Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

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????
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It might seem that way, but I have good reason to be infuriated.


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!
Click to expand...
You seem to be getting infuriated about VAR "not intervening". VAR did intervene, to agree that offside should be given.
 
There's only one person going on about it here and he's got the wrong impression that Michael Oliver as VAR didn't look at it.
 
bluemanchester said:
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.
Click to expand...
It wasn't unusual for an offside flag to come up 13 seconds after a goal was scored and after the goal celebration had occurred?

When has that EVER happened before? When has it ever took that long for a lino to decide to put his flag up? This was highly unusual and it exposed a lot of problems to their decision-making process.

bluemanchester said:
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.
Click to expand...
Though it's subjective, the LOTG guidelines do not indicate that he interfered, which could only be seen by studying the footage in detail which would require a VAR review, which the assistant and the referee prevented from happening (apparently) by issuing such a delayed onfield ruling and then hiding behind that to avoid having to make a subjective decision via VAR.

bluemanchester said:
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;-)
Click to expand...
Refs made a quick decision instead of going the monitor or allowing a review to occur. Nothing to see here, move right along. Meanwhile had the roles been reversed, City fans would be fuming about it too.

It's this endless cycle of VAR failing, creating victims and causing controversy in our sport that I fight against.
 
Vic said:
There's only one person going on about it here and he's got the wrong impression that Michael Oliver as VAR didn't look at it.
Click to expand...
So he did look at it? It's been reported that VAR didn't look at it because they weren't allowed to be involved. Well which is it? Did VAR look at it and confirm it or didn't they?

It seems that they did or didn't get involved depending on who you ask. And if VAR did get involved to confirm it, then what went into that? Given how quickly it was confirmed following the delayed onfield decision, there wasn't much time for the VAR to do what they would need to do to work out all the components. To see for example that the pushing and grabbing was before Robertson was offside, etc. In order to "confirm" such a decision a full VAR review would be needed, no? Which is why this is so problematic.

The impression you have is that Michael Oliver did confirm the onfield decision. That's what the Liverpool fan was complaining about, how could Oliver have confirmed that without giving it a proper look?
 
the blue panther said:
I think you've more than done it to death - move on, ffs!
Click to expand...
Happy to move on, but before we do, can we please establish what the protocol was supposed to be here. Did VAR or Michael Oliver get involved to confirm the decision? Was VAR allowed to get involved after that onfield decision was made? Surely we need to come to concrete understanding of what actually happened.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It might seem that way, but I have good reason to be infuriated.


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!
Click to expand...
The PLs panel of Owen, Fowler and Colymore. Its offside, Robertson made a play by ducking/dumming within 50cm of the ball. That's the rules like it or lump it
 
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