Just have to point out though, having seen various scumburgers on social media and so forth, that the current vogue for blaming Klopp for all the injuries has one tiny flaw in it - Virgil wasn't 'run into the ground', as various wiseacres maintain: he was the victim of an unpunished assault. And Joe got injured playing for England (again). And tbf, even if he only played once a month, Matip is going to be injured for long stretches (though that's all the more reason not to start the season with three CB's, imo).
Matips ankle injury is one that has been a problem for months and just wouldn't go away. In the end JK had to pull the plug and say thats it, no more. We were, of course, under pressure to play Matip with him being our last senior CB. What a ****ing ****storm.
Poor bloke could bang his funny bone and his ankle, groin, knee and left testicle would all get strained. He reminds me of Jesse, Herbert's dog in Family Guy.
I have a problem with the word conceded that makes it look like we had something to do with the penalties given against
I can give you three off the top of my head, apologies for not knowing the opponent's names - Trent on Saturday, Fabinho against Sheffield, Robertson against Brighton. I haven't gone through all of them yet.
robertson v brighton was in fairness a stupid kick out that was as a result of poor clearances and honeslty we've seen quite a few given agaisnt other teams. Fabinho. similar. Your not got gomez early in season which everyone was gvien and now none are given. Again. at the time all those were given and we got one v leeds. According to the ref protector general gallagher trent should have been sent off.
Funniest thing was him saying Trent should be sent off for that, yet he didn’t think the Sheff United Fulham one was a pen.. despite the Fulham keeper kicking the sheff player in the knee while the ball was on the floor, because it was a 50/50 abs he blocked it with his foot. will have to remember that one next time a player that isn’t the keeper block tacked someone’s with 1 foot and kicks them in the knee with the other.
yeah it was so ridiculous. It really is the ref's protection racket. If he's not willing to break ransk and be a "journalist" then don't be a jounralist. Nobody needs to hear from the refs mouthpiece. the only interest is to hear a pro ref try to explain what he saw under the rules and what should have happened. 90% of it is him calling the ref by name and explaining why the ref was awesome. the rare time he contradicsts a ref he comes up with an excuse why the ref should be let off.
Bit bemused why the subject of 'intent' has come up again over the Trent pen. After the reverse fixture, and Prickford's unarmed assault on Virgil, I spent a lone - but victorious- sole battle against all-comers on the Prem Board arguing with the anti-Liverpool mob (all of them) that intent was unnecessary for Serious Foul Play. Some incredible, preposterous hogwash was put up by PJ and Big Turd in particular about bogus clauses and criteria to the rules of the game that quite ****ing simply don't exist. But that is Serious Foul Play: is anybody seriously suggesting that is what Trent is guilty of? So we're back to the issue that DCL literally ran into the back of a prone Trent (indeed, accidentally kneed him in the back of the head), and I still contend that had two players gone up for header, DCL hit the bar and fell over the prone Trent going for the rebound, then **** all would have been said about it. But okay, as we're being pedantic about it - the pundits and ex refs by-and-large are - then wasn't Trent impaired for getting up and going for the rebound himself by a head injury inflicted by DCL? I mean 'Our' Mark Clattenburg (as referred to by some BS) actually claims that Trent moving his head somehow constitutes the foul in itself. Really? Trent back-headed him in the knee to stop him getting to the rebound? 'Kin hell.
I don't know why there is such a debate on it, he didn't get a red so can play and we could have had another 90 minutes and still not scored so it's a pointless argument other than a general chat about officials and var.
Oh I agree on that. Made **** all difference, and the final scoreline is fair, but when historical derby whines are trotted out (99% by them), it's often forgetton we've had some shockers as well - especially last October - even if they didn't have any real bearing on the final outcome.
Fabino's was given because his torso was on the line, but his outstretched foot committed the foul just outside the box. I remember Carra conceding one against Reading some years back by dragging back one of their players: Carra was a yard outside the box, the foul was outside the box, but because their player had his outstretched front foot on the line it was given a pen. Admittedly that was before VAR, but in the post-match analysis by pundits and ex refs there was universal agreement that constituted a penalty. Seems to me they make the rules up as they go along - presumably if a player was standing outside the box and stuck his hand in it to stop a pass it would be a pen, and the reverse would not be?
I beleive we saw one other incident like this that spurs conceded. aurier being a moron. VAR makes all of this worse but we do not seem to get this. Its better to charge out of the box and chop a guy in half than step back and let them fall over you or jump into you. VAR has changed defending imo but we don't seem to have gotten this much. IMO: a) engage outside the box whereever you can. b) pro fouls to break up play are the way to go. never let a team break on you. (the fernandinho rule) c) smash it out of play not into the middle of the park. (the carragher "lose it" rule) d) better to take the yellow chopping a guy down than let them run at you and take you into the box e) never ever ever let a guy finish, if you chack take his leg off as you think he's offside so much the better. (the pickford ruling) if the ball goes in the net VAR is in play. f) lean forward and work on body shape as its impossible for a forward to stay onside unelss you dangle a limb behind the line. (the stand like you are a subbetto player rule) Its ridiculous but a defender would be better off running up field than trying to defend a lot of the time.
Soz, I meant as in the only club that seemingly didn't support the concocted idea that Pitchford couldn't be penalised because Virgil was deemed offside.