Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[Chak19]

Just be honest about what happened. There's no point denying that Doku was involved, it's clear from the footage that all 3 men were interacting and affecting one another. But this was before Robertson was put offside.

The fact that you are arguing a foul as opposed to offside interference is telling. The facts involved simply don't support the decision of offside interference, and I'm afraid there's no getting around that.

Oh and I forgot to tell you, I'm afraid the score is still 3-0 and there's no getting around that, so suck on that.

 

[Silva2021]

I’ve had few debates on the offside and quite clearly all the scousers who thought Bernardo was offside, all think Robertson wasn’t.

I can see the difference and the rule, but TBH if we score that goal I would like it to stand and it could have done if Van Dijk had gone the other side.

I’m not a huge fan of having someone for no material gain other than to put of the GK and I think it’s asking for trouble.

If you do it, you have to expect the opposing team to push out and you need to do it yourself.

 

[BringBackSwales]

For any Scousers lurking in here, fuck off you spoilt twats, you got battered 3 0 fair and fucking square you Scandinavian cunts. There was a contentious decision that for once went in a favour, but never forget Alf grey, the Salah offsides, the Milner failed yellow cards, the Arnold basketball, the team coach bricking and flares thrown under the coach fuel lines, the supporter club bus bricking on the hillsborough anniversary day (impeccably respected by our fans) and never forget the innocent Italian deaths, and fuck knows how many pens not given to us at anfield, the Sane “offside” etc etc. Shameless, shameful and pathetic to the last

Edit and I forgot piss throwing cunts who through pots loaded with stones in little girls faces. Absolute fucking vermin, and the only thing City and united fans agree on, vile cunts. Beating you last week, well it meant more

 

[BlueFurn]

3-0
Who gives a fuck?

 

[BringBackSwales]

3-0
Who gives a fuck?

Simple, to the point, and utterly true

 

[eastmanc]

Oh and I forgot to tell you, I'm afraid the score is still 3-0 and there's no getting around that, so suck on that.

Erm, fuck em. Crying gits they got played off the park.

 

[Newman Noggs]

All this reminds me of our reaction when we were truly robbed by an outrageous decision by Clattenburg against Spurs;

"In February 2016, Clattenburg awarded a penalty that led to Tottenham taking the lead against Manchester City. Kompany, despite being unhappy with the decision, urged the team to move on and take strength from the moments"

It illustrates the difference between the respective club cultures both in terms of class and mentality. It's why we dominate them.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Lol oh there's plenty around that, it's all subjective anyway and imo it was the correct decision since Robertson ducking to avoid the ball from an offside position is interference, if you don't agree good for you, now go and light the candles and cry back to RAWK.

Since when does ducking to avoid a ball that is out of the reach of the keeper constitute interference? Where in the LOTG does it say that? It doesn't.

If that was the case, then United's second goal against Forest would have been disallowed. The United player ducked the ball whilst in an offside position, the goal was upheld because that not interference.

And I got news for you, most of what VAR reviews is subjective, so that's no excuse to get this wrong and to create such an outrage by how they went about it. It reflects poorly on all involved.

 

[Bluewonder]

Robertson is in Donnarumma's way and in an offside position. It was fucking offside. Ffs.

 

[Chak19]

Since when does ducking to avoid a ball that is out of the reach of the keeper constitute interference? Where in the LOTG does it say that? It doesn't.

If that was the case, then United's second goal against Forest would have been disallowed. The United player ducked the ball whilst in an offside position, the goal was upheld because that not interference.

And I got news for you, most of what VAR reviews is subjective, so that's no excuse to get this wrong and to create such an outrage by how they went about it. It reflects poorly on all involved.

The interpretation of the LOTG is the subjective part here, and imo the rag goal should've been disallowed too, refereeing inconsistencies is one of the biggest problems out there, but this isn't the first time a goal was disallowed because a player moved to avoid the ball from an offside position despite not being in the keeper's eye sight, like in this example between Everton and the rags a few years ago.



as for your and your fellow dippers outrage, you can keep crying and whining and lighting the fucking candles, we've been shafted by the refs so many times against the dippers I've lost count and City didn't write letters to bitch and moan because the club isn't run by a bunch of entitled crying cunts like you lot, but one call that's most probably the right decision and we never hear the end of it, so once again suck on that, it only reflects on what a bunch of insufferable crying wankers that whole club is.

 

[1961_vintage]

Since when does ducking to avoid a ball that is out of the reach of the keeper constitute interference? Where in the LOTG does it say that? It doesn't.

If that was the case, then United's second goal against Forest would have been disallowed. The United player ducked the ball whilst in an offside position, the goal was upheld because that not interference.

And I got news for you, most of what VAR reviews is subjective, so that's no excuse to get this wrong and to create such an outrage by how they went about it. It reflects poorly on all involved.

You really are very strange group of people.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You really are very strange group of people.

I'm not a group of people. I'm a person.

 

[Jonny Blue]

I'm not a group of people. I'm a person.

I assumed you were a bot sent in by rawk

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The interpretation of the LOTG is the subjective part here, and imo the rag goal should've been disallowed too, refereeing inconsistencies is one of the biggest problems out there, but this isn't the first time a goal was disallowed because a player moved to avoid the ball from an offside position despite not being in the keeper's eye sight, like in this example between Everton and the rags a few years ago.



as for your and your fellow dippers outrage, you can keep crying and whining and lighting the fucking candles, we've been shafted by the refs so many times against the dippers I've lost count and City didn't write letters to bitch and moan because the club isn't run by a bunch of entitled crying cunts like you lot, but one call that's most probably the right decision and we never hear the end of it, so once again suck on that, it only reflects on what a bunch of insufferable crying wankers that whole club is.

Refereeing inconsistencies are a big problem. That one between United and Everton is more difficult because the offside player is seated right in front of the goalie, and despite what you said, he did appear to block the keeper's view of the ball.

I'm hugely insulted by being called a dipper, as I'm for City and I really don't appreciate being called that. When I discuss incidents I try to do so fairly and without bias. Taking a principled stance here doesn't mean I'm against City. It is hard in situations like this, I've expressed frustration over it but the best way to cope with it is to try to understand what went into it and what this means for the future.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I assumed you were a bot sent in by rawk

You assumed wrong. I'm for City. But in the end of the day, I don't see that as interference. That's my view of the incident and it does not affect my support of the club. I don't like this kind of controversy taking away from what was otherwise a brilliant win.

 

[Mr Fraser]

I'm not a group of people. I'm a person.

You are a very strange person. Is that better for you?

 

[AirbagsOptionalTheReturn]

Don’t be so arrogant challenging my honesty. I was implying that the foul was a part of the action and yes he was definitely offside. How could he not be he was stood alone in front of the GK

It is subjective but factually he was offside and that is an offence. If he stood still that is different but he didn’t he moved to allow the goal to be scored

That’s it in a nutshell, if he does not duck, it hits him and straight away he would have been blown for being offside. The act of ducking under the flight of the ball no less, does not mean he was not interfering with play. Dona can’t 100% commit because it could hit the scouse and go in, Dona can’t to a chance that he is offside and has to wait that tiny part of a second before committing fully. This whole media bollocks is unbelievable- what about last season when Wolves were getting decision and decision go against them and had several apologies, I did not see the media fawning and whipping up a storm.
End of the day, the first 60mins were a masterclass by Pep, and the last 30 were like holding a small person at arms length whilst they frantically swing their arms!

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Since when does ducking to avoid a ball that is out of the reach of the keeper constitute interference? Where in the LOTG does it say that? It doesn't.

If that was the case, then United's second goal against Forest would have been disallowed. The United player ducked the ball whilst in an offside position, the goal was upheld because that not interference.

And I got news for you, most of what VAR reviews is subjective, so that's no excuse to get this wrong and to create such an outrage by how they went about it. It reflects poorly on all involved.

Nobody cares. This was a week ago and a poor Liverpool side were well beaten regardless. Liverpool last season and with their COVID title have shown they can only win when any potential opposition are off form and in the doldrums. They've not won an actual title race since the 1980s.

 

[swpswp]

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

You've gotta go.

 

[Jonny Blue]

You assumed wrong. I'm for City. But in the end of the day, I don't see that as interference. That's my view of the incident and it does not affect my support of the club. I don't like this kind of controversy taking away from what was otherwise a brilliant win.

You are just wrong on this issue though. It is very simple. Robertsons job was to obstruct the keeper. Doku's job was to stop Robertson blocking the keeper. Both do their best to do there jobs. Robertson then ends up offside and has to duck to let the ball go in. Therefore he is interfering with play. It's that simple.

Dippers are very annoyed because if Robertson had just stayed out the way then there was a good chance they would have scored a legitimate goal.