Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[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.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

EVERY GOAL IS REVIEWED BY VAR.
VAR DIDNT TRY TO OVERTURN THE DECISION.
THE ONFIELD DECISION STANDS.

Which part are you having so much fucking trouble understanding?

You can call it “subjective” if you want, and I realize you and the the Rags EXPECT subjective decisions to go your way, but grow the fuck up and move the fuck on!

The result, for perpetuity, is CITY 3 LIVARPOOL 0, and all the whining and boarding of words and but, but, buts in the world isn’t going to change it!

Want to talk about a handball against Spurs in the CL that cost us the game? The offside goal that was chalked off in the last minute that cost us the game? How about the comeback at the Etihad after your mob bricked our players’ arrival at Klanfield?

It’s fucking tedious to listen to a fan of one of the Chosen Few clubs (LiVARpool, Stratford Scum and The Arse) whining about how hard done to they are. FUCKING TEDIOUS, when you’ve had all your own way for my entire fucking life…and I’m in my 60s!

Now, fuck off back to RAWK, where you can tell the rest of The Cult how you had us on toast…!

Numpty!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

Stuff the fuckers! Don’t let them get a foothold and put another few past em!!

 

[typical]

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?

Yes.

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.

Not sure how much clearer we can be. So I'll shout. VAR DID REVIEW THE INCIDENT. THEY AGREED WITH THE ONFIELD DECISION. YOU CAN HEAR THEM REVIEW IT IN THE AUDIO.

 

[typical]

Just in case your scouse to English dictionary isn't to hand;

review
/rɪˈvjuː/


noun
noun: review; plural noun: reviews

1. a formal assessment of something with the intention of instituting change if necessary.
   
   Liverpool scored. The linesman and ref communicate and decide it was offside. VAR REVIEWED it (ie assessed it formally which you clearly hear on the audio ) and decide NO INTERVENTION is necessary ie there is nothing clear and obvious they can see to change the on field decision. The goal is disallowed.
   
   A panel look at it after the game and decide that in their opinion it should have stood but that VAR was correct, AFTER THEIR REVIEW, NOT TO INTERVENE. It was subjective not factual. If you don't get it now you never will.

 

[blue61]

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.

You have obviously not seen the clip where he pushes Donnaruma. It did not in anyway precede him being pushed by Doku off balance

The only person that was anywhere near Robertson was Donnaruma.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You have obviously not seen the clip where he pushes Donnaruma. It did not in anyway precede him being pushed by Doku off balance

The only person that was anywhere near Robertson was Donnaruma.

 

[blue61]

 

[blue61]

In that clip if Doku pushes Robertson he can only go forward, somehow he manages to go backwards into the GK with his arms pushing that is not possible when being pushed forward

Donnaruma ends back on his line. He is coming out to narrow the angle at the time. That is a foul

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

This is going to run and run for years, “they don’t like it up ‘em Captain Mainwaring”

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

In that clip if Doku pushes Robertson he can only go forward, somehow he manages to go backwards into the GK with his arms pushing that is not possible when being pushed forward

Donnaruma ends back on his line. He is coming out to narrow the angle at the time. That is a foul

If you watch the full clip, you can see that Doku has a hold of him and Robertson is trying to fight through it towards the keeper. Donnarumma puts out his right arm to keep Robertson off, with Doku pushing him forward and to his left, at that point, Robertson grabs ahold of Donnarumma briefly before letting go, whilst still onside and before the ball was headed.

So all 3 men are in contact with one another as the ball was kicked in. Doku holding Robertson from behind then leaning on hm, which in part caused Robertson to interact with Donnaruma.

Once Doku moved forward to put Robertson offside, from that point on there was no interaction between Robertson and Donnaruma and there was no attempt by Robertson to interfere.

 

[blue61]

I think we best agree to disagree