Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

bluemanchester said:
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.
Click to expand...
FYI the decision is supposed to involve whether he actually interfered. VAR has gone to great lengths to change the laws that govern the way these kinds of decisions are supposed to be made but then something like this happens and everything we've been told gets thrown out the window.

What they did here was unusual and disruptive any way you slice it. Instead of keeping the flag down or putting it up and going to a VAR review, the lino apparently decided to contact the referee through his communication device to explain to him that he saw interference, which apparently caused VAR to not be allowed to be use and they seem to be quite happy with that.

I'm all about accepting what happened and moving on, but acting like this incident didn't cause outrage based primarily on how they arrived at that decision is putting your head in the sand.

We're all annoyed at the fact that this happened and the reaction to it. And we don't need to keep beating a dead horse, but to claim that the only consideration was whether or not he was offside is glossing over the key components. For some reason, they decided to make a quick decision here and as a result were not allowed to use VAR to confirm it, or they did use VAR to confirm it which was reported as well. Bollocks all around.
 
They are trying to argue that a flukey equaliser would have changed the game, which by that point, the idea doesn't hold water as they had been outplayed. It's the same as adding 10/12 minutes at the end of the game just on the off chance they could claw something back. They always want something they don't deserve.

During the game they are constantly refereeing the game, offering advice to the official. I'm sorry for referring to it again (but it's relevant) but it's always someone else's fault. They lost because of a dodgy decision! No they didn't.
If you thought that we found gaps when they were playing defensively, what would happen when they threw themselves at us.

At the end of the day, it shouts desperation. Their heads are all in the wrong place. Love it.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
Apart from Liverpool fans, you seem to be the only one infuriated by this decision.

It's obvious that the assistant was conversing with the referee before putting up his flag. VAR reviewed it and couldn't say it was a clear and obvious error.

Having half the Liverpool team in the penalty area after the penalty was given infuriated me, even before Haaland took it. Much as I like the laws applied fairly, most of us don't care about this, we're still infuriated by all those unfair decisions v. Liverpool that others have listed.
 
BringBackSwales said:
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. Salah has stopped being a miracle worker since he got his new contract. Isak is good but was he ever great - plus injury prone and a bad character. Ekiteke looks decent. 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
Click to expand...
Ekefuckinthump was completely neutralised by City and as far as the £500 million spent, thats all come from the Couthino fund, which keeps on giving.. Wirtz will be fine once he gets a grip of the pace in the PL but the dippers ain’t winning shit this season .. :-)
 
Cant believe we are still arguing here, anyone who needs to get over it still is a definite dipper.

Robertsons act of ducking facilitates the flight of the ball, as it would hit him otherwise.

Players use the same move to deceive opponents, as in a "dummy", and as such is a recognised "play".

Anything seen as a "play" from an offside position is offside, so no goal.

I have no issue with anything else in the build up, if robertson gets well out of the way in time its a goal.

Going forwards, and to stop this happening(to liverpool heaven forbid) again, maybe ANY player in an offside position in the six yard box is deemed interfering in play and is automatically offside.
 
Vic said:
Apart from Liverpool fans, you seem to be the only one infuriated by this decision.
Click to expand...
It might seem that way, but I have good reason to be infuriated.

Vic said:
It's obvious that the assistant was conversing with the referee before putting up his flag. VAR reviewed it and couldn't say it was a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...
Lets focus on this part specifically. You said VAR reviewed it but couldn't say it was a clear and obvious error. Then why is it being reported that VAR didn't intervene because they supposedly couldn't due to the assistant's actions? And don't you see how problematic this is? This would mean presumably that for VAR to intervene and study the incident, the assistant couldn't have done what he did there because in doing so, it prevented VAR from intervening even though you and others believe that it did.

www.thetimes.com

Virgil van Dijk header should have stood, rules Premier League expert panel

Key Match Incidents panel finds that the onfield call of offside against Liverpool’s Andrew Robertson after captain’s ‘goal’ was incorrect in match against Man City
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com

"However, even though the KMI panel has agreed that Robertson was not affecting Donnarumma enough to be deemed offside, it also found that it was correct for there to have been no intervention from the video assistant referee, Michael Oliver."

So you're saying VAR intervened and confirmed it, while the PL's own "expert" panel are saying they haven't intervened and they were correct not to!
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
We're all annoyed at the fact that this happened
Click to expand...
I'm not . Quite happy in fact. It's lovely to see them fuming after the decisions they have been given against us .But you are correct that the reaction to it being disallowed is annoying.

No one knows how Robertson's position affected Donnarumma. Because of how quick it happened, he himself may not know. His movements would have been instinctive. You are correct that the pictures indicate he wasn't getting to it because of his step right. Why did he step right a split second before ? Would he have done this regardless of Robertson's position ? Did he need a better view because Robertson was stood in front of him ? I've no idea. But neither does anyone. Having played in net in my younger days to a decent-ish level I can categorically state a keeper will move if his view is obscured. And that is why there is nothing wrong in disallowing the goal after a subjective call that he affected our keeper. And why if it had been given we would have had to suck it up and accept it.

And just in case you think Donnarumma would have a clear view because of height, look at the goal. He's slightly crouched, knees bent, in a position to move and dive if needed. His head looks to be about level with Robertsons. Again, I can't say if this is actually the case or not. It's just how it appears to me. But this reduction in height will undoubtedly affect the view he has.

The biggest controversy isn't that the goal was disallowed. Decisions occur every week in every league that split opinion. It's that they have been able to use the media to drag the arse out of it for nearly a week to ensure as best they can that they get any either way decisions from now on.
 
Blue_eyes said:
Cant believe we are still arguing here, anyone who needs to get over it still is a definite dipper.

Robertsons act of ducking facilitates the flight of the ball, as it would hit him otherwise.

Players use the same move to deceive opponents, as in a "dummy", and as such is a recognised "play".

Anything seen as a "play" from an offside position is offside, so no goal.

I have no issue with anything else in the build up, if robertson gets well out of the way in time its a goal.

Going forwards, and to stop this happening(to liverpool heaven forbid) again, maybe ANY player in an offside position in the six yard box is deemed interfering in play and is automatically offside.
Click to expand...
The duck is irrelevant. This is an offside call so the relevant moment is when Van Dijk heads the ball. I have captured the image below. For me it's offside because Robertson's position is interfering with Donnarumma's ability to dive to his left.

1763209846067.png
 
The key move was Robertson pushing Donnaruma as the corner was taken. Donnaruma was pushed back with his weight landing on the right side.

There was two reasons to disallow it. Either offside as Robertson ducked or the ball would have hit him. Second reason was a straight foul for a push

If he hadn’t pushed Donnaruma it’s highly likely his weight would have been balanced and he would have saved it
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
FYI the decision is supposed to involve whether he actually interfered. VAR has gone to great lengths to change the laws that govern the way these kinds of decisions are supposed to be made but then something like this happens and everything we've been told gets thrown out the window.

What they did here was unusual and disruptive any way you slice it. Instead of keeping the flag down or putting it up and going to a VAR review, the lino apparently decided to contact the referee through his communication device to explain to him that he saw interference, which apparently caused VAR to not be allowed to be use and they seem to be quite happy with that.

I'm all about accepting what happened and moving on, but acting like this incident didn't cause outrage based primarily on how they arrived at that decision is putting your head in the sand.

We're all annoyed at the fact that this happened and the reaction to it. And we don't need to keep beating a dead horse, but to claim that the only consideration was whether or not he was offside is glossing over the key components. For some reason, they decided to make a quick decision here and as a result were not allowed to use VAR to confirm it, or they did use VAR to confirm it which was reported as well. Bollocks all around.
Click to expand...
He did interfere by ducking to avoid contact with the ball.
It is only being made out to be disruptive because its livarpool.
There is nothing unusual about the AR and ref talking to each other.
The AR and ref are miked up so they can communicate, the whole reason to be miked up.
VAR was not used because those are the rules.
It has caused outrage because livarpool and their shrills will not accept the laws of the game, nothing else, City would not get this many tears if the boot was on the other foot, as we know to our considerable cost against them.
They arrived at the decision as they are the rules/laws.
I am not annoyed nor any City supporters I have spoken to are. It is livarpool and their shrills that are annoyed and beating the dead horse.
The only key component is Robertson ducking to avoid contact when he was in an offside position.
Refs making a quick decision, whatever next;-)
The only bollocks is that this is being peddled a week after the game, the game where livarpool were battered in every department and their £400k a week star was in the back pocket of a teenager.
Dry your tears and move on, it was the right decision, last week, last year and last century.
Goodbye;-)
 
blue61 said:
The key move was Robertson pushing Donnaruma as the corner was taken. Donnaruma was pushed back with his weight landing on the right side.

There was two reasons to disallow it. Either offside as Robertson ducked or the ball would have hit him. Second reason was a straight foul for a push

If he hadn’t pushed Donnaruma it’s highly likely his weight would have been balanced and he would have saved it
Click to expand...
And why do you think he pushed Donna? What happened before that? Doku pushed him from behind, no? Which appeared to cause him to lose his balance and right himself by reaching onto Donna momentarily.

This pushing and grabbing, both by Doku and Robertson weren't enough to warrant a foul to be given, as we see this kind of stuff often on corners and rarely are fouls called for modest pushing and grabbing like that.

Robertson's reaching onto Donna doesn't have anything to do with whether or not offsides should be given or not because that was before he was in an offsides position.

If your argument is that the hand on Donna by Robertson may have affected his decision making or ability to save the ball, I wouldn't dispute that, but since that action didn't occur while Robertson was in an offside position (it was before he was offside) that would not be part of any offside interference. And due to this nuanced detail, to see this and work this out, it would require a full VAR review in which the VAR team had the time to go through all the angles and break this sequence down to make this determination themself, which wasn't allowed to happen it would seem.
 
citizen_maine said:
Pages and pages of posts by City fans disagreeing with other City fans about why the correct decision was reached :-)
Click to expand...
The correct decision according to whom? Many City fans have admitted it was subjective and could go either way, that there wasn't a clearly correct decision here. But a look at the LOTG reveal that the criteria for interference wasn't met and the process that they arrived that that decision, preventing a proper VAR look was highly suspect.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
FYI the decision is supposed to involve whether he actually interfered. VAR has gone to great lengths to change the laws that govern the way these kinds of decisions are supposed to be made but then something like this happens and everything we've been told gets thrown out the window.

What they did here was unusual and disruptive any way you slice it. Instead of keeping the flag down or putting it up and going to a VAR review, the lino apparently decided to contact the referee through his communication device to explain to him that he saw interference, which apparently caused VAR to not be allowed to be use and they seem to be quite happy with that.

I'm all about accepting what happened and moving on, but acting like this incident didn't cause outrage based primarily on how they arrived at that decision is putting your head in the sand.

We're all annoyed at the fact that this happened and the reaction to it. And we don't need to keep beating a dead horse, but to claim that the only consideration was whether or not he was offside is glossing over the key components. For some reason, they decided to make a quick decision here and as a result were not allowed to use VAR to confirm it, or they did use VAR to confirm it which was reported as well. Bollocks all around.
Click to expand...
This bloody decision is one in 100s that have been made using/not using VAR over the recent past. I’m wracking my brain to try and decide why this one seems so much more controversial than the rest?! Why is still being discussed a week later?! Must be a reason it’s standing out. What could it be????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top