Weekend's Football

[Cruyff Turn]

Some game, Liverpool hammered them, pressed them to death and Man City never had the time to produce, they were under immense pressure.

 

VAR proven as utter shite. Get rid of it. 

 

Yes, Trent handballed it, However had that goal been chopped off 5 or 6 phases later to give that handball and pen to City, it would make a mockery of the game.

 

Same as yesterday’s VAR decision when Sheff Utd were cheated out of a goal which was scored 2 or 3 phases after the boys toenail was deemed offside. 

 

Get VAR to ****. 

[benny]

Var is as inconsistent as refs.

Cracking game though.

Not the result I was wanting but City played well.

 

 

[The Internet]

36 minutes ago, RobboM said:

Daft laddie question but bear with me.

On that first goal there was a Manchester City handball immediately prior to the Liverpool handball. Given that there has been a rule change this season to say that ANY attacking handball (regardless of intent or body shape or distance from the ball when it is kicked) leading to a goal will mean that goal is disallowed my question would be Does the same rule apply to penalties?

If it does then maybe the referee saw both hand balls and effectively the first one made the second one irrelevant so play on.
If he decided it was a penalty and Manchester City did score then the original hand ball would come into play and the penalty goal disallowed. Sounds nuts but it is logically consistent with the hand ball change above. If they missed the penalty then the (Man City) hand ball would be moot.
 

 

That's exactly what happened and was apparent immediately. No idea why folk are still thinking some great injustice has taken place.

[Maroon Sailor]

17 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

That's exactly what happened and was apparent immediately. No idea why folk are still thinking some great injustice has taken place.

 

It would only be handball if it lead to a goal. It didn't it lead to a stonewall penalty.

[CJGJ]

7 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

That's exactly what happened and was apparent immediately. No idea why folk are still thinking some great injustice has taken place.

People will never know if City would have gone on to win and even if it was given who's to say it would have been scored

 

Again who's to know  if Liverpool would not have gone on to win anyway

 

It is football and you get some and you don't..Liverpool had one ruled out against Manchester United a couple of weeks ago and dropped their only points of the season so far so it happens

 

It is a 4 way chase in England for the title and Liverpool are in front but there are only 12 matches played and December with Liverpools fixture backlog will be vital...in that month just before Christmas Leicester play Manchester City and Liverpool in the same week...you've also got Mancheater City v Chelsea later this month after the international break

[Mikey1874]

Man City play Chelsea next.

[Debut 4]

Thought Man City looked intimidated. Liverpool have footballs X factor just now.

 

A blip may come but it won’t last long. I think Man City will drop far more points along the way and see Liverpool pull away around the start of April with a bit to spare. 

[Maroon Sailor]

 

 

Safe to say Liverpool got away with one there !

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Maroon Sailor

[Unknown user]

Just as many controversies with VAR as without, so is it really worth the time, effort and money up here?

[The Old Tolbooth]

I'm wondering if Pep Guardiola is a Celtic fan, because he's amazing at playing the victim card, he really is an odious little runt of a man! 

 

No mention of the handball by Silva leading up to the handball by Trent? Didn't think so... 

 

Liverpool didn't even play that well today and still tucked City away, a pleasing afternoon 😁

 

 

 

 

[Debut 4]

5 minutes ago, The Old Tolbooth said:

I'm wondering if Pep Guardiola is a Celtic fan, because he's amazing at playing the victim card, he really is an odious little runt of a man! 

 

No mention of the handball by Silva leading up to the handball by Trent? Didn't think so... 

 

Liverpool didn't even play that well today and still tucked City away, a pleasing afternoon 😁

 

 

 

 

And has come away with the being proud of his team pish. No one should be a good loser but at least have a bit humility. You can sense the envy and bitterness throughout his comments. 

 

Guys too used to having it easy for too long never deal with defeat how they should. Reminds me of Wenger.  

[The Old Tolbooth]

8 minutes ago, Debut 4 said:

And has come away with the being proud of his team pish. No one should be a good loser but at least have a bit humility. You can sense the envy and bitterness throughout his comments. 

 

Guys too used to having it easy for too long never deal with defeat how they should. Reminds me of Wenger.  

 

Bang on the cash mate, his hatred of Liverpool shines through, it's actually hilarious. 

[CJGJ]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/liverpool-fans-give-man-city-20854442

 

Nice warm welcome for the City coach..no bottles this year

[babywhalo]

2 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

It would only be handball if it lead to a goal. It didn't it lead to a stonewall penalty.

You're wrong there. It's also handball if it leads to a goalscoring opportunity, doesn't actually have to be a goal. 

[Morgan]

1 hour ago, The Old Tolbooth said:

I'm wondering if Pep Guardiola is a Celtic fan, because he's amazing at playing the victim card, he really is an odious little runt of a man! 

 

No mention of the handball by Silva leading up to the handball by Trent? Didn't think so... 

 

Liverpool didn't even play that well today and still tucked City away, a pleasing afternoon 😁

 

 

 

 

Pep is a smug, arrogant prick.

 

If things aren’t going exactly his way, all other factors are to blame.

[Maroon Sailor]

3 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

You're wrong there. It's also handball if it leads to a goalscoring opportunity, doesn't actually have to be a goal. 

 

How come ?

 

That wouldn't get reviewed if someone blasted it over the bar when clean through off a handball

[babywhalo]

2 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

How come ?

 

That wouldn't get reviewed if someone blasted it over the bar when clean through off a handball

It would be a handball if it cones off an attackers arm and he then creates a goal scoring opportunity (like a penalty for example)

[ArcticJambo]

No danger Oliver saw Silva play the ball with his arm but he did see TAA stop the ball with his arm. hmmm.

Edited November 10, 2019 by ArcticJambo

[Maroon Sailor]

11 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

It would be a handball if it cones off an attackers arm and he then creates a goal scoring opportunity (like a penalty for example)

 

Well that question was posted earlier on in this thread. 

 

That's a different scenario but like saying the penalty will definitely be scored. Hence the review.

 

 

 

[babywhalo]

2 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

Well that question was posted earlier on in this thread. 

 

That's a different scenario but like saying the penalty will definitely be scored. Hence the review.

 

 

 

I'm slightly confused by your point. A penalty is a goalscoring opportunity, whether it's scored or not.

[babywhalo]

4 hours ago, RobboM said:

Daft laddie question but bear with me.

On that first goal there was a Manchester City handball immediately prior to the Liverpool handball. Given that there has been a rule change this season to say that ANY attacking handball (regardless of intent or body shape or distance from the ball when it is kicked) leading to a goal will mean that goal is disallowed my question would be Does the same rule apply to penalties?

If it does then maybe the referee saw both hand balls and effectively the first one made the second one irrelevant so play on.
If he decided it was a penalty and Manchester City did score then the original hand ball would come into play and the penalty goal disallowed. Sounds nuts but it is logically consistent with the hand ball change above. If they missed the penalty then the (Man City) hand ball would be moot.
 

Good question and to answer it, any handball leading to a goal or goalscoring opportunity (like a penalty) would result in a free kick.

 

So in the instance today, it should have been a free kick to Liverpool for handball by Silva

[Maroon Sailor]

9 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

I'm slightly confused by your point. A penalty is a goalscoring opportunity, whether it's scored or not.

 

So is a player clean through off a handball who blasts it over the bar with only the keeper to beat.

 

They wouldn't give handball for that because he didn't score so VAR wouldn't have bothered to review it.

 

6 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

Good question and to answer it, any handball leading to a goal or goalscoring opportunity (like a penalty) would result in a free kick.

 

So in the instance today, it should have been a free kick to Liverpool for handball by Silva

 

VAR would have got involved if it fell to a City player and he scored from it not if he put it wide from a goal scoring opportunity 

 

Goal kick to Liverpool would have been awarded 

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Maroon Sailor

[Maroon Sailor]

End of the day the red scouse won, Pep got the hump and VAR is coming up with more questions than answers

[babywhalo]

7 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

So is a player clean through off a handball who blasts it over the bar with only the keeper to beat.

 

They wouldn't give handball for that because he didn't score so VAR wouldn't have bothered to review it.

 

 

VAR would have got involved if it fell to a City player and he scored from it not if he put it wide from a goal scoring opportunity 

 

Goal kick to Liverpool would have been awarded 

 

I'm slightly confused as to what you're saying, let's just agree to differ.

 

However, your original point is that Silvas handball "would only be a handball if it lead to the goal". That is factually incorrect. That's the only point I'm trying to make

[Maroon Sailor]

2 minutes ago, babywhalo said:

I'm slightly confused as to what you're saying, let's just agree to differ.

 

However, your original point is that Silvas handball "would only be a handball if it lead to the goal". That is factually incorrect. That's the only point I'm trying to make

 

I'm saying the VAR system wouldn't have got involved if it didn't lead to a goal.

[babywhalo]

3 minutes ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

I'm saying the VAR system wouldn't have got involved if it didn't lead to a goal.

You're an interesting poster MS, although I do get slightly confused by some of the tangents you run down...

[Nelly Terraces]

Re the pen decision in todays game - not a fan of either side so being purely objective - wouldn't Liverpool have had cause to moan if a penalty had been awarded seeing how the ball came off a City players arm in the lead up to it?

Edited November 10, 2019 by Nelly Terraces

[systemx]

This weekend's coupon buster

Dunipace 1 Bonnyrigg Rose 0

BTW weren't Alexander Arnold and Robertson just sublime?

[kila]

8 hours ago, babywhalo said:

You're an interesting poster MS, although I do get slightly confused by some of the tangents you run down...

It makes sense to me

[Mikey1874]

10 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

End of the day the red scouse won, Pep got the hump and VAR is coming up with more questions than answers

 

Chelsea and Leicester have done very well. Stories of the season after Liverpool's remarkable league form. 

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, systemx said:

This weekend's coupon buster

Dunipace 1 Bonnyrigg Rose 0

BTW weren't Alexander Arnold and Robertson just sublime?

 

Local game this Friday - The Spartans v Bonnyrigg. 

[Jambo, Goodbye]

One thing to note,  both players had their arms slightly raised as they were both stopping from a sprint,  their arms were still judged to be in natural places. 

 

Trent's arm was perfectly natural where it was because he was trying to stop/ slow down. 

 

Rules state if the arms are in an unnatural place, then it will be a handball. It doesn't say they need to be down by one's side. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Jambo, Goodbye

[The Old Tolbooth]

15 hours ago, RobboM said:

Daft laddie question but bear with me.

On that first goal there was a Manchester City handball immediately prior to the Liverpool handball. Given that there has been a rule change this season to say that ANY attacking handball (regardless of intent or body shape or distance from the ball when it is kicked) leading to a goal will mean that goal is disallowed my question would be Does the same rule apply to penalties?

If it does then maybe the referee saw both hand balls and effectively the first one made the second one irrelevant so play on.
If he decided it was a penalty and Manchester City did score then the original hand ball would come into play and the penalty goal disallowed. Sounds nuts but it is logically consistent with the hand ball change above. If they missed the penalty then the (Man City) hand ball would be moot.
 

 

That's exactly the reason why it wasn't reviewed, there was even an ex referee (Bobby Madely) who confirmed this as the reason after the game. The new rules are so confusing it's unreal, but on this occasion they benefit Liverpool next week they could easily go against Liverpool like it did at Old Trafford. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

16 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

It would only be handball if it lead to a goal. It didn't it lead to a stonewall penalty.

 

Don't forget it's also not a free kick if the ball is deflected on to the hand by an opposing player or by the head, knee foot or whatever of the player. 

[c9crew]

16 hours ago, Maroon Sailor said:

 

 

Safe to say Liverpool got away with one there !

 

 It was discussed on Match of the Day 2 after they spoke to the authorities  ................ If Trent's handball was given, VAR would have then looked at the previous handball from Silva and given a free kick to Liverpool.

 

So Liverpool didn't get away with the penalty. They did however score a goal when they should have actually been getting a free kick in their own box. 

[Taffin]

3 hours ago, Jambo, Goodbye said:

One thing to note,  both players had their arms slightly raised as they were both stopping from a sprint,  their arms were still judged to be in natural places. 

 

Trent's arm was perfectly natural where it was because he was trying to stop/ slow down. 

 

Rules state if the arms are in an unnatural place, then it will be a handball. It doesn't say they need to be down by one's side. 

 

I thought it said if you are making your body unnaturally bigger rather than if your hand is in a natural/unnatural place. Without your arm coming off, any position you out your hand is natural but putting your arms out is making your body/silhouette bigger. Unnaturally so? Probably not.

 

Just highlights how stupid the handball rules are.

[RobboM]

I think part of the problem is that a really trivial hand ball offence is being punished with a serious penalty (pun intended 🙂 ) Maybe one answer is to downgrade the handball to an indirect free kick unless the referee deems it a serious offence?

Edited November 11, 2019 by RobboM

[benny]

3 hours ago, c9crew said:

 It was discussed on Match of the Day 2 after they spoke to the authorities  ................ If Trent's handball was given, VAR would have then looked at the previous handball from Silva and given a free kick to Liverpool.

 

So Liverpool didn't get away with the penalty. They did however score a goal when they should have actually been getting a free kick in their own box. 

The ref should have noticed it was a clear penalty.

Then the game would have been stopped.

Then var would have been used to make a decision.Every chance it would have been overruled and a free kick for Liverpool.

The game not stopping because the ref missed a clear handball in front of him is the problem.

[Maroon Sailor]

21 minutes ago, benny said:

The ref should have noticed it was a clear penalty.

Then the game would have been stopped.

Then var would have been used to make a decision.Every chance it would have been overruled and a free kick for Liverpool.

The game not stopping because the ref missed a clear handball in front of him is the problem.

 

Absolutely 

 

Liverpool actually benefited from a handball from one of their players as it was used in the lead up to their goal

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Maroon Sailor

[Maroon Sailor]

 

[Jambo, Goodbye]

8 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

I thought it said if you are making your body unnaturally bigger rather than if your hand is in a natural/unnatural place. Without your arm coming off, any position you out your hand is natural but putting your arms out is making your body/silhouette bigger. Unnaturally so? Probably not.

 

Just highlights how stupid the handball rules are.

 

You're right, It's not very clear. But basically Trent wasn't making his body unnaturally bigger. 

 

'Unnaturally' being the key word. So I think that's why the ref didn't deem that,  plus the handball near the end of the game as penalties.  

[Jambo, Goodbye]

Really enjoyed this tactical analysis video on YouTube, worth a wee watch if you're into that side of things.