The Liverpool Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve*
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 44K
  • Views Views 3M
Scouseinthehouse said:
For such a quality, entertaining side they were shamefully like an old school snide Italian outfit yesterday.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you would of been more complimentary had the result gone your way.

But for what it's worth, I thought Spurs deserved a point, maybe more.
 
Yeah, because that would have made their shithouse approach right if they'd lost the game.

Stellar set of standards you have there z.
 
iamauser said:
Is this seriously the rule? Again, whats top stop people exploiting this and just having a player in the box and smashing it long in the hope of getting a deflection?

If this is genuinely the rule, its completely stupid. If its a deflection, it should still be offside.
Click to expand...

I think the argument here is that it doesn't actually count as a deflection. It counts as a very ****** back pass, as in, he makes an attempt to play the ball and just hits it wrong, and as a result he plays Kane on-side. Random deflection sending the ball to player in offside position would still be offside I think.
 
Tyton said:
I think the argument here is that it doesn't actually count as a deflection. It counts as a very ****** back pass, as in, he makes an attempt to play the ball and just hits it wrong, and as a result he plays Kane on-side. Random deflection sending the ball to player in offside position would still be offside I think.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Its the deliberate nature that plays him on, accidental and its offside.
 
Tyton said:
I think the argument here is that it doesn't actually count as a deflection. It counts as a very ****** back pass, as in, he makes an attempt to play the ball and just hits it wrong, and as a result he plays Kane on-side. Random deflection sending the ball to player in offside position would still be offside I think.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear if both current senior and ex-referee's can't agree on that the law is seriously flawed and needs definitively wording.
 
It's a sign of the state football is in right now when fans are talking about match officials yet again and not the game! FFS!:@
 
Oh definitely the rules aren't perfectly clear here and it was a bit of uncharted territory. But ultimately I think they made a decision that makes most sense.
 
KentClark said:
It's a sign of the state football is in right now when fans are talking about match officials yet again and not the game! FFS!:@
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's a sign of the need for fans to be outraged these days. A lot of things needed to go wrong for Liverpool to be in that position. VVD should never have let the ball get that far. It ignores the fact that Spurs were well worth their point too
 
Mike. said:
Or maybe it's a sign of the need for fans to be outraged these days. A lot of things needed to go wrong for Liverpool to be in that position. VVD should never have let the ball get that far. It ignores the fact that Spurs were well worth their point too
Click to expand...

Moss again, just wont let Liverpool boot anyone nowadays. Terrible :p
 
And now the predictable, B/S PR machine to cover both the arses of their incompetent members and themselves is underway from the body that appoints referee's:

DVSc5rRW0AACrbM.jpg:large


Basically saying 'Hi. I'm Jon Moss. When I said TV I meant I didn't have a ******* clue what I was doing Anfield. I flat out lied that I never seen the incident yesterday as I now remember I did. But it was just a L'pool player and I don't remember which one. But yer know? No biggie right?'

Incompetence of the highest level and complete and utter fabrication to try sweep it under the carpet. In effect condoning official's making decisons on 'a hunch.' With absolutely NO mention of the second massive F up that cost a club 2 vital points and potentially a **** load of revenue.

I guess we should expect the same of the Tottenham players attempts to blatantly deceive the match officials too? After all, how could we possibly make an example of a National treasure like Harry Kane?

Couldn't stink anymore if it came wrapped in a sewage pipe.
 
He's actually right though. The only issue is the TV use, because the refs actually want VAR
 
We don't have VAR. He knows we don't have VAR. So he's actually just an incompetent official who didn't have a F-ing clue what was going on, along with his lino, and made a crucial, and potentially VERY costly decision (regardless of the outcome of the first penalty), that they should be 100% clear on, on a hunch.

It's nottin' shy of a disgrace.
 
Worse decisions have happened. Demanding people get fired is a completely hysterical decision.
 
Scouse has a point though. The way referring controversies are handled on a official level, reminds me a lot of medical malpractice lawsuits. A surgeon could mistakenly do forehead removal instead of foreskin removal, and 99 times out of a 100 his colleagues and medical boards will still find ways to defend him.

Pretty much the same **** here, we have them recorded on live tv making a decision in a way they're not allowed to, and all the officials are acting as if it didn't happen.

And before someone says they used TV to make a correct decision so it's not a problem. It's a huge ******* problem because refs shouldn't arbitrarily decide when to use TV and when not to. It opens the door for massive corruption. Why consult the TV for Spurs call and not for some uncertain calls Pool had? Maybe he wanted to make a good decision, or maybe he had money on 2-2.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top