Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[BringBackSwales]

Please be careful giving air to this obsessive. Just looked at his post history, there are literally 22 pages of post after post on the VAR thread, and then 3 pages in the dipper thread, I think he has VAR OCD. Let’s not keep him going for another 19 pages

 

[Sid C]

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

lol, I hope he carries on, I’ve had a few drinks and just got in bed so I need the daft **** to send me to sleep.

 

[danielwood5]

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.

Where's your vantage point? What country are you based in? Where are you interacting with neutral fans?

 

[madloaf]

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.

VAR Review: Why Van Dijk's Liverpool goal was disallowed, Doku penalty

Liverpool scored an equalizer against Manchester City. But why was it given offside for a player standing in front of the goalkeeper?

www.espn.co.uk

"My initial feeling in real time was that this was offside. I was concerned with Robertson's position and action; allowing the goal to stand would have felt uncomfortable -- I'm sure this feeling mirrored that of the officials on pitch in real time."

Not everyone saying it was the wrong decision, like a huge sports network and it's var review column.

 

[Dodge]

FFS mods close this fucking thread.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

FFS mods close this fucking thread.

Please don’t, it brings great joy to me when be hammer the Dippers, and any posts on the subject keeps me clicking to once again l give me that buzz ;-)

 

[coolcity]

We played them off the park. Doku alone played them off the park. Their non-goal is irrelevant. Had I been a close match and been decided by one goal it might have mattered, but it was a one sided contest and the way we played they should be thankful it was only 3-0.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Please don’t, it brings great joy to me when be hammer the Dippers, and any posts on the subject keeps me clicking to once again l give me that buzz ;-)

But its turned into 75% talking about how liverpool were robbed.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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.

#justice

 

[lasereyes]

For any Scousers lurking in here, fuck off you spoilt twats, you got battered 3 0 fair and fucking square you Scandinavian cunts. There was a contentious decision that for once went in a favour, but never forget Alf grey, the Salah offsides, the Milner failed yellow cards, the Arnold basketball, the team coach bricking and flares thrown under the coach fuel lines, the supporter club bus bricking on the hillsborough anniversary day (impeccably respected by our fans) and never forget the innocent Italian deaths, and fuck knows how many pens not given to us at anfield, the Sane “offside” etc etc. Shameless, shameful and pathetic to the last

Edit and I forgot piss throwing cunts who through pots loaded with stones in little girls faces. Absolute fucking vermin, and the only thing City and united fans agree on, vile cunts. Beating you last week, well it meant more

Epic rant!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

Let “us” know? YOU are the one keeping it alive on here, not me! I got over it the minute the ref restarted the game after giving the offside.

And, just to make 100% certain of my position, I just rewatched the offside about 5 times to make sure I was seeing it as I thought I had seen it the first time. I was.

Having played football for half of my life, including professionally, I’m going to go out on a limb and say, “It was the correct decision. The end.”

Move on…

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

You’re a candle salesman and I claim my £5!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

S isn't required nor is it prohibited.

Find me ONE example of the word OFFSIDE having an “s” on the end in The Laws of the Game.

I’ll save you the trouble…there isn’t one!

The ONLY time one would say or write the word “offsides” is if referring to more than one offside, as in using the plural, and even then it would be rare and clunky.

“There were 7 offsides in the game” sounds less correct than “There were 7 offside decisions given in the game.”

Regardless, the notion that you can say a word unless it is “prohibited” somewhere is ridiculous.

In FIFA’s (IFAB’s) Laws of the Game, Law 11 is OFFSIDE. The word “offsides” does not appear anywhere in that law.

Now, were there any other things you’re wrong about that you’d like correcting?

 

[SatOnTheWall]

It's what you get with VAR. Endless controversy and crying. I can't stand it.

You’re the one raising all the “controversy” and doing all the crying.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Epic rant!

It’s not a rant though really mate, it’s all true and I’m just sick of whinging cheating scousers calling us cheats when really it’s them who are the cheats, just like the 115 when them, rags, chelsea and arsenal are the cheats yet we are the ones accused

 

[BringBackSwales]

You’re the one raising all the “controversy” and doing all the crying.

Ignore the attention seeking ****, there’s page after page of it from him, her, it, all over the forum

 

[SatOnTheWall]

Ignore the attention seeking ****, there’s page after page of it from him, her, it, all over the forum

Aye. A nice little by-product of all this though is that every time a goal goes in from a header like this from a corner, it is going to remind the skiprats of this incident and this game. Lovely.

 

[Shirley]

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.

Sticks and stones you say…..did you use them to attack the City team bus?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

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.

What on earth makes you think ANYBODY has to justify themselves to you by arguing the toss with you?

You appear to have confused yourself with someone we should all give a fuck about.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I have to say, it is this reason why i am unsure why more goals aren't chalked off where a player is hanging about near the keeper. and i include goals given for us as well. Surely, in an instinctive and close range situation such as a save, just someone's presence is enough to be interfering.

i'm not going to be popular for this but i think, e.g., Silva's interference at Wolves was enough to chalk off Stones' late goal.

All goals should be disallowed for obstruction where a player is standing in front of the keeper with no intention other than to stop him getting to the ball. It's pretty easy to judge if the offending player is 5'6" and the keeper is 6'3", which it always is because the big lads are used to win the ball. At the very least if the midget is still hanging around the keeper when the ball is headed he should be offside for not getting right out of the way. At least Silva was making an effort to get out of the way.