Anything to make them cry is good tho. Few people will want any footballer to be injured but since it’s already done I’m not gonna start crying and waving flags of support in his name. That club can get ****ed, I’ll never forget they backed their racist, so they can all enjoy the next 8 months and I’m sure Joe ‘Better Than Maguire’ Gomez will command the back line just fine.
If you bother to ****ing read the posts of mine that you so assiduously cut and pasted onto here from the Liverpool board on Saturday evening, you'll see I said that in conversation then with Tobes. I am raging that the VAR operators, who have the same muddle-headed, bogus knowledge of their own rules as some of the make-a-law-up-as-you-go-along cretins on this board, are getting away without any retrospective firing-squads, I'll give you that.
If their contention is that they did review the incident during the game and didn’t consider it to be a sending off offence then that’s surely merely their subjective opinion and not a case of them not understanding the rules though, no? The issue regarding the actual rules seems to still be a matter of debate though. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...fside-laws-rules-var-liverpool-everton-728804 I saw a comment that you posted from Clattenberg that said the ref could do as he liked as he’d not blown the whistle. Only that can’t be right and ‘our Mark’ is maybe thinking of pre-VAR there, as otherwise by definition, what he’s saying there is that the ref could have given a penalty should he have wished to, which is patently incorrect, as per the rules. an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge My initial view was that he could be sent off if it was deemed violent conduct, but Walton & Clattenberg are saying he could have gone for serious foul play, but this appears to be at odds with the rules as the ball was effectively dead when the incident occurred, and there doesn’t appear to be absolute clarity on that point from what I have seen. So maybe this incident has highlighted a slight grey area.
Tobes, did you read that Venn diagram in the wiki article on Rule 12? There is no difference between serious foul play and violent conduct. They are both considered misconduct. There is no grey area - you can be dismissed for serious foul play whether the ball is in play or not. But Clattenburg's point, that you haven't addressed, is that the ball was still in play anyway as Oliver hadn't blown his whistle. No matter which way up you look at it, Dermott Gallagher is totally right - they simply ****ed up at Stockley Park. The laws don't need to be changed, but the PGMOL and FA do. All that quoted sentence says if that offside is offside, and no matter what happens after, it stays offside. Does not say a player committing any offence thereafter has some sort of indemnity from being cautioned or sent-off. Give it ****ing up now, will you? FFS. That's now Walton, Clattenburg and presumably Gallagher you think you know more than. Let it go mate.
Only I did address ‘our Marks’ point, I clearly called that wrong imo in my last post, as for that to be true he could have also given a penalty, which he patently couldn’t, so the ‘whistle’ is a red herring in the age of VAR. As for serious foul play being possible when the ball is effectively dead, I’ve seen nothing that definitively says that in the rules, I’m not saying that on that point they’re definitely wrong btw, I’m saying it’s not clear cut, as the article from the Independent I posted lays out. It’s a discussion forum mate, and I was merely discussing that point, I’ve not claimed to be right on anything relating to this, barring in the last couple of posts on Clattenbergs whistle comment which is demonstrably false.
