comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European Champions (U1695)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Uncle Herbert (U16263)
posted 6 minutes ago
Have you seen the still from video that VAR used for our goal?
They have given Neto flippers as hands. Literally, they have added a huge blob of pink photoshopped salmon onto the end of his fingers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hands don’t count, you can’t score with your hand!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Headers don’t count either
So been reading this VAR thread and still not sure of the result, I guess 1-0 and Liverpool handed a game again? I tried to stay awake to follow the game but lasted 5 minutes before I was asleep
comment by Uli Fritz (U8869)
posted about an hour ago
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European C... (U1695)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Uncle Herbert (U16263)
posted 6 minutes ago
Have you seen the still from video that VAR used for our goal?
They have given Neto flippers as hands. Literally, they have added a huge blob of pink photoshopped salmon onto the end of his fingers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hands don’t count, you can’t score with your hand!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know the rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yer I do, only parts of the body you can score with count as offside. Do you can cry about his hands being made bigger or what ever but the simple fact is his foot was offside and whilst the rules sh!t it’s the way it is!
Just seen the decisions
The offside thing is ridiculous and the rule just needs changing more than anything.
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
The graphics on the still they used to make the VAR decision look like something off a Commodore 64 game too.
Technically, Liverpool's goal should have been disallowed as it hit Van Dijk's arm before he played that long ball. You can guarantee it would have been disallowed had that been Coady and a Wolves goal.
Quite amazing that the main BBC headline is about Jonny trying to get the ball off a ball boy (an incident that is yet to be substantiated) and nothing to do with the VAR controversy too.
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
Not sure how you can change the rules to improve the offside situations. It was suggested yesterday changing the rules so that if any part of the body is onside then the player is ok. But it’s still a black and white on or off decision no matter where you draw the line and you would still have marginal decisions
To me the problem is var not the rules. Let’s go back to refs and linesman making decisions. Then apply the clear and obvious error rule to var which I thought was the intention. If someone’s second finger on their right hand is shown to be offside then the refs decision should not change. If you need to draw a line on the picture to tell, then it’s not clear and obvious.
And for incidents like the first goal if you have to study a film for 5 minutes to see if the ref has made an error then it’s not clear and obvious. Allow a 30 second or maybe 1 minute review
And worst of all in my view show the recordings in the ground to the people who have paid to be there so that they know what’s going on
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well technically the frame rate they use on VAR means they cannot accurately predict the moment the ball is kicked or exactly where the players foot was; as it could be between frams.
For example: VAR is running at 50 frames per second. If a player is sprinting at 10mph that means he moves 9cm between two frames of VAR. At 15mph the player moves 13cm. Similarly - the ball could be kicked at the exact moment a frame is captured, or the kick could occur between frames.
Given the above tolerances it's literally not possible to judge an offside to the level of accuracy that they are doing.
Incidentally, Van Dijk handled the ball in the build up to Liverpool's goal. I should have been disallowed and should have been scrutinized as much as that offside at the time. Would have been harsh, but those are the rules.
Where's the proof VVD handelled the ball. Sky said their footage was inconclusive.
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about a minute ago
Where's the proof VVD handelled the ball. Sky said their footage was inconclusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The players are saying the officials didn't review it because it happened too far back in play; even though Van Dijk played the pass.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50942504
Once it got to half time, the officials are going to say it was inconclusive. How many times in you life have you seen a referee or anyone on the match official team admit to an error?
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well technically the frame rate they use on VAR means they cannot accurately predict the moment the ball is kicked or exactly where the players foot was; as it could be between frams.
For example: VAR is running at 50 frames per second. If a player is sprinting at 10mph that means he moves 9cm between two frames of VAR. At 15mph the player moves 13cm. Similarly - the ball could be kicked at the exact moment a frame is captured, or the kick could occur between frames.
Given the above tolerances it's literally not possible to judge an offside to the level of accuracy that they are doing.
Incidentally, Van Dijk handled the ball in the build up to Liverpool's goal. I should have been disallowed and should have been scrutinized as much as that offside at the time. Would have been harsh, but those are the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing to prove the ball hit his hand!
There’s a still picture from behind VVD & a video, the video is better and you can see if it’s touched his arm.
70 yards from goal and you are hanging on to anything.
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European Champions (U1695)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well technically the frame rate they use on VAR means they cannot accurately predict the moment the ball is kicked or exactly where the players foot was; as it could be between frams.
For example: VAR is running at 50 frames per second. If a player is sprinting at 10mph that means he moves 9cm between two frames of VAR. At 15mph the player moves 13cm. Similarly - the ball could be kicked at the exact moment a frame is captured, or the kick could occur between frames.
Given the above tolerances it's literally not possible to judge an offside to the level of accuracy that they are doing.
Incidentally, Van Dijk handled the ball in the build up to Liverpool's goal. I should have been disallowed and should have been scrutinized as much as that offside at the time. Would have been harsh, but those are the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing to prove the ball hit his hand!
There’s a still picture from behind VVD & a video, the video is better and you can see if it’s touched his arm.
70 yards from goal and you are hanging on to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There the rules. If he was too far back in play for it to be reviewed, even though he played the ball into the box; then Jonny was too far back in play to have his offside reviewed.
Van Dijk ball into box, one touch and shot = too far back to review.
Jonny ball into box, one touch and shot = not too far back to review.
But there’s nothing convincingly day the ball hit his hand, so the ref didn’t make a clear and obvious error in that instance and VAR can’t overturn it. What ever the ref said to the players, you’d have to take up with him but it’s not like the little manc tvvvat was favouring is.
The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned.
The wolves goal being disallowed was “under the current rule” offside.
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European Champions (U1695)
posted less than a minute ago
But there’s nothing convincingly day the ball hit his hand, so the ref didn’t make a clear and obvious error in that instance and VAR can’t overturn it. What ever the ref said to the players, you’d have to take up with him but it’s not like the little manc tvvvat was favouring is.
The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned.
The wolves goal being disallowed was “under the current rule” offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't review it though. What he said to the players is perfectly relevant as it should have been reviewed.
They only reviewed it at half time, at which point it wasn't like they were going to disallow the goal; that would have been more farcical. Telling the players on the pitch they can't review something because it is too far back in play, when it was two touches of the ball before the goal is ridiculous.
The rules are that if it brushes an attacking players arm in the build up to a goal, then it is handball. It brushed Van Dijk's arm and the videos show it; regardless of whether you think it's conclusive. Wolves have already had two goals disallowed this season for similar incidents, if there was any consistency, that would have been reviewed at the time.
"The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned."
It was so clear and obvious that the game stopped for 5 minutes to review it. Klopp himself admitted that its dangerous for players to stand around in the cold for that long.
The whole purpose was to get rid of referees howlers. Was the Wolves goal clearly and obviously offside? Without the use of a magnifying glass its inconclusive. The game is being ruined by this nonsense. I am not just saying this because of yesterday either. I have maintained this view all season.
It's live sport being refereed retrospectively. It can't work.
comment by LoneWolf (U22026)
posted less than a minute ago
"The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned."
It was so clear and obvious that the game stopped for 5 minutes to review it. Klopp himself admitted that its dangerous for players to stand around in the cold for that long.
The whole purpose was to get rid of referees howlers. Was the Wolves goal clearly and obviously offside? Without the use of a magnifying glass its inconclusive. The game is being ruined by this nonsense. I am not just saying this because of yesterday either. I have maintained this view all season.
It's live sport being refereed retrospectively. It can't work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wolves offside still isn't conclusive with the magnifying glass. Due to the frame rate they use, the margin of the offside call is within the margin of error of the system.
Anyone saying it was conclusive is an idiot,
comment by LoneWolf (U22026)
posted 3 minutes ago
"The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned."
It was so clear and obvious that the game stopped for 5 minutes to review it. Klopp himself admitted that its dangerous for players to stand around in the cold for that long.
The whole purpose was to get rid of referees howlers. Was the Wolves goal clearly and obviously offside? Without the use of a magnifying glass its inconclusive. The game is being ruined by this nonsense. I am not just saying this because of yesterday either. I have maintained this view all season.
It's live sport being refereed retrospectively. It can't work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t just review the ball hitting the shoulder though. after it wasn’t handball they looked to see if Mane was offside, after he wasn’t offside they looked to see if the ref had blown his whistle before the ball went in.
As for the ball hitting Van Dijk’s hand, I’ve seen a couple of angles and you can’t tell either way, as for what the ref told Wolves players that’s got nothing to with Liverpool. We’ve suffered with poor VAR calls this season to and it looks like some you get and some you don’t and I’d rather it went back to how it was before.
As I’ve said above, I think your a fantastic young team with some great players and a great manager who will only get better.
It doesn't work that you 'get some and you don't.' Wolves haven't had a favourable VAR decision all season.
Its like the whole 'they even themselves out over the season'. Its a load of nonsense.
If Wolves got every decision from now until the end of the season, I would still say it's a pile of crap.
It's going to kill the game in its current form.
I agree. In its current form and with the current rules its useless.
I genuinely hope our fans will sing 'fvck VAR' even when there is a favourable decision (if that ever happens).
Wolves fans have been singing fvck every time there has been a var review regardless of whether its in our favour or not. The whole process is hated by most supporters that watch football live
Sign in if you want to comment
🔥Liverpool v Wolves🔥[LIVE]
Page 8 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 30/12/19
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European Champions (U1695)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Uncle Herbert (U16263)
posted 6 minutes ago
Have you seen the still from video that VAR used for our goal?
They have given Neto flippers as hands. Literally, they have added a huge blob of pink photoshopped salmon onto the end of his fingers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hands don’t count, you can’t score with your hand!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Headers don’t count either
posted on 30/12/19
So been reading this VAR thread and still not sure of the result, I guess 1-0 and Liverpool handed a game again? I tried to stay awake to follow the game but lasted 5 minutes before I was asleep
posted on 30/12/19
comment by Uli Fritz (U8869)
posted about an hour ago
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European C... (U1695)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Uncle Herbert (U16263)
posted 6 minutes ago
Have you seen the still from video that VAR used for our goal?
They have given Neto flippers as hands. Literally, they have added a huge blob of pink photoshopped salmon onto the end of his fingers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hands don’t count, you can’t score with your hand!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know the rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yer I do, only parts of the body you can score with count as offside. Do you can cry about his hands being made bigger or what ever but the simple fact is his foot was offside and whilst the rules sh!t it’s the way it is!
posted on 30/12/19
Just seen the decisions
The offside thing is ridiculous and the rule just needs changing more than anything.
posted on 30/12/19
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
posted on 30/12/19
The graphics on the still they used to make the VAR decision look like something off a Commodore 64 game too.
Technically, Liverpool's goal should have been disallowed as it hit Van Dijk's arm before he played that long ball. You can guarantee it would have been disallowed had that been Coady and a Wolves goal.
posted on 30/12/19
Quite amazing that the main BBC headline is about Jonny trying to get the ball off a ball boy (an incident that is yet to be substantiated) and nothing to do with the VAR controversy too.
posted on 30/12/19
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
posted on 30/12/19
Not sure how you can change the rules to improve the offside situations. It was suggested yesterday changing the rules so that if any part of the body is onside then the player is ok. But it’s still a black and white on or off decision no matter where you draw the line and you would still have marginal decisions
To me the problem is var not the rules. Let’s go back to refs and linesman making decisions. Then apply the clear and obvious error rule to var which I thought was the intention. If someone’s second finger on their right hand is shown to be offside then the refs decision should not change. If you need to draw a line on the picture to tell, then it’s not clear and obvious.
And for incidents like the first goal if you have to study a film for 5 minutes to see if the ref has made an error then it’s not clear and obvious. Allow a 30 second or maybe 1 minute review
And worst of all in my view show the recordings in the ground to the people who have paid to be there so that they know what’s going on
posted on 30/12/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well technically the frame rate they use on VAR means they cannot accurately predict the moment the ball is kicked or exactly where the players foot was; as it could be between frams.
For example: VAR is running at 50 frames per second. If a player is sprinting at 10mph that means he moves 9cm between two frames of VAR. At 15mph the player moves 13cm. Similarly - the ball could be kicked at the exact moment a frame is captured, or the kick could occur between frames.
Given the above tolerances it's literally not possible to judge an offside to the level of accuracy that they are doing.
Incidentally, Van Dijk handled the ball in the build up to Liverpool's goal. I should have been disallowed and should have been scrutinized as much as that offside at the time. Would have been harsh, but those are the rules.
posted on 30/12/19
Where's the proof VVD handelled the ball. Sky said their footage was inconclusive.
posted on 30/12/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about a minute ago
Where's the proof VVD handelled the ball. Sky said their footage was inconclusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The players are saying the officials didn't review it because it happened too far back in play; even though Van Dijk played the pass.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50942504
Once it got to half time, the officials are going to say it was inconclusive. How many times in you life have you seen a referee or anyone on the match official team admit to an error?
posted on 30/12/19
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well technically the frame rate they use on VAR means they cannot accurately predict the moment the ball is kicked or exactly where the players foot was; as it could be between frams.
For example: VAR is running at 50 frames per second. If a player is sprinting at 10mph that means he moves 9cm between two frames of VAR. At 15mph the player moves 13cm. Similarly - the ball could be kicked at the exact moment a frame is captured, or the kick could occur between frames.
Given the above tolerances it's literally not possible to judge an offside to the level of accuracy that they are doing.
Incidentally, Van Dijk handled the ball in the build up to Liverpool's goal. I should have been disallowed and should have been scrutinized as much as that offside at the time. Would have been harsh, but those are the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing to prove the ball hit his hand!
There’s a still picture from behind VVD & a video, the video is better and you can see if it’s touched his arm.
70 yards from goal and you are hanging on to anything.
posted on 30/12/19
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European Champions (U1695)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted about an hour ago
comment by Cinciwolf----JA606 NFL Fantasy Champion 2019----No Emotional Attachments....five long years (U11551)
posted 6 hours, 22 minutes ago
Greatest moment of Netos short career ruled out by a fellas toenail gaining zero advantage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's the rules of the game unfortunately. The offside rule needs changed to better incorporate the technology, but by the current rules the decision was the right one. The same goes for the handball,which was more clearcut.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well technically the frame rate they use on VAR means they cannot accurately predict the moment the ball is kicked or exactly where the players foot was; as it could be between frams.
For example: VAR is running at 50 frames per second. If a player is sprinting at 10mph that means he moves 9cm between two frames of VAR. At 15mph the player moves 13cm. Similarly - the ball could be kicked at the exact moment a frame is captured, or the kick could occur between frames.
Given the above tolerances it's literally not possible to judge an offside to the level of accuracy that they are doing.
Incidentally, Van Dijk handled the ball in the build up to Liverpool's goal. I should have been disallowed and should have been scrutinized as much as that offside at the time. Would have been harsh, but those are the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s nothing to prove the ball hit his hand!
There’s a still picture from behind VVD & a video, the video is better and you can see if it’s touched his arm.
70 yards from goal and you are hanging on to anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There the rules. If he was too far back in play for it to be reviewed, even though he played the ball into the box; then Jonny was too far back in play to have his offside reviewed.
Van Dijk ball into box, one touch and shot = too far back to review.
Jonny ball into box, one touch and shot = not too far back to review.
posted on 30/12/19
But there’s nothing convincingly day the ball hit his hand, so the ref didn’t make a clear and obvious error in that instance and VAR can’t overturn it. What ever the ref said to the players, you’d have to take up with him but it’s not like the little manc tvvvat was favouring is.
The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned.
The wolves goal being disallowed was “under the current rule” offside.
posted on 30/12/19
comment by KLS - THE UN6EARABLES - Super World European Champions (U1695)
posted less than a minute ago
But there’s nothing convincingly day the ball hit his hand, so the ref didn’t make a clear and obvious error in that instance and VAR can’t overturn it. What ever the ref said to the players, you’d have to take up with him but it’s not like the little manc tvvvat was favouring is.
The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned.
The wolves goal being disallowed was “under the current rule” offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't review it though. What he said to the players is perfectly relevant as it should have been reviewed.
They only reviewed it at half time, at which point it wasn't like they were going to disallow the goal; that would have been more farcical. Telling the players on the pitch they can't review something because it is too far back in play, when it was two touches of the ball before the goal is ridiculous.
The rules are that if it brushes an attacking players arm in the build up to a goal, then it is handball. It brushed Van Dijk's arm and the videos show it; regardless of whether you think it's conclusive. Wolves have already had two goals disallowed this season for similar incidents, if there was any consistency, that would have been reviewed at the time.
posted on 30/12/19
"The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned."
It was so clear and obvious that the game stopped for 5 minutes to review it. Klopp himself admitted that its dangerous for players to stand around in the cold for that long.
The whole purpose was to get rid of referees howlers. Was the Wolves goal clearly and obviously offside? Without the use of a magnifying glass its inconclusive. The game is being ruined by this nonsense. I am not just saying this because of yesterday either. I have maintained this view all season.
It's live sport being refereed retrospectively. It can't work.
posted on 30/12/19
comment by LoneWolf (U22026)
posted less than a minute ago
"The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned."
It was so clear and obvious that the game stopped for 5 minutes to review it. Klopp himself admitted that its dangerous for players to stand around in the cold for that long.
The whole purpose was to get rid of referees howlers. Was the Wolves goal clearly and obviously offside? Without the use of a magnifying glass its inconclusive. The game is being ruined by this nonsense. I am not just saying this because of yesterday either. I have maintained this view all season.
It's live sport being refereed retrospectively. It can't work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wolves offside still isn't conclusive with the magnifying glass. Due to the frame rate they use, the margin of the offside call is within the margin of error of the system.
Anyone saying it was conclusive is an idiot,
posted on 30/12/19
comment by LoneWolf (U22026)
posted 3 minutes ago
"The Liverpool goal was a clear and obvious error and was rightly overturned."
It was so clear and obvious that the game stopped for 5 minutes to review it. Klopp himself admitted that its dangerous for players to stand around in the cold for that long.
The whole purpose was to get rid of referees howlers. Was the Wolves goal clearly and obviously offside? Without the use of a magnifying glass its inconclusive. The game is being ruined by this nonsense. I am not just saying this because of yesterday either. I have maintained this view all season.
It's live sport being refereed retrospectively. It can't work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn’t just review the ball hitting the shoulder though. after it wasn’t handball they looked to see if Mane was offside, after he wasn’t offside they looked to see if the ref had blown his whistle before the ball went in.
As for the ball hitting Van Dijk’s hand, I’ve seen a couple of angles and you can’t tell either way, as for what the ref told Wolves players that’s got nothing to with Liverpool. We’ve suffered with poor VAR calls this season to and it looks like some you get and some you don’t and I’d rather it went back to how it was before.
As I’ve said above, I think your a fantastic young team with some great players and a great manager who will only get better.
posted on 30/12/19
It doesn't work that you 'get some and you don't.' Wolves haven't had a favourable VAR decision all season.
Its like the whole 'they even themselves out over the season'. Its a load of nonsense.
posted on 30/12/19
If Wolves got every decision from now until the end of the season, I would still say it's a pile of crap.
It's going to kill the game in its current form.
posted on 30/12/19
I agree. In its current form and with the current rules its useless.
I genuinely hope our fans will sing 'fvck VAR' even when there is a favourable decision (if that ever happens).
posted on 30/12/19
Wolves fans have been singing fvck every time there has been a var review regardless of whether its in our favour or not. The whole process is hated by most supporters that watch football live
posted on 30/12/19
They VAR on WM !
posted on 30/12/19
200
Page 8 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9