Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[TheBeautifulGame]

I've not heard anyone other than Dippers saying it should have stood.

Have you been listening to any reactions besides from the two fanbases involved? Often in situations like this it is best to seek out a neutral perspective as naturally each club involved would have their biases heightened to a degree.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Fuck me they still crying about it?

They've started a petition....

https://www.change.org/p/demand-an-...mpaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylink

 

[swindinho]

Have you been listening to any reactions besides from the two fanbases involved? Often in situations like this it is best to seek out a neutral perspective as naturally each club involved would have their biases heightened to a degree.

Seek out a neutral perspective…not a City fan are you?

 

[asahartford1]

Have you been listening to any reactions besides from the two fanbases involved? Often in situations like this it is best to seek out a neutral perspective as naturally each club involved would have their biases heightened to a degree.

Tony Evans a fanatic liverpool fan and sometime journalist has stated that it was a definite offside.
The action of Robertson ducking made an impact on the play as he was getting out of the way of the header.
He said this on Talksport on Monday.

Any comment

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Seek out a neutral perspective…not a City fan are you?

I'm saying, in a situation like this, it's important to see how neutrals are reacting. That's what I have done. I am not too concerned with the reaction from Liverpool supporters. I am more concerned with how the whole of the football world reacts, how supporters of other clubs interpret what happened.

 

[waspish]

Difference between Man City fans and other is if that was the other way around we would have understood why it was given and moved on the media would have said nought! Pep would have said nothing about it either! Liverpool like rags and Arsenal are completely in the entitled fan base! The media are to blame as much as there fans!

 

[asahartford1]

I'm saying, in a situation like this, it's important to see how neutrals are reacting. That's what I have done. I am not too concerned with the reaction from Liverpool supporters. I am more concerned with how the whole of the football world reacts, how supporters of other clubs interpret what happened.

A sarcastic like. Mmm, I see the the future...

 

[Roy Batty]

Stops them having to grasp the reality that they were outplayed by an emerging City team.

I

 

[Chak19]

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.

His view wasn't obstructed when the shot came in since the guy was sitting on the floor and the giant keeper was standing up so he could see the ball which is why he moved to his right when the shot came in but was wrong footed by the deflection.

Now fuck off you silly dipper.

 

[lightning Rodri]

I'm saying, in a situation like this, it's important to see how neutrals are reacting.

It's not.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

His view wasn't obstructed when the shot came in since the guy was sitting on the floor and the giant keeper was standing up so he could see the ball which is why he moved when the shot came in but was wrong footed by the shot.

Now fuck off you silly dipper.

He was sitting on the floor for a long period of time right in front of the keeper in his direct line of sight of the ball. His upper body was blocking the Goalie's view of the ball which was along the ground. Now it wouldn't have completely blocked his view of the ball, but it would have been enough of an obstruction given the amount of time he was sitting there and with the ball bouncing along the ground in front of him.

So in that situation, the line of vision being obstructed part of the equation is definitely satisfied while it wasn't in the other cases. And you would be a very silly boy to not recognize that or take that into consideration.

 

[citizen_maine]

He was sitting on the floor for a long period of time right in front of the keeper in his direct line of sight of the ball. His upper body was blocking the Goalie's view of the ball which was along the ground. Now it wouldn't have completely blocked his view of the ball, but it would have been enough of an obstruction given the amount of time he was sitting there and with the ball bouncing along the ground in front of him.

So in that situation, the line of vision being obstructed part of the equation is definitely satisfied while it wasn't in the other cases. And you would be a very silly boy to not recognize that or take that into consideration.

...AND ON...AND ON....AND ON...AND ON...

 

[Kakhaber The Great]

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.

 

[Chak19]

He was sitting on the floor for a long period of time right in front of the keeper in his direct line of sight of the ball. His upper body was blocking the Goalie's view of the ball which was along the ground. Now it wouldn't have completely blocked his view of the ball, but it would have been enough of an obstruction given the amount of time he was sitting there and with the ball bouncing along the ground in front of him.

So in that situation, the line of vision being obstructed part of the equation is definitely satisfied while it wasn't in the other cases. And you would be a very silly boy to not recognize that or take that into consideration.

Ok I've realised that responding to your nonsense is just giving you an excuse to ramble on, so I'll just tell you again to light up the candles and fuck off you silly dipper goof.

 

[bluestevei]

At the end of the day it was disallowed, and that's it in a nutshell, called off offside interference what ever sky says it was not allowed, we will on to newcastle, bbc sky liverpool can moan about it, we got 3 points liverpool didnt

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

lol I have been making an effort to participate in other topics. :)

Seems to me that you are craving engagement. And as long as people give you that engagement, why not keep going.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Ok I've realised that responding to your nonsense is just giving you an excuse to ramble on, so I'll just tell you again to light up the candles and fuck off you silly dipper goof.

LOL Light up the candles like them dippers right and have an actual vigil over this. This sort of thing wasn't on my Bingo card but I learned a long time ago about sticks and stones. You know full well that example qualifies as line of vision obstruction whereas the others do not. "But he's 6 ft 4" You've made some vague arguments like this, as if being above a certain height would deny any such obstruction.

The reason why I press the issue in situations like this is that I really do not think you are being fully honest here or seeing this clearly. All I'm trying to do is to enhance your clarity of the situation. You have every right to reject my view of the incident, but it is incumbent upon you to effectively counter my points and make your own coherent arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Chak19]

LOL Light up the candles like them dippers right and have an actual vigil over this. This sort of thing wasn't on my Bingo card but I learned a long time ago about sticks and stones. You know full well that example qualifies as line of vision obstruction whereas the others do not. "But he's 6 ft 4" You've made some vague arguments like this, as if being above a certain height would deny any such obstruction.

The reason why I press the issue in situations like this is that I really do not think you are being fully honest here or seeing this clearly. All I'm trying to do is to enhance your clarity of the situation. You have every right to reject my view of the incident, but it is incumbent upon you to effectively counter my points and make your own coherent arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

Thank you for your irrelevant opinion once again dipper.

 

[citizen_maine]

LOL Light up the candles like them dippers right and have an actual vigil over this. This sort of thing wasn't on my Bingo card but I learned a long time ago about sticks and stones. You know full well that example qualifies as line of vision obstruction whereas the others do not. "But he's 6 ft 4" You've made some vague arguments like this, as if being above a certain height would deny any such obstruction.

The reason why I press the issue in situations like this is that I really do not think you are being fully honest here or seeing this clearly. All I'm trying to do is to enhance your clarity of the situation. You have every right to reject my view of the incident, but it is incumbent upon you to effectively counter my points and make your own coherent arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

If we all agree that you're right, will you shut the fuck up?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

If we all agree that you're right, will you shut the fuck up?

It doesn't have to be this way.