Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

Chak19 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
blue61 said:
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
Click to expand...
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!
 
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...
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.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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
Click to expand...
You've gotta go.
 
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...
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.
 
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.
 
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