Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[TheBeautifulGame]

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 didn't address my point. I was not arguing there whether or not it should have been offside. My point was that the panel were under the impression that VAR did not intervene or couldn't, whilst some posters here are claiming VAR did intervene and confirmed it. Which is it? Did VAR intervene or not? And generally, should these kind of decisions by reviewed by VAR fully or do you agree that the onfield assistant should be the one deciding interference? I am happy to move on, but please address that issue!

 

[typical]

The full audio was on that mic'd up refs thing with Howard Webb. Oliver looked at it, gave a rational, then confirmed to the ref on field decision stands. Google it. You'll find it.

 

[Vic]

The full audio was on that mic'd up refs thing with Howard Webb. Oliver looked at it, gave a rational, then confirmed to the ref on field decision stands. Google it. You'll find it.

Scroll down to Sky Sports post on X:

Liverpool: Refs' chief gives verdict on Van Dijk controversy

Liverpool were left fuming after Virgil van Dijk's goal against Manchester City was disallowed, but Howard Webb defended the decision.

www.101greatgoals.com

Now can we put this to bed? Oliver had already had 15 seconds to look at it before he "intervened". Assistant VAR also agreed. So with Webb that's five referees calling it offside....

 

[bluemanchester]

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.


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.


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.

I want this to be my last reply to you, in fact it will be because it seems like I am trading messages with a livarpool fan. You know the type always right and forever wronged. One last time, Robertson was in an offside position and then ducked to avoid the ball hitting him, the ducking meant he was interfering. That was why it was ruled offside. Everything else you mentioned is just noise, typical of livarpool football club and their shrills keeping it going to get favourable decisions in the future.

 

[typical]

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.

I think you have misunderstoood what they mean by the term intervene.

The panel looked at the incident and in their OPINION the goal should have stood. However, they agreed it was correct for VAR not to intervene, ie get involved in changing the decision. Not that the VAR did not look at it. In other words the panel thought it should have been a goal but accept the decision was not a clear and obvious mistake. I assume because it was a subjective decision.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Scroll down to Sky Sports post on X:

Liverpool: Refs' chief gives verdict on Van Dijk controversy

Liverpool were left fuming after Virgil van Dijk's goal against Manchester City was disallowed, but Howard Webb defended the decision.

www.101greatgoals.com

Now can we put this to bed?

"Speaking on Match Officials Mic'd Up, PGMO chief Howard Webb explains why VAR did not intervene to overturn the decision."

Oliver had already had 20 seconds to look at it before he "intervened". Assistant VAR also agreed. So with Webb that's five referees calling it offside....

Howard Webb and the PL Panel said that VAR didn't intervene and Webb even explained why they didn't, or couldn't, which contrasts with what you're saying that Oliver did intervene and the AVAR also agreed. If they agreed or needed to agree to confirm the decision, then they did intervene and had the discretion to intervene.

The frustration here is the fact that they chose to go along the AR rather than giving it a proper review. And it's unclear why that happened in this specific instance when in other cases it has been handled differently.

 

[Mancity1980]

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!

Whatever happened to the referee’s decision is final?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Whatever happened to the referee’s decision is final?

Well the referee didn't make his own decision here. He was merely told what his lino thought happened and he went along with it. Referees don't make decisions anymore, he was merely the conduit through which the decision was made.

 

[Vic]

"Speaking on Match Officials Mic'd Up, PGMO chief Howard Webb explains why VAR did not intervene to overturn the decision."


Howard Webb and the PL Panel said that VAR didn't intervene and Webb even explained why they didn't, or couldn't, which contrasts with what you're saying that Oliver did intervene and the AVAR also agreed. If they agreed or needed to agree to confirm the decision, then they did intervene and had the discretion to intervene.

The frustration here is the fact that they chose to go along the AR rather than giving it a proper review. And it's unclear why that happened in this specific instance when in other cases it has been handled differently.

Good grief. You still haven't listened to the audio...

Well the referee didn't make his own decision here. He was merely told what his lino thought happened and he went along with it. Referees don't make decisions anymore, he was merely the conduit through which the decision was made.

Who blew the whistle? I thought for a while that you understood the laws of football. The assistant signals for offside, the referee decides to give it (or not). In this case the AR said he thought Robertson was close enough to be interfering, Cavanagh hadn't got any reason to disagree; flag went up and whistle went simultaneously. Oliver and assistant VAR agreed, didn't even seem to think it was a close call.

Case closed - and anything further about how they came to the decision is wumming.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I think you have misunderstoood what they mean by the term intervene.

The panel looked at the incident and in their OPINION the goal should have stood. However, they agreed it was correct for VAR not to intervene, ie get involved in changing the decision. Not that the VAR did not look at it. In other words the panel thought it should have been a goal but accept the decision was not a clear and obvious mistake. I assume because it was a subjective decision.

LOL Intervene does not mean to "change" the decision it means to decide to REVIEW the decision. If VAR gets involved that means they're taking a look at it and giving it a full review.

I'm trying to understand what went on here and what they are or aren't allowed to do in such a situation. If the argument is that they didn't intervene because they did not THINK that a clear and obvious error was made, i.e. because such decision are inherently subjective then moving forward, what would cause such a situation to get a proper VAR review? I would also point out we have been told that all Goals and Offside decisions are supposed to automatically be reviewed!

 

[mancboy]

LOL Intervene does not mean to "change" the decision it means to decide to REVIEW the decision. If VAR gets involved that means they're taking a look at it and giving it a full review.

I'm trying to understand what went on here and what they are or aren't allowed to do in such a situation. If the argument is that they didn't intervene because they did not THINK that a clear and obvious error was made, i.e. because such decision are inherently subjective then moving forward, what would cause such a situation to get a proper VAR review? I would also point out we have been told that all Goals and Offside decisions are supposed to automatically be reviewed!

Jesus will you have a day off, you'd put a glass eye to sleep.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Good grief. You still haven't listened to the audio...

Sure I have. What am I missing?

Who blew the whistle? I thought for a while that you understood the laws of football.

The whistle blew because a goal was scored.

The assistant signals for offside, the referee decides to give it (or not).

That's how it's supposed to work. That's NOT what happened here. The Assistant did NOT initially signal for offside. If he did, then there wouldn't have been a goal celebration! Instead he kept the flag down and called up the referee on his communication device to explain that he thought he saw interference.

The assistant didn't single for offsides until AFTER getting his approval from the referee. This was the cart going before the horse, a reversal / disruption of the normal process.

In this case the AR said he thought Robertson was close enough to be interfering, Cavanagh hadn't got any reason to disagree; flag went up and whistle went simultaneously. Oliver and assistant VAR agreed, didn't even seem to think it was a close call.

Kavanagh had no reason to disagree, that's what VAR is for, to confirm or deny the interference. But apparently VAR cannot review interference because it's too subjective, even though all goals and offsides decisions are supposed to be review, or so we're told.

 

[typical]

LOL Intervene does not mean to "change" the decision it means to decide to REVIEW the decision. If VAR gets involved that means they're taking a look at it and giving it a full review.

Ok.
verb
verb: intervene; 3rd person present: intervenes; past tense: intervened; past participle: intervened; gerund or present participle: intervening

1. 
   take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.
   "he acted outside his authority when he intervened in the dispute"

Change is EXACTLY what it means. To review the decision is to ....... oh yeah. Review. Which they did. Prior to coming to the conclusion there was no need to intervene,

I'll leave it there. You are either on the wind up or too stupid to have a proper conversation with.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Ok.
verb
verb: intervene; 3rd person present: intervenes; past tense: intervened; past participle: intervened; gerund or present participle: intervening

1. 1.
   take part in something so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events.
   "he acted outside his authority when he intervened in the dispute"
   
   
   I'll leve it there . You re either on the wind up or too stupid to have a proper discussion with.

Your interpretation of what they mean by intervening aside, the fact of the matter is that THEY made a decision to go with the onfield decision without giving it a review.

I'm merely asking you, could they have called for a VAR review there, should they have and why didn't they? So that moving forward if we have a similar situation, we have a clear understanding of how they intend to handle these kind of situations.

I don't know about you but it would seem to me that a situation like this demands a thorough VAR review to determine whether or not interference occurred, subjective as it is, because it is too difficult to determine this in real-time. You really need to study the footage and watch it in slow mo and look at it from multiple angles to adequately determine whether or not the player interfered. But yet in this situation, that's precisely what they have done, they have refused to give it a VAR review, despite past precedents and statements to the contrary.

 

[typical]

My interpretation is the one used in the dictionary. Maybe you have a different one, la.

How did they come to a decision without a review. You can litterally hear them reviewing it on the audio.

I'm sure now that what you mean by a thorough review is one that eventually lands at a decision to let you have that goal.

 

[mancboy]

Your interpretation of what they mean by intervening aside, the fact of the matter is that THEY made a decision to go with the onfield decision without giving it a review.

I'm merely asking you, could they have called for a VAR review there, should they have and why didn't they? So that moving forward if we have a similar situation, we have a clear understanding of how they intend to handle these kind of situations.

I don't know about you but it would seem to me that a situation like this demands a thorough VAR review to determine whether or not interference occurred, subjective as it is, because it is too difficult to determine this in real-time. You really need to study the footage and watch it in slow mo and look at it from multiple angles to adequately determine whether or not the player interfered. But yet in this situation, that's precisely what they have done, they have refused to give it a VAR review, despite past precedents and statements to the contrary.

Rawk is that way laa, fuck off back there with the rest of your whiny brethren, youve been made to look a mug multiple times but you keep going on, a bit like your team last week, even if the decision was wrong (which it wasnt) you had 50 minutes to do something about it and you did fuck all but moan and moan a bit more, its pathetic and childish which is the dippers wheelhouse.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

My interpretation is the one used in the dictionary. Maybe you have a different one, la.

How did they come to a decision without a review. You can litterally hear them reviewing it on the audio.

I'm sure now that what you mean by a thorough review is one that eventually lands at a decision to let you have that goal.

I think you know what I mean. I am asking you, as a general principle, is it satisfactory to have offside interference decisions decided in such a way?

By the onfield decision? OR should these type of situations be reviewed by VAR? The excuse that VAR shouldn't review these because it's subjective is curious because plenty of VAR decisions are subjective and they still get reviewed. Subjective as it is, it is much harder to be sure that interference occurred in real-time than it would be through a VAR review, and 20 seconds isn't enough time to confirm it. You would need minutes to go through all the angles, to break it down in order to understand what happened.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The narrative that seems to have taken shape here from the powers that be is that the decision was wrong

Funny stuff!

The “powers that be” are the Ref, the Asst Ref with the flag and the VAR.

Which one said it was a goal?

You have your answer! The rest of the post-match punditry BULLSHIT is all old Dippers in the media and everyone who hates to see Pep and City rising like a Phoenix from the flames of not winning anything except a CL spot last season.

SUCK IT…HERE WE COME!!

Lastly, and I have to emphasize this, if it had been a 1-0 result, I could understand all the whining days, weeks and (wait for it!) months after the fact, BUT LIVERPOOL GOT FUCKING HAMMERED and it wasn’t even close! 3-0 is Slot’s largest defeat and it could have been much worse.

Get over your delicate self, go and have a brew and a HobNob, and try to enjoy watching LiVARpool fight back from 8th, which I’m sure they will now every Ref will be scared of the backlash for any decisions against them!!!

 

[Tim of the Oak]

We are even getting away with a few dodgy challenges in the Women's Derby! The Rags manager looked like he was going to cry. What a great week of officiating.

 

[Sheik Battle and Goal]

It's what you get with VAR. Endless controversy and crying. I can't stand it.

Totally agree. I have a theory that it’s actually been brought in to cause more controversy. This means more media coverage, more adverts, we now have ex referees as pundits, radio stations profiting by spouting shite and gregging fans to ring in.
This is a bit tongue in cheek but I can’t stand it.