Liverpool Thread - 2022/23

[ninjamonkey]

So where's the retrospective ban then? If they're admitting it should have been a red, ban him. that's what would have happened pre var, absolutely no reason not to apply it here where they've admitted a var error other than its Liverpool.

 

[cleavers]

242

Manchester City

€150.50m

€159.90

€9.40m

Oil money spends big don't you know ?

 

[SebastianBlue]

 

[Stephen230]

So where's the retrospective ban then? If they're admitting it should have been a red, ban him. that's what would have happened pre var, absolutely no reason not to apply it here where they've admitted a var error other than its Liverpool.

They can’t ban him retrospectively as it was dealt with ( incorrectly) on the field with a yellow card. That rule pre- dates VAR.

The only exception I can recall was Ben Thatcher. Not sure how they officially squared that up.

 

[ninjamonkey]

They can’t ban him retrospectively as it was dealt with ( incorrectly) on the field with a yellow card. That rule pre- dates VAR.

The only exception I can recall was Ben Thatcher. Not sure how they officially squared that up.

They always had that rule pre-var where if refs confirmed they saw it they couldn't take action but they always found ways of ignoring that rule when it suited them, was always nothing more than an excuse for not taking action.

That rule cannot still exist surely, any time the ref gives a yellow and var intervenes and tells them it's a red, (as they've now admitted they should have done for fabinho) it contradicts that rule.

 

[Stephen230]

They always had that rule pre-var where if refs confirmed they saw it they couldn't take action but they always found ways of ignoring that rule when it suited them, was always nothing more than an excuse for not taking action.

That rule cannot still exist surely, any time the ref gives a yellow and var intervenes and tells them it's a red, (as they've now admitted they should have done for fabinho) it contradicts that rule.

There is a difference. However subtle. The referee always officially makes the final decision on the field. Even when VAR tells ( advises him ) he’s got something wrong. In theory a VAR could tell a referee to change an offside decision and he could say, no fuck off, I still think it was off and that decision would stand. Whether you’d ever see that referee again is a different matter.

But the point is, whether VAR has intervened or not, the decision on the field is the deciding factor. And the FA won’t intervene if an incident has been seen and ruled upon on the field. Under the current rules I can’t see how retrospective action can ever be taken in a game with VAR, as between the two of them they will always have seen and adjudicated on it.

 

[cheekybids]

They can’t ban him retrospectively as it was dealt with ( incorrectly) on the field with a yellow card. That rule pre- dates VAR.

The only exception I can recall was Ben Thatcher. Not sure how they officially squared that up.

They changed the rules, if you look deeply you’ll see a number of our incidents whereupon rules have been changed after media outrage.

 

[Stephen230]

They changed the rules, if you look deeply you’ll see a number of our incidents whereupon rules have been changed after media outrage.

If you follow the PGMOL Twitter feed you’ll find there’s a pretty even split of 20 sets of fans, all convinced their whole purpose is to fuck their clubs up.

 

[cheekybids]

If you follow the PGMOL Twitter feed you’ll find there’s a pretty even split of 20 sets of fans, all convinced their whole purpose is to fuck their clubs up.

I don’t think that.

However, I believe that some clubs have influential lobbyists that can & have highlighted incidents from City players which have resulted in rule changes. Fact.

These lobbyists have also had rule changes made in competitions & charges laid against City to try & get them penalised. Fact.

Now apologies for coming over all Rafa but I don’t go on twatter but tell me how many of those 20 can claim that.

 

[Silva61]

VAR in my opinion has two main objectives the first isit can be used as a tool to manipulate results and the other is to create controversy which creates content which in turn creates money. All in the name of protecting the brand.
Would love to know what our hierarchy think.