Did okay with the penalty though decision though ….
Was a harsh red agreed but it’s not as of you didn’t get a big decision go your way
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 49 seconds ago
Did okay with the penalty though decision though ….
Was a harsh red agreed but it’s not as of you didn’t get a big decision go your way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a Got-Bitter sharticle imo
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.
Pen was an easy decision...defo a pen, yeah it was an exaggerated fall but it WAS a foul
the fella who looked to hit out at Henderson
----------
Thought it was Robertson?
Both the penalty and red card were awful decisions
Think on-field refs and assistants shouldn't also be VARs and AVARs. They need to train up people specifically for the VAR jobs.
Its a stonewalll peno you cant just kick someone and not get near the ball. The dive was exagerrated but so what it was a foul.
Red was ridiculous though.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 26 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it was a pen. Was soft but was.
The offside goal.though trent def tried to play it
I think it was a very soft penalty and a very harsh red, but I can see why both were given.
If a defender sticks his leg out like that and doesn't get the ball, it's always a risk. Likewise if your studs make contact with an opponent when you've missed a tackle. Yellow for me and probably no pen but not the worst decisions I've seen.
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 49 seconds ago
Did okay with the penalty though decision though ….
Was a harsh red agreed but it’s not as of you didn’t get a big decision go your way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a Got-Bitter sharticle imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morespurs accusing someone else of creating a sharticle.
BTW i know most talked about the exagerrated fall by szob but let's not forget chritie rolling around like his leg got decapitated. I don't see people talking about that!
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 51 minutes ago
Pen was an easy decision...defo a pen, yeah it was an exaggerated fall but it WAS a foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a dive - the guy is a joke and think he can bring in his fkn continental cheating to PL
Should be earmarked by refs, and given
Absolute joke of a dive too - a disgrace
Hilarious how some of these guys are making out a stonewall pen
Next you sneeze at this player, I bet he will send himself spiralling himself backward screaming "Oh shot at me!"
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The offside was before the Liverpool player was involved. You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
We're talking about two different phases of play. The player was offside in the first phase, when the pass was played. If he hadn't been offside in that phase but offside only after TAA played the ball, then he would have been deemed onside, since TAA deliberately played the ball.
I have sympathy for MacAllister and for the referee, for what he would have seen. VAR should have stepped in and at least told him to have another look - if he sticks with his decision, so be it.
As for the penañty, fair play to the few of you on the Liverpool boards that admit it was a very "generous" decision. There was hardly any contact, which was not initiated by the defender - that's to say that Szoboszlai looked for it and made the most ridiculous dive. Saying that, he looks a real player, an excellent signing.
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The offside was before the Liverpool player was involved. You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
We're talking about two different phases of play. The player was offside in the first phase, when the pass was played. If he hadn't been offside in that phase but offside only after TAA played the ball, then he would have been deemed onside, since TAA deliberately played the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is only active after TAA plays the ball. You can be in an offside position all you like, it is only when you are deemed active that it matters. Which in this case is after TAA played the ball.
You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
======
That is exactly what you are allowed to do. The rule literally states "It is not an offence to be in an offside position" and then goes on to detail the fact that a player only becomes active when he plays the ball of makes a challenge for it, which the Bournemouth player did neither. It also goes into detail about how "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 51 minutes ago
Pen was an easy decision...defo a pen, yeah it was an exaggerated fall but it WAS a foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a dive - the guy is a joke and think he can bring in his fkn continental cheating to PL
Should be earmarked by refs, and given
Absolute joke of a dive too - a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 10 minutes ago
I have sympathy for MacAllister and for the referee, for what he would have seen. VAR should have stepped in and at least told him to have another look - if he sticks with his decision, so be it.
As for the penañty, fair play to the few of you on the Liverpool boards that admit it was a very "generous" decision. There was hardly any contact, which was not initiated by the defender - that's to say that Szoboszlai looked for it and made the most ridiculous dive. Saying that, he looks a real player, an excellent signing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is fair. I didn't like it personally but yeah, got a player on our hands there.
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.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The offside was before the Liverpool player was involved. You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
We're talking about two different phases of play. The player was offside in the first phase, when the pass was played. If he hadn't been offside in that phase but offside only after TAA played the ball, then he would have been deemed onside, since TAA deliberately played the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is only active after TAA plays the ball. You can be in an offside position all you like, it is only when you are deemed active that it matters. Which in this case is after TAA played the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got this badly wrong. I suggest reading the offside law. He was already offside in the first phase before TAA touched the ball by being active whereby he's challenging for the ball. At this point he's interfering with the opponent, which means he's offside.
If none of this had occurred in the second phase and he had been in an offside position at this point, then it would not be offside as it came off the opponent.
You've completely misinterpreted this part of the offside law.
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
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
He did literally none of that. You need to read the actual rules and stop making up your own ones.
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 13 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have clarified it a bit, but for me the only real factor in favour of the decision was the ball was in the air, whereas none of the other factors applied imo.
The Salah one would be offside under the clarified rules, as would the Kane one against Liverpool a few years back (he won a penalty from an offside position because a Liverpool player tried to intercept and got a touch on it when stretching).
Sign in if you want to comment
Well WHAT a surprise...not!
Page 1 of 2
posted on 20/8/23
Did okay with the penalty though decision though ….
Was a harsh red agreed but it’s not as of you didn’t get a big decision go your way
posted on 20/8/23
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 49 seconds ago
Did okay with the penalty though decision though ….
Was a harsh red agreed but it’s not as of you didn’t get a big decision go your way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a Got-Bitter sharticle imo
posted on 20/8/23
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.
posted on 20/8/23
Pen was an easy decision...defo a pen, yeah it was an exaggerated fall but it WAS a foul
posted on 20/8/23
the fella who looked to hit out at Henderson
----------
Thought it was Robertson?
posted on 20/8/23
Both the penalty and red card were awful decisions
posted on 20/8/23
Think on-field refs and assistants shouldn't also be VARs and AVARs. They need to train up people specifically for the VAR jobs.
posted on 20/8/23
Its a stonewalll peno you cant just kick someone and not get near the ball. The dive was exagerrated but so what it was a foul.
Red was ridiculous though.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 26 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it was a pen. Was soft but was.
The offside goal.though trent def tried to play it
posted on 20/8/23
I think it was a very soft penalty and a very harsh red, but I can see why both were given.
If a defender sticks his leg out like that and doesn't get the ball, it's always a risk. Likewise if your studs make contact with an opponent when you've missed a tackle. Yellow for me and probably no pen but not the worst decisions I've seen.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 49 seconds ago
Did okay with the penalty though decision though ….
Was a harsh red agreed but it’s not as of you didn’t get a big decision go your way
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a Got-Bitter sharticle imo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Morespurs accusing someone else of creating a sharticle.
posted on 20/8/23
BTW i know most talked about the exagerrated fall by szob but let's not forget chritie rolling around like his leg got decapitated. I don't see people talking about that!
posted on 20/8/23
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 51 minutes ago
Pen was an easy decision...defo a pen, yeah it was an exaggerated fall but it WAS a foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a dive - the guy is a joke and think he can bring in his fkn continental cheating to PL
Should be earmarked by refs, and given
Absolute joke of a dive too - a disgrace
posted on 20/8/23
Hilarious how some of these guys are making out a stonewall pen
Next you sneeze at this player, I bet he will send himself spiralling himself backward screaming "Oh shot at me!"
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The offside was before the Liverpool player was involved. You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
We're talking about two different phases of play. The player was offside in the first phase, when the pass was played. If he hadn't been offside in that phase but offside only after TAA played the ball, then he would have been deemed onside, since TAA deliberately played the ball.
posted on 20/8/23
I have sympathy for MacAllister and for the referee, for what he would have seen. VAR should have stepped in and at least told him to have another look - if he sticks with his decision, so be it.
As for the penañty, fair play to the few of you on the Liverpool boards that admit it was a very "generous" decision. There was hardly any contact, which was not initiated by the defender - that's to say that Szoboszlai looked for it and made the most ridiculous dive. Saying that, he looks a real player, an excellent signing.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The offside was before the Liverpool player was involved. You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
We're talking about two different phases of play. The player was offside in the first phase, when the pass was played. If he hadn't been offside in that phase but offside only after TAA played the ball, then he would have been deemed onside, since TAA deliberately played the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is only active after TAA plays the ball. You can be in an offside position all you like, it is only when you are deemed active that it matters. Which in this case is after TAA played the ball.
posted on 20/8/23
You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
======
That is exactly what you are allowed to do. The rule literally states "It is not an offence to be in an offside position" and then goes on to detail the fact that a player only becomes active when he plays the ball of makes a challenge for it, which the Bournemouth player did neither. It also goes into detail about how "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."
posted on 20/8/23
comment by He who Dares, waits for Trophies (U15748)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Got_Better (U6241)
posted 51 minutes ago
Pen was an easy decision...defo a pen, yeah it was an exaggerated fall but it WAS a foul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a dive - the guy is a joke and think he can bring in his fkn continental cheating to PL
Should be earmarked by refs, and given
Absolute joke of a dive too - a disgrace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 20/8/23
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 10 minutes ago
I have sympathy for MacAllister and for the referee, for what he would have seen. VAR should have stepped in and at least told him to have another look - if he sticks with his decision, so be it.
As for the penañty, fair play to the few of you on the Liverpool boards that admit it was a very "generous" decision. There was hardly any contact, which was not initiated by the defender - that's to say that Szoboszlai looked for it and made the most ridiculous dive. Saying that, he looks a real player, an excellent signing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is fair. I didn't like it personally but yeah, got a player on our hands there.
posted on 20/8/23
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.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 hour, 11 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The offside was before the Liverpool player was involved. You don't get to be offside and then if an opposition player plays the ball you're now onside.
We're talking about two different phases of play. The player was offside in the first phase, when the pass was played. If he hadn't been offside in that phase but offside only after TAA played the ball, then he would have been deemed onside, since TAA deliberately played the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He is only active after TAA plays the ball. You can be in an offside position all you like, it is only when you are deemed active that it matters. Which in this case is after TAA played the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got this badly wrong. I suggest reading the offside law. He was already offside in the first phase before TAA touched the ball by being active whereby he's challenging for the ball. At this point he's interfering with the opponent, which means he's offside.
If none of this had occurred in the second phase and he had been in an offside position at this point, then it would not be offside as it came off the opponent.
You've completely misinterpreted this part of the offside law.
posted on 20/8/23
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
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
He did literally none of that. You need to read the actual rules and stop making up your own ones.
posted on 20/8/23
comment by Loco Liverpool (U18018)
posted 13 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have clarified it a bit, but for me the only real factor in favour of the decision was the ball was in the air, whereas none of the other factors applied imo.
The Salah one would be offside under the clarified rules, as would the Kane one against Liverpool a few years back (he won a penalty from an offside position because a Liverpool player tried to intercept and got a touch on it when stretching).
Page 1 of 2