AND the refs are bias..take that clown Clattenburg. openly admits he and the refs favoured man-united. now hes going crazy and will complain to the PGMOL over LFC goal yesterday. after Forest had almost TWO MINUTES to clear the ball they had the ball in their possession a few times as well
Liverpool have been robbed blind this season by officials. And theres no way Clattenburg would be on his high horse if this was anyone else but Liverpool.
comment by downtheplughole (U22523)
posted 1 minute ago
AND the refs are bias..take that clown Clattenburg. openly admits he and the refs favoured man-united. now hes going crazy and will complain to the PGMOL over LFC goal yesterday. after Forest had almost TWO MINUTES to clear the ball they had the ball in their possession a few times as well
Liverpool have been robbed blind this season by officials. And theres no way Clattenburg would be on his high horse if this was anyone else but Liverpool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Clattenburg is literally employed by Nottingham Forest, why he’s even getting airtime is beyond me.
oh i see, so hes got his finger in that pie??
Nearly 2 whole mins of play before it was scored ffs.
Why they don't they might as well go back to al other decisions that were wrong in the game such as a goal kick or throw on ffs
I really don't get why Clattenburg is employed by a football club as a "referee analyst". Anyone know what the fack that is all about?
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
I really don't get why Clattenburg is employed by a football club as a "referee analyst". Anyone know what the fack that is all about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect it’s a new age way of trying to influence referees.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
I really don't get why Clattenburg is employed by a football club as a "referee analyst". Anyone know what the fack that is all about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect it’s a new age way of trying to influence referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
The Liverpool one was given because the player in an offside position blocked the player tracking the goal scorer.
The United one wasn’t given because the player that was blocked was not deemed to be challenging Casimero - there was another player between him and the defender.
This is all very easy to find out, but I guess it’s easier just to claim that the officials were wrong / biased etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now see thats a lie winston, chillwell was marking vvd as he had beeb all game with commentators calling it a mismatch lol
But yeah sure endo standing still and a player not even marking vvd coleil running into a static endo is far more reason to rule out than varane target runjibg to and pushing a oppo to the ground because he was maybe a few cm further away from the goalscorer and VARs can predict the future lol
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
The Liverpool one was given because the player in an offside position blocked the player tracking the goal scorer.
The United one wasn’t given because the player that was blocked was not deemed to be challenging Casimero - there was another player between him and the defender.
This is all very easy to find out, but I guess it’s easier just to claim that the officials were wrong / biased etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now see thats a lie winston, chillwell was marking vvd as he had beeb all game with commentators calling it a mismatch lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a lie, the explanation that’s been given.
I agree Chilwell was marking him, but when you watch the replay you can see the the player affected was in place to challenge VVD for the ball, which is why it was given.
If you look it up, plenty of people have explained it.
They can explain it all they wantthe two inscidents are similar and are based on foresight and seeing into the future. The liverpool one was wrong to rule out as many pundits lineker shearer etc have said and i agree.
They are similar but there’s a clear distinction between the two.
Distinction being that varane did more wrong and interfering that endo did? I agree.
No, distinction as in the player affected by Varane wasn’t directly challenging the goal scorer where as he was in the Liverpool game.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
No, distinction as in the player affected by Varane wasn’t directly challenging the goal scorer where as he was in the Liverpool game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that requires predicting the future. He might have been a meter or so further away from casemeiro than colwill was vvd but he could have got ina block too who knows. If i was to predict the coleil stuff i dont see him getting back to stop the ball landing on vvds head either coleill was closer and trying his best and couldnt dno why they deemed it colwill would have
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
No, distinction as in the player affected by Varane wasn’t directly challenging the goal scorer where as he was in the Liverpool game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that requires predicting the future. He might have been a meter or so further away from casemeiro than colwill was vvd but he could have got ina block too who knows. If i was to predict the coleil stuff i dont see him getting back to stop the ball landing on vvds head either coleill was closer and trying his best and couldnt dno why they deemed it colwill would have
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it requires analysis of what literally happened.
What actually happened was both players scored a legit goal but a tm8 in an offside position interfered with an opponent. Endo stood still and a player ran into him varane ran infront and pushed his opponent. Neither were the opponents marking the goalscorer. Yet one was ruled out the other wasnt and the excuse is they can predict the future and one of the interfered with opponents would have got back to stop it even though a tm8 of theirs was closer and couldnt and the other simply wouldnt have. Absolute nonsense winston and i think u know it.
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you know what ‘hypocrisy’ means.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 56 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inbefore has had you on toast Winston and you know it. You’re the one who’s saying anything in order to avoid admitting you’re wrong. Having seen both incidents now, it’s pretty clear that either both goals should have been ruled out, or neither.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you know what ‘hypocrisy’ means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He really does. You’re accusing Inbefore of doing what you do day in, day out. That’s hypocrisy, down to the letter.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you know what ‘hypocrisy’ means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He really does. You’re accusing Inbefore of doing what you do day in, day out. That’s hypocrisy, down to the letter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except I don’t do that at all.
I generally try to be objective on decisions and I’m one of the few who actually points out that decisions can be seen in more than one way.
But sure, angry man, you pretend otherwise so that you can have a good cry about me again.
Yet again you want to talk about me instead of the subject.
Sign in if you want to comment
He's just a sheit Andy Carroll
Page 3 of 4
posted on 3/3/24
Great, thanks.
posted on 3/3/24
AND the refs are bias..take that clown Clattenburg. openly admits he and the refs favoured man-united. now hes going crazy and will complain to the PGMOL over LFC goal yesterday. after Forest had almost TWO MINUTES to clear the ball they had the ball in their possession a few times as well
Liverpool have been robbed blind this season by officials. And theres no way Clattenburg would be on his high horse if this was anyone else but Liverpool.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by downtheplughole (U22523)
posted 1 minute ago
AND the refs are bias..take that clown Clattenburg. openly admits he and the refs favoured man-united. now hes going crazy and will complain to the PGMOL over LFC goal yesterday. after Forest had almost TWO MINUTES to clear the ball they had the ball in their possession a few times as well
Liverpool have been robbed blind this season by officials. And theres no way Clattenburg would be on his high horse if this was anyone else but Liverpool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Clattenburg is literally employed by Nottingham Forest, why he’s even getting airtime is beyond me.
posted on 3/3/24
oh i see, so hes got his finger in that pie??
posted on 3/3/24
Nearly 2 whole mins of play before it was scored ffs.
Why they don't they might as well go back to al other decisions that were wrong in the game such as a goal kick or throw on ffs
posted on 3/3/24
I really don't get why Clattenburg is employed by a football club as a "referee analyst". Anyone know what the fack that is all about?
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
I really don't get why Clattenburg is employed by a football club as a "referee analyst". Anyone know what the fack that is all about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect it’s a new age way of trying to influence referees.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
I really don't get why Clattenburg is employed by a football club as a "referee analyst". Anyone know what the fack that is all about?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect it’s a new age way of trying to influence referees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
The Liverpool one was given because the player in an offside position blocked the player tracking the goal scorer.
The United one wasn’t given because the player that was blocked was not deemed to be challenging Casimero - there was another player between him and the defender.
This is all very easy to find out, but I guess it’s easier just to claim that the officials were wrong / biased etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now see thats a lie winston, chillwell was marking vvd as he had beeb all game with commentators calling it a mismatch lol
posted on 3/3/24
But yeah sure endo standing still and a player not even marking vvd coleil running into a static endo is far more reason to rule out than varane target runjibg to and pushing a oppo to the ground because he was maybe a few cm further away from the goalscorer and VARs can predict the future lol
posted on 3/3/24
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 42 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
The Liverpool one was given because the player in an offside position blocked the player tracking the goal scorer.
The United one wasn’t given because the player that was blocked was not deemed to be challenging Casimero - there was another player between him and the defender.
This is all very easy to find out, but I guess it’s easier just to claim that the officials were wrong / biased etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now see thats a lie winston, chillwell was marking vvd as he had beeb all game with commentators calling it a mismatch lol
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s not a lie, the explanation that’s been given.
I agree Chilwell was marking him, but when you watch the replay you can see the the player affected was in place to challenge VVD for the ball, which is why it was given.
If you look it up, plenty of people have explained it.
posted on 3/3/24
They can explain it all they wantthe two inscidents are similar and are based on foresight and seeing into the future. The liverpool one was wrong to rule out as many pundits lineker shearer etc have said and i agree.
posted on 3/3/24
They are similar but there’s a clear distinction between the two.
posted on 3/3/24
Distinction being that varane did more wrong and interfering that endo did? I agree.
posted on 3/3/24
No, distinction as in the player affected by Varane wasn’t directly challenging the goal scorer where as he was in the Liverpool game.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
No, distinction as in the player affected by Varane wasn’t directly challenging the goal scorer where as he was in the Liverpool game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that requires predicting the future. He might have been a meter or so further away from casemeiro than colwill was vvd but he could have got ina block too who knows. If i was to predict the coleil stuff i dont see him getting back to stop the ball landing on vvds head either coleill was closer and trying his best and couldnt dno why they deemed it colwill would have
posted on 3/3/24
comment by InBefore (U20589)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 15 seconds ago
No, distinction as in the player affected by Varane wasn’t directly challenging the goal scorer where as he was in the Liverpool game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again that requires predicting the future. He might have been a meter or so further away from casemeiro than colwill was vvd but he could have got ina block too who knows. If i was to predict the coleil stuff i dont see him getting back to stop the ball landing on vvds head either coleill was closer and trying his best and couldnt dno why they deemed it colwill would have
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it requires analysis of what literally happened.
posted on 3/3/24
Chillwell*
posted on 3/3/24
What actually happened was both players scored a legit goal but a tm8 in an offside position interfered with an opponent. Endo stood still and a player ran into him varane ran infront and pushed his opponent. Neither were the opponents marking the goalscorer. Yet one was ruled out the other wasnt and the excuse is they can predict the future and one of the interfered with opponents would have got back to stop it even though a tm8 of theirs was closer and couldnt and the other simply wouldnt have. Absolute nonsense winston and i think u know it.
posted on 3/3/24
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you know what ‘hypocrisy’ means.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 56 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Inbefore has had you on toast Winston and you know it. You’re the one who’s saying anything in order to avoid admitting you’re wrong. Having seen both incidents now, it’s pretty clear that either both goals should have been ruled out, or neither.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you know what ‘hypocrisy’ means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He really does. You’re accusing Inbefore of doing what you do day in, day out. That’s hypocrisy, down to the letter.
posted on 3/3/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Never Mind the Defending: Here’s Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 48 minutes ago
They’ve applied the laws based on what happened.
It’s really clear what the difference between the two incidents is.
I guess you have decided your narrative and youve no intention of changing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a hilarious level of hypocrisy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think you know what ‘hypocrisy’ means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He really does. You’re accusing Inbefore of doing what you do day in, day out. That’s hypocrisy, down to the letter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except I don’t do that at all.
I generally try to be objective on decisions and I’m one of the few who actually points out that decisions can be seen in more than one way.
But sure, angry man, you pretend otherwise so that you can have a good cry about me again.
Yet again you want to talk about me instead of the subject.
Page 3 of 4