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...
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.
 
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...
Do you mean YNWA?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
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.
Click to expand...
I look at the offside incident like this and perhaps it will make more sense to you.

Imagine you're in a stand. You're 15 years old girl. And someone, let's say for arguments sake, a person from the liverpool away section, throws a cup full of coins at your head. There's a person in front of you. You see the person throw the cup full of coins and you have clear sight of that cup. But the person in front of you can, perhaps, deflect the cup of coins and divert it away from you. Although you could see the cup full of coins thrown by the Liverpool away section, the person in front has affected your decision making regardless of what they do.

Maybe, like the incident above and so many others, you can pretend that the offside never happened and move on with life?
 
Chak19 said:
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.
Click to expand...
In the Everton United incident the GK was crouching and the ball was along the ground, the offside player sitting directly in front of him appeared to be directly in the path of the keeper's view of the ball. I agree that the deflection made it impossible to save from his position, but since his view of the ball was obstructed and that being one of the criteria for what constitutes offside in the LOTG, the decision of offside interference would be warranted unlike in the other cases.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
In the Everton United incident the GK was crouching and the ball was along the ground, the offside player sitting directly in front of him appeared to be directly in the path of the keeper's view of the ball. I agree that the deflection made it impossible to save from his position, but since his view of the ball was obstructed and that being one of the criteria for what constitutes offside in the LOTG, the decision of offside interference would be warranted unlike in the other cases.
Click to expand...
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Lastly, it looks like a Dipper, walks like a Dipper, and quacks like a Dipper…it’s a Dipper!
Click to expand...
Thinking-GIF.gif
 
Metal Biker said:
The only reaction has been from the Dippers.
Everyone else is universal is sayin Van Dick's goal was rightfully ruled out.
Click to expand...
It has been widely reacted to by the whole of the football world and the sense I get is that the majority of neutrals and pundits all seem to agree that the goal should have stood. I don't know what has caused you to conclude that it is only the Dippers reacting and that everyone else has concluded that it was ruled out. It might seem that way but that does not appear to be the case from my vantage point.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It has been widely reacted to by the whole of the football world and the sense I get is that the majority of neutrals and pundits all seem to agree that the goal should have stood. I don't know what has caused you to conclude that it is only the Dippers reacting and that everyone else has concluded that it was ruled out. It might seem that way but that does not appear to be the case from my vantage point.
Click to expand...
I've not heard anyone other than Dippers saying it should have stood.
 
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