the case, then they wouldn't have concluded that it was the wrong decision. I'm not saying you can't argue interference, but rather than the laws as they are written do not cause this to be interference.



You're reaction to that might be "they're bent" but there's a reason why they came to that conclusion. Now their other conclusion, that it was "correct for there to be no intervention from VAR" is BENT because if by the AR doing what he did, making that conclusion (that he saw interference) and communicating that to the ref, causes the goal to be chalked off and doesn't allow VAR to be used, then they've taken VAR out of the question instead of using it to make the correct decision!

Answer me this why didnt they come to the same conclusion for the allowed goal against bournemouth? Because donna should have been stronger? By that token robertson should have got himself onside.

Webb said it was reasonable that it could be disallowed but a faceless panel said it should be, and that is solely to placate the scousers as the authorities so frequently do.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You seem to be giving some credence to this “long delayed ‘onfield’ decision” as if there is some conspiracy here???

The linesman simply says, “Robertson was in an offside position and looked to me to have ducked to avoid the ball. Is that what you saw, Chris?”

“Yes, he definitely ducked.”

“OK, I’m going to raise my flag for offside then.”

“OK, that sounds like a good call if he was in an offside position.”

Flag goes up and ref blows for offside.

Robertson KNOWS he was in an offside position and ducked, but VVD has already run to the corner flag and is taunting City fans as his teammates run over, so the cameras are all following him.

VAR sees no reason to overturn a well reasoned onfield decision, because the “interference” is a subjective call and Oliver just wants to make sure they are all seeing the same thing.

OFFSIDE STANDS!

Simple as.

So your argument is that this is how it's supposed to work? Funny how we've never seen something like this before. You would have us believe that it's normal for goal celebrations to be interrupted after long delays of inaction.

The narrative that seems to have taken shape here from the powers that be is that the decision was wrong, the goal should have stood, but that VAR not getting involved was the correct decision. This is infuriating on a number of levels. First of all, the lino does not need the referee's permission to put his flag up. And if VAR isn't to be used to review interference on offsides decisions, then what it's there for?

If the official line from the pro-VAR crowd that VAR isn't to be used in these kind of situation, that we're stuck with whatever the lino on the field decides, and this isn't concerning to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Those involved with VAR and using VAR has no clue what they're doing, in this case the assistant just took matters into his own hands and seemingly shut the door on it being looked at properly.

In football, traditionally mind you, if the ball hits the back of the net, as a player you give a quick look to the lino to make sure the flag is down then you go nuts in celebration of the goal.

Let me ask you this - what do you think the lesson should be learned as a result of this situation? That we should rely fully on the on field decision if and only if the lino decides there was interference, but if he doesn't or doesn't specify there was interference, then it should go to review?

It sounds like they're just trying to cover their own arse, and pretend like the standard protocol was followed here. When in reality, they clearly took matters into their own hands, decided this was interference on the pitch and refused to go to VAR apparently, even though i was said to be looked at briefly. No one has a clue what's going on, but anyone watching can see the absolute shambles it was and the damage control they are trying to do to pretend like it was handled well.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Answer me this why didnt they come to the same conclusion for the allowed goal against bournemouth? Because donna should have been stronger? By that token robertson should have got himself onside.

Are you referring to the Bournemouth goal against City from the corner? They didn't come to that conclusion there because he managed to get back onside. Are you saying that if he didn't get back in time then it would have been offside there too? That's a hypothetical argument.

Offsides wasn't a possible decision there because he got back, though I did observe the arm hooking the GK as the ball was coming in, but then he released. There was also a push against Bournemouth that probably would have resulted in a penalty if the goal hadn't been scored, it seemed that the ref was playing advantage there.

Webb said it was reasonable that it could be disallowed but a faceless panel said it should be, and that is solely to placate the scousers as the authorities so frequently do.

Webb's explanation consisted of a lot of gobbledegook trying to spin this into an acceptable decision. It's not that it's unreasonable to argue interference, what was unreasonable was how they came to the decision.

It's worrying that they conclude both that it was the wrong decision but also that VAR was correct to not get involved, because this shows that they see nothing wrong with what happened there.

If the idea is that we need VAR to correct decisions that are hard to make in real-time, but also that VAR shouldn't have gotten involved here, then this directly contradicts its stated purpose and once again shows how shambolic and inconsistent the whole VAR apparatus is.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Are people still whinging about the offside, or is it just Dippers? Definitely offside and, either way, they lost, we won, and we would’ve beaten them anyway with our progressive football.

 

[mancboy]

Are you referring to the Bournemouth goal against City from the corner? They didn't come to that conclusion there because he managed to get back onside. Are you saying that if he didn't get back in time then it would have been offside there too? That's a hypothetical argument.

Offsides wasn't a possible decision there because he got back, though I did observe the arm hooking the GK as the ball was coming in, but then he released. There was also a push against Bournemouth that probably would have resulted in a penalty if the goal hadn't been scored, it seemed that the ref was playing advantage there.


Webb's explanation consisted of a lot of gobbledegook trying to spin this into an acceptable decision. It's not that it's unreasonable to argue interference, what was unreasonable was how they came to the decision.

It's worrying that they conclude both that it was the wrong decision but also that VAR was correct to not get involved, because this shows that they see nothing wrong with what happened there.

If the idea is that we need VAR to correct decisions that are hard to make in real-time, but also that VAR shouldn't have gotten involved here, then this directly contradicts its stated purpose and once again shows how shambolic and inconsistent the whole VAR apparatus is.

Tbh mate it doesnt matter how long your posts are, your argument is nonsensical bollocks, but good luck.

 

[The Colonel]

Fuck off. It was 3-0. We smashed you.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Tbh mate it doesnt matter how long your posts are, your argument is nonsensical bollocks, but good luck.

I addressed your points as best I could, you're defending Webb saying that it was reasonable. Meanwhile his colleagues disagreed and you've claimed they have done this to placate the scousers. I don't believe in conspiracies, I do know that Liverpool is known for being the VAR darlings and that everyone involved in VAR has a vested interested in trying to justify it.

My argument is very simply - VAR is BENT and this is yet another example of that, whether or not you conclude that it was interference, they've mucked this up and Webb's attempt at explaining what happened went horribly wrong.

 

[Chris in London]

Just watching the full game now for the first time.

I’m impressed by the number of times we were tucked in a tight spot and played our way out of trouble with five or six one touch passes. Obviously the lead up to the first goal is the prime example when NOR began the move from inside his own corner quadrant, but it also happened on six or seven other occasions where we rondo’d our way out of a tight press and launched an attack.

Just now, for instance, the game is on 35 minutes. Two city attacks in the last 90 seconds have come from quick one touch passing to get past the press. One attack was stopped by a free kick, the other by a misplaced pass.

Both originated from deep within our own half by one City surrounded by red shirts.

It’s a bit like shopping in Milton Keynes.

 

[bluemanchester]

So your argument is that this is how it's supposed to work? Funny how we've never seen something like this before. You would have us believe that it's normal for goal celebrations to be interrupted after long delays of inaction.

The narrative that seems to have taken shape here from the powers that be is that the decision was wrong, the goal should have stood, but that VAR not getting involved was the correct decision. This is infuriating on a number of levels. First of all, the lino does not need the referee's permission to put his flag up. And if VAR isn't to be used to review interference on offsides decisions, then what it's there for?

If the official line from the pro-VAR crowd that VAR isn't to be used in these kind of situation, that we're stuck with whatever the lino on the field decides, and this isn't concerning to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Those involved with VAR and using VAR has no clue what they're doing, in this case the assistant just took matters into his own hands and seemingly shut the door on it being looked at properly.

In football, traditionally mind you, if the ball hits the back of the net, as a player you give a quick look to the lino to make sure the flag is down then you go nuts in celebration of the goal.

Let me ask you this - what do you think the lesson should be learned as a result of this situation? That we should rely fully on the on field decision if and only if the lino decides there was interference, but if he doesn't or doesn't specify there was interference, then it should go to review?

It sounds like they're just trying to cover their own arse, and pretend like the standard protocol was followed here. When in reality, they clearly took matters into their own hands, decided this was interference on the pitch and refused to go to VAR apparently, even though i was said to be looked at briefly. No one has a clue what's going on, but anyone watching can see the absolute shambles it was and the damage control they are trying to do to pretend like it was handled well.

You really do seem to be throwing everything except the kitchen sink into your replies. This is exactly what livarpool are doing and their shrills, deflecting the actual reason for the decision. The only consideration regarding the goal being disallowed is that Robertson was in an offside position, well done Doku, he made the decision easy when he ducked to avoid contact with the ball. The decision starts and indeed ends there. Accept it and move on as when people start deflecting and adding peripheral reasons to their argument it tells me the argument they are making is weak.

 

[burning blue soul]

I addressed your points as best I could, you're defending Webb saying that it was reasonable. Meanwhile his colleagues disagreed and you've claimed they have done this to placate the scousers. I don't believe in conspiracies, I do know that Liverpool is known for being the VAR darlings and that everyone involved in VAR has a vested interested in trying to justify it.

My argument is very simply - VAR is BENT and this is yet another example of that, whether or not you conclude that it was interference, they've mucked this up and Webb's attempt at explaining what happened went horribly wrong.

A subjective decision was made in-game.
Happens a lot during every game.
You are, correctly, pointing out the reasoning why (subjectively) the decision could have gone the other way.
But, the bigger problem here now is the media meddling after the fact. How it has been blown up is tantamount to a power play by both media and LFC. Truly shocking!
The last thing this situation needed was a faceless quango deciding it should have been a goal after all. Just adds fuel to fire that LFC fans and media are all circle jerking around.
Not even utd would get this level of scrutiny on a decision that went against them.
As a previous poster stated, this will give pause to any future negative refereeing decisions for LFC, and it has been coordinated.
That club is a stain on the game in this country.