Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by DiogoJotaSuper, Jul 6, 2018.
@Tobes will be devastated
Made me laugh
Referees really shouldn't need to have that guidance. Are they robots who cannot make an rational assessment for themselves? Our referees are dumb and cannot see the wood for the trees. The guy was offside and benefitted from an offside position by immediately tackling the defender. .FFS what's so complicated about that?
Villa lost a point and City gained 2 points by rule interpretation gone crazy.
It's funny because the rule hasn't changed. Refs have been advised to alter their interpretation of the rule lol.
Translation: Refs made a mistake.
I find it astonishing tbh mate. Watching that game live I called that as onside as the rule is clear imo, yet now they’re somehow reinterpreting it? Wtf does that mean in reality? As ironically Villas first goal vs Newcastle only days later was the same rule ffs, are they saying that would have been chalked off as well? I honestly don’t get the logic.
City won 2-0 mate.
yeah, ziyech was done first so that is right win absolutely 100% sorted. then pulisic sorted LW. Werner should have sorted the striker role.
You had reserves, mount at lw, hudson odoi at rw and abrahams and giroud.
Adding in havertz at 300k per week made no sense
theres too many players and none of the systems really helps with it.
Chillwell. very good, james doing well. Silva really helped. Mendy. good signing.
its all about getting the best out of the players now.
mount imo should be a really good no 8.
Its about the two midfield roles then. give gilmour a go imo.
That was the first goal and changed the whole game. Would probably have finished 0-0.
Oh right, so you’ve decided they shouldn’t have been awarded the penalty as well then, I see.
Are you saying that the match would have followed the same sequence of events irrespective of a goal being scored? No chance. Villa would have put even more men behind the ball instead of having to chase an equaliser. A penalty may or may not have occurred if the goal hadn’t been given. We’ll never know for sure but Villa have been denied for sure.
Talk about a one eyed perspective. It’s not like City would have continued to press hard for a goal had that one not counted or anything.
Newcastle could use the same one eyed argument given the early goal they conceded to the same rule at Villa only days later btw.
don't forget dean smith was sent off as well for calling the ref a clown bascially.
However, who knows what would have happened after this goal incident but we do know that villa were relatively comfortable up to that point in the game.
Of course we also know city scored two late goals in the fa cup and obviously villa are rubbish so who's to say city would not have gone on to win anyway?
Irrespective this is a classic case of a controversial moment on TV and the FA as usual reacting. the chances of it very happening again (as per the hawkeye goal last year) are very very low.
Depends what the guidance actually says mate. I find it incredible that they’ve felt the need to do anything.
Again I don’t se how villas goal wasn’t ruled out if he was offside? I thought I’d read he was behind the ball so was fine but if he wasn’t and was in an offside position, he made the defender play the ball hence he’s interfering with play.
if Watkins isn’t there, defender leaves it and goes for a throw/goal kick so how is that not offside?
I know rule says once played, but he only played the ball because Watkins is behind him. Ironically if he’s have left it and Watkins scored from first touch it would have been disallowed so surely common sense needs to be used here
They never got the lines out, but he looked marginally offside to me, and they said after the goal on commentary that VAR hadn’t looked at the offside because the defender made a deliberate attempt to play the ball.
This is what I mean about the supposed new ‘guidance’ what does it say? As they’re claiming it’s not altering the actual rule, but if they’re saying both of those goals would have been ruled out, then they are changing the rule.
If they want to lobby to change the rule speak to IFAB, all they’ve done here is make things even more confusing imo. I’m no fan of the rule btw, as I think in some circumstances it can be harsh, but it is what it is.
they always panic when there's a flap and someone shouts unfair.
if they just said nothing at this point nobody is talking about it but they take so long to publish their reactive rubbish they end up bring it all back up again.
Agree completely, it’s arse about face stuff. What that incident actually did, was clarify to many what the actual rule is. Instead of just leaving it there or possibly raising the issue with IFAB, they’ve patently chosen to add more subjective opinion to it and blur the edges.
You can virtually guarantee we’ll have similar incidents now, with the refs scratching their bollocks not knowing which way to go and the same happening at Stockley Park.
West Ham winning and we’re already 5th
Watching Newcastle Leeds and that Saint Maximan looks a right handful. Great player to have against packed defences, entertaining game as well