Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
stop whining.gif
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
So your argument is that this is how it's supposed to work? Funny how we've never seen something like this before. You would have us believe that it's normal for goal celebrations to be interrupted after long delays of inaction.

The narrative that seems to have taken shape here from the powers that be is that the decision was wrong, the goal should have stood, but that VAR not getting involved was the correct decision. This is infuriating on a number of levels. First of all, the lino does not need the referee's permission to put his flag up. And if VAR isn't to be used to review interference on offsides decisions, then what it's there for?

If the official line from the pro-VAR crowd that VAR isn't to be used in these kind of situation, that we're stuck with whatever the lino on the field decides, and this isn't concerning to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Those involved with VAR and using VAR has no clue what they're doing, in this case the assistant just took matters into his own hands and seemingly shut the door on it being looked at properly.

In football, traditionally mind you, if the ball hits the back of the net, as a player you give a quick look to the lino to make sure the flag is down then you go nuts in celebration of the goal.

Let me ask you this - what do you think the lesson should be learned as a result of this situation? That we should rely fully on the on field decision if and only if the lino decides there was interference, but if he doesn't or doesn't specify there was interference, then it should go to review?

It sounds like they're just trying to cover their own arse, and pretend like the standard protocol was followed here. When in reality, they clearly took matters into their own hands, decided this was interference on the pitch and refused to go to VAR apparently, even though i was said to be looked at briefly. No one has a clue what's going on, but anyone watching can see the absolute shambles it was and the damage control they are trying to do to pretend like it was handled

And why do you think he pushed Donna? What happened before that? Doku pushed him from behind, no? Which appeared to cause him to lose his balance and right himself by reaching onto Donna momentarily.

This pushing and grabbing, both by Doku and Robertson weren't enough to warrant a foul to be given, as we see this kind of stuff often on corners and rarely are fouls called for modest pushing and grabbing like that.

Robertson's reaching onto Donna doesn't have anything to do with whether or not offsides should be given or not because that was before he was in an offsides position.

If your argument is that the hand on Donna by Robertson may have affected his decision making or ability to save the ball, I wouldn't dispute that, but since that action didn't occur while Robertson was in an offside position (it was before he was offside) that would not be part of any offside interference. And due to this nuanced detail, to see this and work this out, it would require a full VAR review in which the VAR team had the time to go through all the angles and break this sequence down to make this determination themself, which wasn't allowed to happen it would seem.
FFS, it’s ‘offside’ not ‘offsides’…. No S required.
 
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 still here?
 
You didn't address my point. I was not arguing there whether or not it should have been offside. My point was that the panel were under the impression that VAR did not intervene or couldn't, whilst some posters here are claiming VAR did intervene and confirmed it. Which is it? Did VAR intervene or not? And generally, should these kind of decisions by reviewed by VAR fully or do you agree that the onfield assistant should be the one deciding interference? I am happy to move on, but please address that issue!
VAR confirmed the onfield decision
 
I've not heard anyone other than Dippers saying it should have stood.
Dippers and the dipper loving media. I am in Whitby for the weekend, talked to a couple of Leeds fsns earlier, they wondered what all the fuss was about, said it was a 50:50 call, that went against the dippers (and hence why there’s a media furore about it)
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top