Topic: VAR! Video Assistant Referee & Shite Referees in General

[rafathegaffa83]

I see the ludicrous version of VAR is on show in our game today.

Pathetic

Absolute joke. They had a player standing on the line and VAR is checking for offside FFS

[Dull Tools]

Absolute joke. They had a player standing on the line and VAR is checking for offside FFS

The offside rule is two players between a player and the goal. There was one.

How was the Mane penalty replay only shown once? Looked a stone wall penalty to me.

[RJH]

The offside rule is two players between a player and the goal. There was one.

How was the Mane penalty replay only shown once? Looked a stone wall penalty to me.

Yeah, that was odd to me.
The possible offside was replayed over and over, but the challenge I only saw one replay, and that not from the best angle or sloeed down

[red_Mark1980]

The offside rule is two players between a player and the goal. There was one.

How was the Mane penalty replay only shown once? Looked a stone wall penalty to me.

How was he offside in any context? Even for a check

[Welshred]

How was he offside in any context? Even for a check

They were checking to see if he was obstructing the view and actions of the player who was on the line. He was in an offside position just not interfering with play

[Crosby Nick]

If only a hockey rink was as big as a football pitch i'm sure the offside rule would be revisited.

Proper hockey. Similar side pitch. Not the padded nonsense.

Mental. Every defensive line would immediately have to retreat to permanently sitting on the edge of their own area.

You can't compare hockey with football.

Didn’t happen with hockey although your second point is fair. Easy to go aerial and get behind a defender in football compared to hockey.

[red_Mark1980]

They were checking to see if he was obstructing the view and actions of the player who was on the line. He was in an offside position just not interfering with play

It was bananas. There was nothing in it to suggest he was interfering. They apparently checked the first goal. Salah was behind the ball.

Beginning to think they don't actually know the rules.

Then again I have seen a centre back appeal for offside from a goal kick

[wampa1]

Then again I have seen a centre back appeal for offside from a goal kick

Or Luis Suarez appealing for handball when the goalie saved it.

[Welshred]

If Raphinha was behind the goal line then he is off the pitch and so Mane would have been offside. I guess they were checking to see if in fact Raphinha was behind the line or on it and to see if Mane was interfering with play. Don't know why they needed so many looks at it though.

Mane was in an offside position regardless of where Raphinha was. If he was off the pitch then he wouldn't have been with permission so would have been considered on the goal line from an offside point of view.

[Avens]

If Raphinha was behind the goal line then he is off the pitch and so Mane would have been offside. I guess they were checking to see if in fact Raphinha was behind the line or on it and to see if Mane was interfering with play. Don't know why they needed so many looks at it though.

Mane was in an offside position, whether Raphina was off the pitch or not. Offside requires two players between the attacker and the goal line and Mane was ahead of the GK.

That said, he absolutely wasn't interfering with play and it was bizarre that they even considered ruling it out. The Leeds defender ahead of Raphina blocked his view, who was never getting to it in any case.

[Fromola]

It was bananas. There was nothing in it to suggest he was interfering. They apparently checked the first goal. Salah was behind the ball.

Beginning to think they don't actually know the rules.

Then again I have seen a centre back appeal for offside from a goal kick

I don't mind it being quietly checked in the background, but anyone needing to look at either of the goals for more than one replay to see if it's offside is an idiot.

[red1977]

Ah, yes, true.

[ChrisLFCKOP]

If Raphinha was behind the goal line then he is off the pitch and so Mane would have been offside. I guess they were checking to see if in fact Raphinha was behind the line or on it and to see if Mane was interfering with play. Don't know why they needed so many looks at it though.

If Raphinha was behind goal line then he couldn't be interfering with play by block line of sight, it would have only been discounted if he had touched it I assume (which would also be mad as its a clear goal either way).

[red_Mark1980]

If Raphinha was behind the goal line then he is off the pitch and so Mane would have been offside. I guess they were checking to see if in fact Raphinha was behind the line or on it and to see if Mane was interfering with play. Don't know why they needed so many looks at it though.

Sorry but that's bollocks.

He was absolutely offside.
The one defender is used as it's assumed the goalkeeper is the last man.

Mane was stood behind the goal keeper. He's had not interaction. He makes the movement away from the ball.

Raphina position had nothing to do with it. Replace raphina with the Goalie. Is mane offside?

Clearly fucking not

[4pool]

If Raphinha was behind the goal line then he is off the pitch and so Mane would have been offside. I guess they were checking to see if in fact Raphinha was behind the line or on it and to see if Mane was interfering with play. Don't know why they needed so many looks at it though.

Not true.

The Laws of the game state if a player is behind the goal line, in the goal or not, the lino considers that player to be level with the goal line. Attacker or defender.

[TepidT2O]

For those questioning why the red wasn’t over turned….

[lamonti]

The reason they look at offsides over and over again is because they are deluded enough to believe that offsides are objective calls and fouls are subjective.

[red1977]

Sorry but that's bollocks.

He was absolutely offside.
The one defender is used as it's assumed the goalkeeper is the last man.

Mane was stood behind the goal keeper. He's had not interaction. He makes the movement away from the ball.

Raphina position had nothing to do with it. Replace raphina with the Goalie. Is mane offside?

Clearly fucking not

I have already acknowledged my mistake above!.

[4pool]

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s
permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the
purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team
has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If
the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when
the ball is next out of play.

[red_Mark1980]

Is anyone aside from Sky pundits defending the red?

You know by totally ignoring the rules?

[thejbs]

I imagine they were looking at the goal to see if Mane’s movement away from the goal pulled Rafinha out of position. That’s the only thing they can have been looking at.

[TepidT2O]

Is anyone aside from Sky pundits defending the red?

You know by totally ignoring the rules?

It’s blowing my mind.

It’s a straight red.  He leaves the ground with both feet at high speed.  As soon as you do that you have no control over your body.  That’s what caused the injury and it was his fault.

[lfc79]

Yep match of the day 2 pundits basically saying that he didn’t mean to injure him so should not be a red card

[Jshooters]

Yep match of the day 2 pundits basically saying that he didn’t mean to injure him so should not be a red card

None of them used the term reckless? Because I could jump into a tackle with no intention to injure a player but if both feet were off the ground I’d be out of control.

It’s not like these pundits are paid 6 figure salaries to offer expert opinion or anything…

[red_Mark1980]

Yep match of the day 2 pundits basically saying that he didn’t mean to injure him so should not be a red card

I really feel like they need the rules explaining to them in simple terms.

Intent doesn't matter, as tepid put it so eloquently once you jump like he did it's a red card. You don't even need to make contact with a player, if the referee deems it dangerous.

[Kekule]

I really feel like they need the rules explaining to them in simple terms.

Intent doesn't matter, as tepid put it so eloquently once you jump like he did it's a red card. You don't even need to make contact with a player, if the referee deems it dangerous.

If someone like Kane, Grealish or any Manchester United player gets injured in an accidental collision or is slightly nudged and turns their ankle they will wilfully misunderstand again and say “he should have been sent off as he injured him, like with the Harvey Elliot situation”.

[red_Mark1980]

If someone like Kane, Grealish or any Manchester United player gets injured in an accidental collision or is slightly nudged and turns their ankle they will wilfully misunderstand again and say “he should have been sent off as he injured him, like with the Harvey Elliot situation”.

I said to a friend. Imagine Neville's attitude if it had been on Ronny the ("alleged") rapist.

I'm sure he wouldn't have been nearly as concerned about the player who made a reckless attempt at the ball

[lamonti]

Reckless and excessive force are in the fucking laws: Pawson got to the right decision by virtue of seeing that Elliott's leg had been crushed the weight of a man flying through the air at full speed.

The underlying problem is that Pawson didn't think it was a foul let alone a card of any kind until he saw the injury. He thought that challenge, from behind, two feet off the ground was OK.

[lamonti]

The last time we played, there were many people saying the Chelsea player was within his rights to scoop the ball off the line with his hand, so I am not in the least bit fucking surprised.

[RyanBabel19]

For those questioning why the red wasn’t over turned….

Thanks, hadn't seen that angle and coupled with the rather graphic picture in the other thread it completely clears up how the injury happened

Very reckless and yet no mention of the fact he completely left the ground to make the challenge

[macmanamanaman]

Reckless and excessive force are in the fucking laws: Pawson got to the right decision by virtue of seeing that Elliott's leg had been crushed the weight of a man flying through the air at full speed.

The underlying problem is that Pawson didn't think it was a foul let alone a card of any kind until he saw the injury. He thought that challenge, from behind, two feet off the ground was OK.

So, the solution is clear, no?
To make the referees job easier, our players must get in the way of robust tackles and ensure their legs get snapped in half. Liverpool players are to blame for the referees not giving them enough free kicks, as they are not showing enough proof that the tackles are unfair.


- Mike

[dutchkop]

I imagine they were looking at the goal to see if Mane’s movement away from the goal pulled Rafinha out of position. That’s the only thing they can have been looking at.

he actually did pull Rafina away from where the shot was. However it was one that went our well (correctly so) as Mane was getting out of way of possible shot. so not interfering with play.  Keeper was not influenced which is probably the deciding factor.

If Rafina had stayed were he was he may have had a chance of stopping shot but he moved to his left following Mane

Iwas gutted for Thiago not to get his header (Offsides) as that was great attack and header.

Mane was also in offside position for Salah goal (who was not offsides).

[dutchkop]

Thanks, hadn't seen that angle and coupled with the rather graphic picture in the other thread it completely clears up how the injury happened

Very reckless and yet no mention of the fact he completely left the ground to make the challenge

those screen shots and angle show how the defender has no control of his body, feet and just lunges into space to stop Harvey.

I do thiink Prem refs need to reconsider how to keep the flow and stop people diving & falling over when there is minimal contact. But more importantly they need to cut  out the rough stuff and over the top tackling and physical stuff.

There was a moment when Mo got smacked in the upper chest/throat area 0 he stayed on his feet, if that had been in Spain, Germany or Italy they would have collapsed like a pack of cards

[dutchkop]

For those questioning why the red wasn’t over turned….

thankfully the tackle and injury were not shown over and over in slow motion.

[BoRed]

I do thiink Prem refs need to reconsider how to keep the flow

Not having a go at you, but Klopp was right last night in saying that "letting the game flow" is a completely meaningless phrase. The ref's job is to stop play if there's a foul and to wave play on if there's no foul. The rules of the game determine what is a foul and what is not. If you instruct the refs to "let the game flow", you're essentially instructing them to ignore fouls. And since there are no clear rules on which fouls are to be ignored, you get inconsistency. And then players start thinking some fouls are worth the risk because there's a chance they will be ignored. And then (other) players end up injured.

If they want the game to flow, they should discourage fouling by dishing out proper punishments, rather than encourage fouling by waving play on.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Not having a go at you, but Klopp was right last night in saying that "letting the game flow" is a completely meaningless phrase. The ref's job is to stop play if there's a foul and to wave play on if there's no foul. The rules of the game determine what is a foul and what is not. If you instruct the refs to "let the game flow", you're essentially instructing them to ignore fouls. And since there are no clear rules on which fouls are to be ignored, you get inconsistency. And then players start thinking some fouls are worth the risk because there's a chance they will be ignored. And then (other) players end up injured.

If they want the game to flow, they should discourage fouling by dishing out proper punishments, rather than encourage fouling by waving play on.

Of course he's right. This whole thing is becoming last years VAR. Which naively I thought had been sorted until that ridiculous check for Fabinho's goal.
Tactics evolve as do counter tactics and I've long thought that the counter to our press was for the opposition to fall under no pressure. So in theory this should help us?

Of course not. On the evidence of this season we still get a foul against when we breath on the opposition, but the kicker is that the opposition are virtually empowered to fly into dangerous tackles.

I said last night that the Burnley game indirectly led to the Elliot's injury. Until refs start actually applying the laws and dickehead managers and pundits are allowed to get away with ignorance of the laws and outright hypocrisy we will have the current mess.

Endangering an opponent, use of excessive force, reckless play, being out of control are all covered by the laws. So why the fuck are challenges that tick these boxes waived away by refs and then explained away by pundits as being part of "letting the game flow"

It's bullshit and is making the game as unwatchable as last seasons self inflicted farce - which on the evidence of yesterday has still not gone away.

[Kekule]

Of course he's right. This whole thing is becoming last years VAR. Which naively I thought had been sorted until that ridiculous check for Fabinho's goal.
Tactics evolve as do counter tactics and I've long thought that the counter to our press was for the opposition to fall under no pressure. So in theory this should help us?

Of course not. On the evidence of this season we still get a foul against when we breath on the opposition, but the kicker is that the opposition are virtually empowered to fly into dangerous tackles.

I said last night that the Burnley game indirectly led to the Elliot's injury. Until refs start actually applying the laws and dickehead managers and pundits are allowed to get away with ignorance of the laws and outright hypocrisy we will have the current mess.

Endangering an opponent, use of excessive force, reckless play, being out of control are all covered by the laws. So why the fuck are challenges that tick these boxes waived away by refs and then explained away by pundits as being part of "letting the game flow"

It's bullshit and is making the game as unwatchable as last seasons self inflicted farce - which on the evidence of yesterday has still not gone away.

Garth Crooks take on it in his weekly column of shite?  “That’s football, I’m afraid”. 

In the last 2 or 3 years we’ve had Gomez break his leg at Burnley,  just “an accident” , Van Dijk and Thiago out for months at Goodison, but the Everton players “didn’t mean it”, Elliot out for months “innocuous, that’s just football”.

I can’t help but think that if one of a handful of other clubs had, in recent seasons, lost two very promising young English players, arguably the best player in his position in Europe, and a newly signed superstar that everyone was excited to see to nasty tackles there would be a slightly different conversation being had.

It might just be because they make claims about our squad depth and want to be seen to be correct.  So they’re happy for players to severely injured because then they can continue to be paid for parroting the same line instead of having to think up something more original.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Garth Crooks take on it in his weekly column of shite?  “That’s football, I’m afraid”. 

In the last 2 or 3 years we’ve had Gomez break his leg at Burnley,  just “an accident” , Van Dijk and Thiago out for months at Goodison, but the Everton players “didn’t mean it”, Elliot out for months “innocuous, that’s just football”.

I can’t help but think that if one of a handful of other clubs had, in recent seasons, lost two very promising young English players, arguably the best player in his position in Europe, and a newly signed superstar that everyone was excited to see to nasty tackles there would be a slightly different conversation being had.

It might just be because they make claims about our squad depth and want to be seen to be correct.  So they’re happy for players to severely injured because then they can continue to be paid for parroting the same line instead of having to think up something more original.

I cannot stomach mainstream football coverage and you've given another good example why.

I'd like to see some broader stats on how many long term injuries from dangerous tackles other clubs have had, but that's 3 for us in 12 months.

"That's football" and "he didn't men to injure him" are not good enough from supposed football professionals.

When there's laws specifically written to punish dangerous play, then "he didn't mean it" just doesn't wash I'm afraid. The very acts of tackling from behind, leaving the ground, lunging and scissoring legs around an opponent mean the tackler isn't in full control. Which means that irrespective of intent to injure, his actions have significantly increased the risk of injury.

No doubt on the rare occasion that one of our players makes a poor tackle, we'll have the full force of the commentariat telling us how it should be a red because he endangered an opponent and under the laws it's a red. Wait a minute, that happened with Mane v City didn't it.

Just fucking judge us by the same standards you shower of hypocritical wankers.

[red_Mark1980]

Dale Johnsons thread will make for some interesting comments this week.

He's argued (perfectly normally) why it's a red card.

He's also somewhat oddly suggested mane would have been deemed interfering with play had the player behind him been the goalie.

Especially when there is a Leeds player also in the way.

[liverbnz]

Mane was offside. And I agree with Dale to be honest. Mane moved to his left which prompted Raphina to react and do the same. If Mane isn’t there, the ball likely gets cleared off the line.