Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
For City…lol
 
Nice to dick the Dippers with a hefty 3-0 drubbing. They were poorer than I thought they’d be and didn’t deserve anything out of the game, not even a rightful VAR decision.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...

Robinson moved from a onside position to an ofside position that’s why the on field linemen raised the flag!
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because if he didn't duck, it would have hit him, which constituted an offside pass and prevented a goal from being scored. Him ducking in an offside position, thus creating the goal meant he WAS involved in the play and thus allowed Van Dick to score despite him being in an offside position.

Oh and Casemiro's goal against Forest....? It should ALSO have been disallowed and NOT stood. There. cleared that up for you Dip?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no way in hell he was blocking a 6 ft 4 keeper's vision while sat on the ground lol, De Gea could see the ball and the deflection from his teammate made it impossible to save, you could argue it should've been given just like you could argue Dick's header should've been given, but they weren't, and yes the ref's inconsistencies is hugely frustrating but it affects every team.

What I don't remember is the massive outrage and the media crying about if for days when Everton's goal got disallowed, I wonder why ? if you're a City fan my apologies but you're playing right into the red shite brigade's crap by constantly banging on about it like it's the worst decision ever when there's been far worse decisions against us in this fixture without a peep, so give it up already.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then why do you keep creating MORE controversy about it?

As for being a City fan, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard someone declare their allegiance by saying “I’m for City”??!!

Lastly, if it looks like a Dipper, walks like a Dipper, and quacks like a Dipper…it’s a Dipper!

Now, if you started quacking like a City fan for once, people might think you looked and walked a little differently. Alas…

Drop it. Move on. SOUND like a City fan and ya never know…
 
Last edited:
Metal Biker said:
Oh and Casemiro's goal against Forest....? It should ALSO have been disallowed and NOT stood. There. cleared that up for you Dip?
Click to expand...
Glad you cleared that up, but keep your Dips to yourself.

If you've been following football over the years you'd know how they have made these kinds of decisions and what they're supposed to be looking for.

But in this situation, it all went haywire, the standards, the protocols were turned on their head here and the reaction to it speaks for itself.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Then why do you keep creating MORE controversy about it?

As for being a City fan, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard someone declare their allegiance by saying “I’m for City”??!!

Lastly, it looks like a Dipper, walks like a Dipper, and quacks like a Dipper…it’s a Dipper!

Now, if you started quacking like a City fan for once, people might think you looked and walked a little differently. Alas…

Drop it. Move on. SOUND like a City fan and ya never know…
Click to expand...
This has been the headline all week so naturally it's being talked about. Is there something else that you would like to talk about instead? If there is another subject you would rather discuss please let us know.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...

Course you are, petal.

Liverpool were well beaten by a far better team, and no amount of hand-wringing over the minutiae of a single, specific refereeing decision in the context of a comprehensive 90+ minutes of cogent, pummelling superiority will change the indisputable truth of that fact.

Let it go!

It all levels out over the course of a season - remember?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Glad you cleared that up, but keep your Dips to yourself.

If you've been following football over the years you'd know how they have made these kinds of decisions and what they're supposed to be looking for.

But in this situation, it all went haywire, the standards, the protocols were turned on their head here and the reaction to it speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
The only reaction has been from the Dippers.
Everyone else is universal is sayin Van Dick's goal was rightfully ruled out.
 
I’ve just learnt that apparently sky have broadcast 7 hours on the the off-side goal on separate programmes. 7 HOURS!!!!
 
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