comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
The ref seemed a bit out of his depth, but wasn't helped at all by VAR.
The "offside" goal was clearly played deliberately by the Liverpool player, so that should have stood.
The penalty was a case of a naive ref being fooled by a rather blatant dive.
The red was a soft challenge. Again you feel the ref was fooled somewhat.
Didn't watch the whole game, so not sure how he did otherwise, but those big 3 calls he was let down by the more experienced officials around him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was surprised motd didn’t speak about the disallowed goal, that to me was the worst decision of the lot by VAR in particular.
I guess because Bournemouth scored a minute later it didn't really matter, so got forgot about.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
He didn't challenge for the ball until after TAA kicked it
You have completely made up an offside law whereas I have quoted it directly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I quoted the actual law. You can't just interpret it how you want to. It's there in black and white.
You've got this completely wrong. Read the actual law, then watch again. It was an easy decision and one nobody disagreed with, apart from you, with your misunderstanding of the law.
Yet here you are arguing against the actual rule
I have literally copied and pasted it on here for you, yet you are still arguing against it
You haven't quoted anything. You have made something up in your head.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 37 seconds ago
Yet here you are arguing against the actual rule
I have literally copied and pasted it on here for you, yet you are still arguing against it
You haven't quoted anything. You have made something up in your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't once argued against the rule. I've argued against you. You stated it was offside as it came off the defender. You've applied this incorrectly. The law explicitly states that if you interfere with the opponent, then you're offside. You've completely missed the first phase of the offside out, when the ball was played and jumped straight in, head first into the second phase. Nobody did this, only you.
Read the law and watch again.
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Going off some of the decisions last season Bournemouth's first goal should've been allowed.
It's basically the same thing as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPI5w7BBYOo
Which nearly everyone at the time said was a stupid decision so maybe the refs have changed their interpretation of the rule.
But it's more likely the refs are just useless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No - it is not basically the same thing. It is completely different and what you have posted is an example of when the goal should be allowed, which is the opposite to the one yesterday.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
I guess because Bournemouth scored a minute later it didn't really matter, so got forgot about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say it being offside is why it got forgot about. Nobody really talks about offside goals as it's a bit pointless.
The Bournemouth player did not interfere with any Liverpool player though.
The law, which I pasted on here, tells you what counts as active, and the Bournemouth player wasn't until after TAA touched the ball.
Phase 1? The Bournemouth player was nowhere near the ball or TAA - he wasn't active. Read the rules which are very clear and explicit about this.
Love you to quote the actual law. Which you haven't once, because it disproves what you are saying.
The Bournemouth player absolutely did, which is why it was offside. Read the offside law. He makes a movement towards the ball, this is literally in the law. The reason it's in the law is because it causes the opponent to make a decision which he otherwise wouldn't have to make if the opponent being in an offside position doesn't cause him to make it.
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Did he play the ball before TAA touched it? No.
Did he prevent TAA playing the ball? No
Did he obstruct the line of vision of TAA? No
Did he challenge for the ball? No
Did he attempt to play the ball? No
Did he make an obvious action that impacted TAA playing the ball? No.
What you said is not in the law at all. You are making things up and stating them as fact while ignoring the actual words stated in Law 11.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't spoon feed me the laws because you don't know them...
The VAR check took longer because they were actually debating whether the TAA play of the ball was deliberate. Why would they do that, TooR, if it wasn't a factor, TooR???
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't spoon feed me the laws because you don't know them...
The VAR check took longer because they were actually debating whether the TAA play of the ball was deliberate. Why would they do that, TooR, if it wasn't a factor, TooR???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were debating whether it was deliberate and of course where the attacker made himself active with his movements. Read the law.
Read the law I have literally spoon fed them to you, but you are such a reetard they just dribbled down your chin.
Again, you fail to show anything in the law because you know you are wrong and you are arguing for the sake of it.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
Read the law I have literally spoon fed them to you, but you are such a reetard they just dribbled down your chin.
Again, you fail to show anything in the law because you know you are wrong and you are arguing for the sake of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I can't help you understand it. I can only ask you to read it. Being literally the only person debating whether it was offside or not, might be a good place for you to start thinking, before you read the law.
It would be good if you could read the law, understand it and then come back, rather than lashing out because you're the ONLY person who doesn't get it.
Your argument so far has been "read the laws" without actually showing any understanding of the law. Nothing you have said is in the law.
Please quote the law, and not just make things up.
I think they should start booking players for exaggeration and still giving the pen/free kick. To me, a dive means NO contact - for those saying ‘he hardly touched him’ - he touched him. Does the law talkabout degree of contact?
Sign in if you want to comment
Well WHAT a surprise...not!
Page 2 of 2
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 hours, 14 minutes ago
The ref seemed a bit out of his depth, but wasn't helped at all by VAR.
The "offside" goal was clearly played deliberately by the Liverpool player, so that should have stood.
The penalty was a case of a naive ref being fooled by a rather blatant dive.
The red was a soft challenge. Again you feel the ref was fooled somewhat.
Didn't watch the whole game, so not sure how he did otherwise, but those big 3 calls he was let down by the more experienced officials around him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Was surprised motd didn’t speak about the disallowed goal, that to me was the worst decision of the lot by VAR in particular.
posted on 20/8/23
I guess because Bournemouth scored a minute later it didn't really matter, so got forgot about.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
He didn't challenge for the ball until after TAA kicked it
You have completely made up an offside law whereas I have quoted it directly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't. I quoted the actual law. You can't just interpret it how you want to. It's there in black and white.
You've got this completely wrong. Read the actual law, then watch again. It was an easy decision and one nobody disagreed with, apart from you, with your misunderstanding of the law.
posted on 20/8/23
Yet here you are arguing against the actual rule
I have literally copied and pasted it on here for you, yet you are still arguing against it
You haven't quoted anything. You have made something up in your head.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 37 seconds ago
Yet here you are arguing against the actual rule
I have literally copied and pasted it on here for you, yet you are still arguing against it
You haven't quoted anything. You have made something up in your head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't once argued against the rule. I've argued against you. You stated it was offside as it came off the defender. You've applied this incorrectly. The law explicitly states that if you interfere with the opponent, then you're offside. You've completely missed the first phase of the offside out, when the ball was played and jumped straight in, head first into the second phase. Nobody did this, only you.
Read the law and watch again.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
Going off some of the decisions last season Bournemouth's first goal should've been allowed.
It's basically the same thing as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPI5w7BBYOo
Which nearly everyone at the time said was a stupid decision so maybe the refs have changed their interpretation of the rule.
But it's more likely the refs are just useless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No - it is not basically the same thing. It is completely different and what you have posted is an example of when the goal should be allowed, which is the opposite to the one yesterday.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
I guess because Bournemouth scored a minute later it didn't really matter, so got forgot about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd say it being offside is why it got forgot about. Nobody really talks about offside goals as it's a bit pointless.
posted on 20/8/23
The Bournemouth player did not interfere with any Liverpool player though.
The law, which I pasted on here, tells you what counts as active, and the Bournemouth player wasn't until after TAA touched the ball.
Phase 1? The Bournemouth player was nowhere near the ball or TAA - he wasn't active. Read the rules which are very clear and explicit about this.
posted on 20/8/23
Love you to quote the actual law. Which you haven't once, because it disproves what you are saying.
posted on 20/8/23
The Bournemouth player absolutely did, which is why it was offside. Read the offside law. He makes a movement towards the ball, this is literally in the law. The reason it's in the law is because it causes the opponent to make a decision which he otherwise wouldn't have to make if the opponent being in an offside position doesn't cause him to make it.
posted on 20/8/23
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
posted on 20/8/23
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Did he play the ball before TAA touched it? No.
Did he prevent TAA playing the ball? No
Did he obstruct the line of vision of TAA? No
Did he challenge for the ball? No
Did he attempt to play the ball? No
Did he make an obvious action that impacted TAA playing the ball? No.
What you said is not in the law at all. You are making things up and stating them as fact while ignoring the actual words stated in Law 11.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't spoon feed me the laws because you don't know them...
The VAR check took longer because they were actually debating whether the TAA play of the ball was deliberate. Why would they do that, TooR, if it wasn't a factor, TooR???
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't spoon feed me the laws because you don't know them...
The VAR check took longer because they were actually debating whether the TAA play of the ball was deliberate. Why would they do that, TooR, if it wasn't a factor, TooR???
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were debating whether it was deliberate and of course where the attacker made himself active with his movements. Read the law.
posted on 20/8/23
Read the law I have literally spoon fed them to you, but you are such a reetard they just dribbled down your chin.
Again, you fail to show anything in the law because you know you are wrong and you are arguing for the sake of it.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
Read the law I have literally spoon fed them to you, but you are such a reetard they just dribbled down your chin.
Again, you fail to show anything in the law because you know you are wrong and you are arguing for the sake of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I can't help you understand it. I can only ask you to read it. Being literally the only person debating whether it was offside or not, might be a good place for you to start thinking, before you read the law.
It would be good if you could read the law, understand it and then come back, rather than lashing out because you're the ONLY person who doesn't get it.
posted on 20/8/23
Your argument so far has been "read the laws" without actually showing any understanding of the law. Nothing you have said is in the law.
Please quote the law, and not just make things up.
posted on 22/8/23
I think they should start booking players for exaggeration and still giving the pen/free kick. To me, a dive means NO contact - for those saying ‘he hardly touched him’ - he touched him. Does the law talkabout degree of contact?
Page 2 of 2