comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
Aso the touch was nowhere near beinng a goalscoring opp as it went across the pitch to jiminez past vvd ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it did, Wilson was clattered to the ground. The question is if Robertson didn't foul him to the ground would he have had a goalscoring opportunity.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
Aso the touch was nowhere near beinng a goalscoring opp as it went across the pitch to jiminez past vvd ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it did, Wilson was clattered to the ground. The question is if Robertson didn't foul him to the ground would he have had a goalscoring opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and the answer is no the touch clearly went away from him, across the pitch past another defender and to his team mate jiminez who had a 1v1 as advantage was correctly played and then wrongly called back when he missed it. And wrongly sent off robbo because the touch shows theres a covering defender.
Basically your scenario means if you're a defender and you have a two on one situation against you, you just take out one of the attackers and then hope the keeper saves it but even if he doesn't you don't get a red as the other player who you didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity had an opportunity.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
Aso the touch was nowhere near beinng a goalscoring opp as it went across the pitch to jiminez past vvd ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it did, Wilson was clattered to the ground. The question is if Robertson didn't foul him to the ground would he have had a goalscoring opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and the answer is no the touch clearly went away from him, across the pitch past another defender and to his team mate jiminez who had a 1v1 as advantage was correctly played and then wrongly called back when he missed it. And wrongly sent off robbo because the touch shows theres a covering defender.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it was clear, I think he gets there and turns and at the very least they're two on one on VVD with a goalscoring opportunity.
Remember you can't play advantage on a red card offence, it was only paused as there was an immediate chance of Jimenez scoring.
There was a doubt obvious whether Wilson gets to the ball but doubt is not enough to overturn a red card, it has to be clear and obvious and therefore certain he doesn't get to it.
It would be worth the club appealing the ban to see what they think about it retrospectively.
I have no problem with Robertson getting sent off. He lost the ball with a poor touch and brought the man down. Had he not of done then Fulham would have had a 2 on 1 in our box. Maybe even a 3 v 1 with Pereira breaking into the box.
I think you can tell a lot by players reactions. Our players knew. They accepted it.
Same, i can accept it cause it was just awful from Robbo. I dont agree with how the law works on playing an imediate advantage and being able to pull it back when miss. Just change it to instantly blow when a red card incident. But even then when looking at the individual not collective, after the touch wilson isnt getting past vvd for a clear 1v1 or w.e.
But then again is the bad touch cause of the foul? id have to look at it again.
Problem is that the ref plays advantage. I thought that if the move culminates in a shot on goal,like happened here, the advantage is therefore eliminated. Refs allow advantage when they feel the fouled team are still in a good position to score or advance forward.
You can't wait to see if the shot goes in so as to then pull it back and give the advantage. The advantage is in allowing the shot
comment by Mamba - I filter right back (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
Problem is that the ref plays advantage. I thought that if the move culminates in a shot on goal,like happened here, the advantage is therefore eliminated. Refs allow advantage when they feel the fouled team are still in a good position to score or advance forward.
You can't wait to see if the shot goes in so as to then pull it back and give the advantage. The advantage is in allowing the shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ref can't play advantage on a red card offence. He pauses blowing his whistle as Jimenez had an immediate chance of scoring a goal. If he scores Robertson doesn't get a red. We had a similar one against Villa when Salah was fouled and Nunez scored. If he hadn't scored then the Villa player would have been sent off despite Nunez having a chance to score as you can't play an active advantage on a red card offence. You can pause blowing the whistle however if there is an immediate chance of a goal.
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
Have we put an appeal in for that red?
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 5 minutes ago
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional games can only be added to frivolous appeals. This is general to avoid clubs making silly appeals in the hope their player is available for the next game before the appeal is heard.
I don't think that would be the case here. It's a subjective one.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 5 minutes ago
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional games can only be added to frivolous appeals. This is general to avoid clubs making silly appeals in the hope their player is available for the next game before the appeal is heard.
I don't think that would be the case here. It's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair, but wouldn't we still be better off that he misses the Southampton game and is back for Spurs at the weekend than potentially being available vs Southampton and then serves his ban against Spurs?
I don't see it being overturned.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes however the game wants all players on the pitch if possible. They prefer a goal over a red card. It has always been like this. Luis Garcia 'ghost' goal a good example. Would have been better if Liverpool got a penalty and Chelsea player sent off but they give a goal above all else.
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 5 minutes ago
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional games can only be added to frivolous appeals. This is general to avoid clubs making silly appeals in the hope their player is available for the next game before the appeal is heard.
I don't think that would be the case here. It's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair, but wouldn't we still be better off that he misses the Southampton game and is back for Spurs at the weekend than potentially being available vs Southampton and then serves his ban against Spurs?
I don't see it being overturned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I don't think the club will appeal it.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes however the game wants all players on the pitch if possible. They prefer a goal over a red card. It has always been like this. Luis Garcia 'ghost' goal a good example. Would have been better if Liverpool got a penalty and Chelsea player sent off but they give a goal above all else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
in that case just play it like a normal advantage where if you miss thats your advantage done, can't go back for reds or free kicks. Having a double punishment opportunity is wrong, concede a goal or red card if they miss is silly af to me. The excuse of keeping it 11v11 goes out the window as you can play an advantage and if its missed keep it 11v11.
Either play an advantage or send them off instantly basically not both which is essentially what they did.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes however the game wants all players on the pitch if possible. They prefer a goal over a red card. It has always been like this. Luis Garcia 'ghost' goal a good example. Would have been better if Liverpool got a penalty and Chelsea player sent off but they give a goal above all else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
in that case just play it like a normal advantage where if you miss thats your advantage done, can't go back for reds or free kicks. Having a double punishment opportunity is wrong, concede a goal or red card if they miss is silly af to me. The excuse of keeping it 11v11 goes out the window as you can play an advantage and if its missed keep it 11v11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me. A player doesn't get away with a red card challenge because the opposition has a shot, especially in this scenario whereby you've reduced it from a two on one attack to one on one. The reward doesn't match the offence. I'm happy with the current law of no advantage on a red card, however if a goal is immediately scored, no red. It's not a double punishment, it's earlier a goal or a red. One punishment.
It's a clear red card, I'm not sure the club will be thinking about it anymore. He misses a League Cup game, and is back for the important game.
It's not a big deal.
Sign in if you want to comment
LFC Tranny Thread
Page 8408 of 8519
8409 | 8410 | 8411 | 8412 | 8413
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
Aso the touch was nowhere near beinng a goalscoring opp as it went across the pitch to jiminez past vvd ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it did, Wilson was clattered to the ground. The question is if Robertson didn't foul him to the ground would he have had a goalscoring opportunity.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
Aso the touch was nowhere near beinng a goalscoring opp as it went across the pitch to jiminez past vvd ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it did, Wilson was clattered to the ground. The question is if Robertson didn't foul him to the ground would he have had a goalscoring opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and the answer is no the touch clearly went away from him, across the pitch past another defender and to his team mate jiminez who had a 1v1 as advantage was correctly played and then wrongly called back when he missed it. And wrongly sent off robbo because the touch shows theres a covering defender.
posted on 16/12/24
Basically your scenario means if you're a defender and you have a two on one situation against you, you just take out one of the attackers and then hope the keeper saves it but even if he doesn't you don't get a red as the other player who you didn't deny a goalscoring opportunity had an opportunity.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 11 minutes ago
Aso the touch was nowhere near beinng a goalscoring opp as it went across the pitch to jiminez past vvd ffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it did, Wilson was clattered to the ground. The question is if Robertson didn't foul him to the ground would he have had a goalscoring opportunity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and the answer is no the touch clearly went away from him, across the pitch past another defender and to his team mate jiminez who had a 1v1 as advantage was correctly played and then wrongly called back when he missed it. And wrongly sent off robbo because the touch shows theres a covering defender.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it was clear, I think he gets there and turns and at the very least they're two on one on VVD with a goalscoring opportunity.
posted on 16/12/24
Remember you can't play advantage on a red card offence, it was only paused as there was an immediate chance of Jimenez scoring.
posted on 16/12/24
There was a doubt obvious whether Wilson gets to the ball but doubt is not enough to overturn a red card, it has to be clear and obvious and therefore certain he doesn't get to it.
posted on 16/12/24
It would be worth the club appealing the ban to see what they think about it retrospectively.
posted on 16/12/24
I have no problem with Robertson getting sent off. He lost the ball with a poor touch and brought the man down. Had he not of done then Fulham would have had a 2 on 1 in our box. Maybe even a 3 v 1 with Pereira breaking into the box.
I think you can tell a lot by players reactions. Our players knew. They accepted it.
posted on 16/12/24
Same, i can accept it cause it was just awful from Robbo. I dont agree with how the law works on playing an imediate advantage and being able to pull it back when miss. Just change it to instantly blow when a red card incident. But even then when looking at the individual not collective, after the touch wilson isnt getting past vvd for a clear 1v1 or w.e.
posted on 16/12/24
But then again is the bad touch cause of the foul? id have to look at it again.
posted on 16/12/24
Problem is that the ref plays advantage. I thought that if the move culminates in a shot on goal,like happened here, the advantage is therefore eliminated. Refs allow advantage when they feel the fouled team are still in a good position to score or advance forward.
You can't wait to see if the shot goes in so as to then pull it back and give the advantage. The advantage is in allowing the shot
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Mamba - I filter right back (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
Problem is that the ref plays advantage. I thought that if the move culminates in a shot on goal,like happened here, the advantage is therefore eliminated. Refs allow advantage when they feel the fouled team are still in a good position to score or advance forward.
You can't wait to see if the shot goes in so as to then pull it back and give the advantage. The advantage is in allowing the shot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ref can't play advantage on a red card offence. He pauses blowing his whistle as Jimenez had an immediate chance of scoring a goal. If he scores Robertson doesn't get a red. We had a similar one against Villa when Salah was fouled and Nunez scored. If he hadn't scored then the Villa player would have been sent off despite Nunez having a chance to score as you can't play an active advantage on a red card offence. You can pause blowing the whistle however if there is an immediate chance of a goal.
posted on 16/12/24
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
posted on 16/12/24
Have we put an appeal in for that red?
posted on 16/12/24
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 5 minutes ago
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional games can only be added to frivolous appeals. This is general to avoid clubs making silly appeals in the hope their player is available for the next game before the appeal is heard.
I don't think that would be the case here. It's a subjective one.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
posted on 16/12/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 5 minutes ago
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional games can only be added to frivolous appeals. This is general to avoid clubs making silly appeals in the hope their player is available for the next game before the appeal is heard.
I don't think that would be the case here. It's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair, but wouldn't we still be better off that he misses the Southampton game and is back for Spurs at the weekend than potentially being available vs Southampton and then serves his ban against Spurs?
I don't see it being overturned.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes however the game wants all players on the pitch if possible. They prefer a goal over a red card. It has always been like this. Luis Garcia 'ghost' goal a good example. Would have been better if Liverpool got a penalty and Chelsea player sent off but they give a goal above all else.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 5 minutes ago
He will only miss the cup game against Southampton, no point in appealing and risking missing more games imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional games can only be added to frivolous appeals. This is general to avoid clubs making silly appeals in the hope their player is available for the next game before the appeal is heard.
I don't think that would be the case here. It's a subjective one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair, but wouldn't we still be better off that he misses the Southampton game and is back for Spurs at the weekend than potentially being available vs Southampton and then serves his ban against Spurs?
I don't see it being overturned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I don't think the club will appeal it.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes however the game wants all players on the pitch if possible. They prefer a goal over a red card. It has always been like this. Luis Garcia 'ghost' goal a good example. Would have been better if Liverpool got a penalty and Chelsea player sent off but they give a goal above all else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
in that case just play it like a normal advantage where if you miss thats your advantage done, can't go back for reds or free kicks. Having a double punishment opportunity is wrong, concede a goal or red card if they miss is silly af to me. The excuse of keeping it 11v11 goes out the window as you can play an advantage and if its missed keep it 11v11.
posted on 16/12/24
Either play an advantage or send them off instantly basically not both which is essentially what they did.
posted on 16/12/24
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 21 minutes ago
yeah thats a bs rule, but robbos red could be overturned, if it is be questions to why VAR didnt do it during the game?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is. No point stopping the game and sending a player off when a goal is scored straight away.
VAR couldn't have overturned the red as VAR can't intervene unless its a clear and obvious error. Since the only grounds for appeal would be the subjective point on whether Wilson gets to the ball, I don't see that being successful either but worth a try.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
depending on time left i guess, 20 mins in a red cards prob better than a goal in most cases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes however the game wants all players on the pitch if possible. They prefer a goal over a red card. It has always been like this. Luis Garcia 'ghost' goal a good example. Would have been better if Liverpool got a penalty and Chelsea player sent off but they give a goal above all else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
in that case just play it like a normal advantage where if you miss thats your advantage done, can't go back for reds or free kicks. Having a double punishment opportunity is wrong, concede a goal or red card if they miss is silly af to me. The excuse of keeping it 11v11 goes out the window as you can play an advantage and if its missed keep it 11v11.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not for me. A player doesn't get away with a red card challenge because the opposition has a shot, especially in this scenario whereby you've reduced it from a two on one attack to one on one. The reward doesn't match the offence. I'm happy with the current law of no advantage on a red card, however if a goal is immediately scored, no red. It's not a double punishment, it's earlier a goal or a red. One punishment.
posted on 16/12/24
It's a clear red card, I'm not sure the club will be thinking about it anymore. He misses a League Cup game, and is back for the important game.
It's not a big deal.
Page 8408 of 8519
8409 | 8410 | 8411 | 8412 | 8413