Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[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.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

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.

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.

 

[Asa's left peg]

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.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

when's the game getting replayed?

 

[Vic]

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.

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.

 

[Blue Til Death]

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

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 .. :-)

 

[Blue_eyes]

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.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Apart from Liverpool fans, you seem to be the only one infuriated by this decision.

It might seem that way, but I have good reason to be infuriated.

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.

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.

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

"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!

 

[KS55]

Decisions, decisions. Look in the paper the next day, it was offside. End of.

 

[typical]

We're all annoyed at the fact that this happened

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.