comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fair play to Liverpool in all honesty. Using technology to win may make the victories hollow, but they're still victories none the less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride
If VAR was always there I'm sure we'd have won multiple league titles in the last 29 year
We've been robbed by dodgy refs on at least 3 separate title challenges.
Roll on the VAR!
VAR is there to make refs decsions more accurate. So any incidents seen by the officials should be spotted by the VAR. Don't see any arguments about it in other leagues. It's only here because Liverpool are top by a distance. Should've won it last season if we had VAR.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1163831/Liverpool-news-Premier-League-title-VAR-full-table
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Just imagine how different it'd be if Spurs had any winning mentality...or no chip on their shoulder
I know...difficult right
So Liverpool would have been well on their way to retaining the title we should have won last season if VAR had been in use.
Oh well, never mind.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a player fouls another player, I would expect a goal to be ruled out, yes. It's in the laws of the game.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not the same principle. You've completely made that up.
No surprises here, the same Pool and United biased mugs that are seen on the pitch are sat in the VAR hot seat also.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
comment by Billy The Yidd (U3924)
posted 22 minutes ago
No surprises here, the same Pool and United biased mugs that are seen on the pitch are sat in the VAR hot seat also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they ran a tw@ of the year show, you wouldn't have room on your shelf for all the medals
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not the same principle. You've completely made that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love the gymnastics.
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By your example (which is extreme) then violent conduct is usually worthy of stopping the game there and then, so yes in that rather unlikley situation play stops and the ref hands out the punishment.
By your approach, any corner comes in you check every action between all the players on the pitch to make sure there are no fouls happening before allowing the goal or not. Seems like we'd see a lot of disallowed goals and wasted time.
Common sense would prevail in most circumstances as to whether the infringement had any bearing on teh outcome.
In the case of Lovren i can see why it might, so it was marginal, BUT when you review the incident it was flicked on near post, Ayew jumped for the ball but it cleared his head and went back post to be put in. If Ayew was able to head it in then he gained an advantage but he and Lovren were never going to affect the situation once it was flicked on. Its pretty clear from the replays. Should have stood IMO, I would have been annoyed if it was Spurs and no doubt you'd be crying foul if it was you having the goal chalked off.
If it were Lovren pushing Ayew, you'd no doubt be arguing that he was never getting the ball
A foul does not always mean play stops, and particularly where it is unrelated to the action. It doesnt mean that it goes unpunished.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By your example (which is extreme) then violent conduct is usually worthy of stopping the game there and then, so yes in that rather unlikley situation play stops and the ref hands out the punishment.
By your approach, any corner comes in you check every action between all the players on the pitch to make sure there are no fouls happening before allowing the goal or not. Seems like we'd see a lot of disallowed goals and wasted time.
Common sense would prevail in most circumstances as to whether the infringement had any bearing on teh outcome.
In the case of Lovren i can see why it might, so it was marginal, BUT when you review the incident it was flicked on near post, Ayew jumped for the ball but it cleared his head and went back post to be put in. If Ayew was able to head it in then he gained an advantage but he and Lovren were never going to affect the situation once it was flicked on. Its pretty clear from the replays. Should have stood IMO, I would have been annoyed if it was Spurs and no doubt you'd be crying foul if it was you having the goal chalked off.
If it were Lovren pushing Ayew, you'd no doubt be arguing that he was never getting the ball
A foul does not always mean play stops, and particularly where it is unrelated to the action. It doesnt mean that it goes unpunished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt if it was Liverpool who scored youd have been saying it was a foul. Your bitterness is evident in your comments. It's great.
The worst thing is that Spurs are in the top 3 for decisions going for them. Yet here you are whining that decisions have went for Liverpool when we've had less than you. This isn't even judging for the fact that the decisions we got for us were correct decisions. Can't speak for Spurs as I haven't watched them much this season as they have been boring to watch, even with all the decisions they've got, they're still way down the table.
Credit where it's due, stop the bitterness. You'll feel better. You don't want to turn into BitterBilly.
Also you keep bringing a scenario into the equation which doesnt come into it. It does not matter one jot whether Lovren was getting to the ball, that's debatable anyhow but it's not something the referee has to judge. He missed the push, VAR corrected it. That's what it is supposed to do.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By your example (which is extreme) then violent conduct is usually worthy of stopping the game there and then, so yes in that rather unlikley situation play stops and the ref hands out the punishment.
By your approach, any corner comes in you check every action between all the players on the pitch to make sure there are no fouls happening before allowing the goal or not. Seems like we'd see a lot of disallowed goals and wasted time.
Common sense would prevail in most circumstances as to whether the infringement had any bearing on teh outcome.
In the case of Lovren i can see why it might, so it was marginal, BUT when you review the incident it was flicked on near post, Ayew jumped for the ball but it cleared his head and went back post to be put in. If Ayew was able to head it in then he gained an advantage but he and Lovren were never going to affect the situation once it was flicked on. Its pretty clear from the replays. Should have stood IMO, I would have been annoyed if it was Spurs and no doubt you'd be crying foul if it was you having the goal chalked off.
If it were Lovren pushing Ayew, you'd no doubt be arguing that he was never getting the ball
A foul does not always mean play stops, and particularly where it is unrelated to the action. It doesnt mean that it goes unpunished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unrelated to the action
Have you ever played football? Its a set piece and your arguing about being active like it is in offside decisions. The set piece is taken and the moment the ball hits someone in the box it could ricochet in any direction or manner. It can be hard to score or defend when you're ass is on the floor even if the ball is passing a yard away.
Its clear that in that situation a foul is a foul, period. I'm surprised you need this explained what with you being a football fan.
Some holding occurs at set pieces but a push with two hands in the back is just too far.
In any case, the foul that led to the set piece was even softer than ours and people like you fail to see that
If the push wasn't a foul then they shouldn't have had a set piece in the first place.
It was a set piece and you can't say its unrelated. If there was no chance Liverpool could gain an advantage then why did the defender push him? He knew the risk and took it, and his team paid the cost.
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
comment by Shaun M - I can't see me loving nobody but Leeds! (U9955)
posted 1 minute ago
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs have had five goals against them disallowed by VAR and the fans are preaching about Liverpool
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - I can't see me loving nobody but Leeds! (U9955)
posted 1 minute ago
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that was a goal for city and var facked them but can only blame the team for not scoring any of the dozens of chances they created against us. Shouldn't have needed the last minute goal
comment by Shaun M - I can't see me loving nobody bu... (U9955)
posted 16 minutes ago
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wonder if pr1cks like you ever read back what you've typed before you hit the send button
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR and how close the title race would have
Page 2 of 4
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 6 minutes ago
Fair play to Liverpool in all honesty. Using technology to win may make the victories hollow, but they're still victories none the less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pride
posted on 10/1/20
If VAR was always there I'm sure we'd have won multiple league titles in the last 29 year
We've been robbed by dodgy refs on at least 3 separate title challenges.
Roll on the VAR!
posted on 10/1/20
VAR is there to make refs decsions more accurate. So any incidents seen by the officials should be spotted by the VAR. Don't see any arguments about it in other leagues. It's only here because Liverpool are top by a distance. Should've won it last season if we had VAR.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1163831/Liverpool-news-Premier-League-title-VAR-full-table
posted on 10/1/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/20
Just imagine how different it'd be if Spurs had any winning mentality...or no chip on their shoulder
I know...difficult right
posted on 10/1/20
So Liverpool would have been well on their way to retaining the title we should have won last season if VAR had been in use.
Oh well, never mind.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
posted on 10/1/20
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a player fouls another player, I would expect a goal to be ruled out, yes. It's in the laws of the game.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not the same principle. You've completely made that up.
posted on 10/1/20
No surprises here, the same Pool and United biased mugs that are seen on the pitch are sat in the VAR hot seat also.
posted on 10/1/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Billy The Yidd (U3924)
posted 22 minutes ago
No surprises here, the same Pool and United biased mugs that are seen on the pitch are sat in the VAR hot seat also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they ran a tw@ of the year show, you wouldn't have room on your shelf for all the medals
posted on 10/1/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 41 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it's not the same principle. You've completely made that up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love the gymnastics.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By your example (which is extreme) then violent conduct is usually worthy of stopping the game there and then, so yes in that rather unlikley situation play stops and the ref hands out the punishment.
By your approach, any corner comes in you check every action between all the players on the pitch to make sure there are no fouls happening before allowing the goal or not. Seems like we'd see a lot of disallowed goals and wasted time.
Common sense would prevail in most circumstances as to whether the infringement had any bearing on teh outcome.
In the case of Lovren i can see why it might, so it was marginal, BUT when you review the incident it was flicked on near post, Ayew jumped for the ball but it cleared his head and went back post to be put in. If Ayew was able to head it in then he gained an advantage but he and Lovren were never going to affect the situation once it was flicked on. Its pretty clear from the replays. Should have stood IMO, I would have been annoyed if it was Spurs and no doubt you'd be crying foul if it was you having the goal chalked off.
If it were Lovren pushing Ayew, you'd no doubt be arguing that he was never getting the ball
A foul does not always mean play stops, and particularly where it is unrelated to the action. It doesnt mean that it goes unpunished.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By your example (which is extreme) then violent conduct is usually worthy of stopping the game there and then, so yes in that rather unlikley situation play stops and the ref hands out the punishment.
By your approach, any corner comes in you check every action between all the players on the pitch to make sure there are no fouls happening before allowing the goal or not. Seems like we'd see a lot of disallowed goals and wasted time.
Common sense would prevail in most circumstances as to whether the infringement had any bearing on teh outcome.
In the case of Lovren i can see why it might, so it was marginal, BUT when you review the incident it was flicked on near post, Ayew jumped for the ball but it cleared his head and went back post to be put in. If Ayew was able to head it in then he gained an advantage but he and Lovren were never going to affect the situation once it was flicked on. Its pretty clear from the replays. Should have stood IMO, I would have been annoyed if it was Spurs and no doubt you'd be crying foul if it was you having the goal chalked off.
If it were Lovren pushing Ayew, you'd no doubt be arguing that he was never getting the ball
A foul does not always mean play stops, and particularly where it is unrelated to the action. It doesnt mean that it goes unpunished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt if it was Liverpool who scored youd have been saying it was a foul. Your bitterness is evident in your comments. It's great.
The worst thing is that Spurs are in the top 3 for decisions going for them. Yet here you are whining that decisions have went for Liverpool when we've had less than you. This isn't even judging for the fact that the decisions we got for us were correct decisions. Can't speak for Spurs as I haven't watched them much this season as they have been boring to watch, even with all the decisions they've got, they're still way down the table.
Credit where it's due, stop the bitterness. You'll feel better. You don't want to turn into BitterBilly.
posted on 10/1/20
Also you keep bringing a scenario into the equation which doesnt come into it. It does not matter one jot whether Lovren was getting to the ball, that's debatable anyhow but it's not something the referee has to judge. He missed the push, VAR corrected it. That's what it is supposed to do.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by 🏆 🏆 🏆 Keep It Greasy 🏆 🏆 🏆So... (U1396)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 42 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah - it’s not a very good table when you consider the following:
‘The investigation takes into account not just VAR decisions, but also the state of the match at the time, along with elements such as form and performance’
So basically, it’s a guess.
Next
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It does highlight the fortunate elements enjoyed by teams eg Palace were denied two points against Liverpool?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Denied? First and foremost, it was a clear foul. Secondly, you’re assuming Palace would’ve gone on to win. That example alone shows why you’re argument is weak.
In fact, the push on Lovren was one of the least contentious VAR calls of the season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was contenious as the ball was flicked on at the near post and Lovren, who fell over with very little effort, would not have had any impact. If he'd stayed on his feet the outcome would have been the same.
I think every fan would feel very aggrieved if their team had that goal ruled out on both counts - player not able to impact the outcome and a feeble exaggeration of contact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether it had an impact is irrelevant, that isn't in the laws. He was fouled and therefore the correct decision made. To say otherwise is just bitterness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SO at any corner there is pulling & holding. If that's going on at the back post and a corner is headed in at the near post, would you expect the goal to be ruled out....No! not bitterness, common bloody sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming anyone agrees with this last comment, can you explain how or why Palace were "denied 2 points"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why no one would agree with it. Same principle as being active or not in off side decisions.
As for palace being denied 2 points, that must be a typo as they either lost 3 points or 1 point....they could only have been denied 2 points if the game ended in a draw and the decision denied them a win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you predict the bounce of the ball? How do you know who will end up scoring?
Fact is, that wasn't the regular pushing and pulling at corners. It was blatant and if they start ignoring those the game will go to hell.
A foul is a foul.
Lets say the ball is up one end of the pitch, but on the other end the keeper is arguing with the opponent striker. The striker then proceeds to knock the keeper out with a tombstone pile driver followed by a stone cold stunner.
Is it still not a foul? After all they were 60 yards from the action and not interfering with play. Would you say these players are active like it is in offside decisions? By your logic, it's not a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By your example (which is extreme) then violent conduct is usually worthy of stopping the game there and then, so yes in that rather unlikley situation play stops and the ref hands out the punishment.
By your approach, any corner comes in you check every action between all the players on the pitch to make sure there are no fouls happening before allowing the goal or not. Seems like we'd see a lot of disallowed goals and wasted time.
Common sense would prevail in most circumstances as to whether the infringement had any bearing on teh outcome.
In the case of Lovren i can see why it might, so it was marginal, BUT when you review the incident it was flicked on near post, Ayew jumped for the ball but it cleared his head and went back post to be put in. If Ayew was able to head it in then he gained an advantage but he and Lovren were never going to affect the situation once it was flicked on. Its pretty clear from the replays. Should have stood IMO, I would have been annoyed if it was Spurs and no doubt you'd be crying foul if it was you having the goal chalked off.
If it were Lovren pushing Ayew, you'd no doubt be arguing that he was never getting the ball
A foul does not always mean play stops, and particularly where it is unrelated to the action. It doesnt mean that it goes unpunished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unrelated to the action
Have you ever played football? Its a set piece and your arguing about being active like it is in offside decisions. The set piece is taken and the moment the ball hits someone in the box it could ricochet in any direction or manner. It can be hard to score or defend when you're ass is on the floor even if the ball is passing a yard away.
Its clear that in that situation a foul is a foul, period. I'm surprised you need this explained what with you being a football fan.
Some holding occurs at set pieces but a push with two hands in the back is just too far.
In any case, the foul that led to the set piece was even softer than ours and people like you fail to see that
If the push wasn't a foul then they shouldn't have had a set piece in the first place.
It was a set piece and you can't say its unrelated. If there was no chance Liverpool could gain an advantage then why did the defender push him? He knew the risk and took it, and his team paid the cost.
posted on 10/1/20
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Shaun M - I can't see me loving nobody but Leeds! (U9955)
posted 1 minute ago
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 10/1/20
Spurs have had five goals against them disallowed by VAR and the fans are preaching about Liverpool
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Shaun M - I can't see me loving nobody but Leeds! (U9955)
posted 1 minute ago
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes that was a goal for city and var facked them but can only blame the team for not scoring any of the dozens of chances they created against us. Shouldn't have needed the last minute goal
posted on 10/1/20
comment by Shaun M - I can't see me loving nobody bu... (U9955)
posted 16 minutes ago
Man City were fobbed off from the get go against Spurs, made them chase Liverpool from the very start. FA wanted a new winner, and VAR have helped make one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do wonder if pr1cks like you ever read back what you've typed before you hit the send button
Page 2 of 4