geordiesteve710

Surprised to see that at Hearts. Fwiw I'm not saying Liverpool definitely won't have one, nor that it won't be well observed (although I doubt it) just that it's another factor and if you're the PL making the decision, why risk it.

Come October they will just be able to crack on as normal without it seeming odd. I might be wrong of course, but I don't think they will try to have a minute's silence at Anfield for the Queen.

This is definitely a factor. It's also fair to say that other sports don't have the "Liverpool factor" to take into the equation. Would look odd to cancel 1 match and play the other 9 and this is a way of ducking the issue.

There is definitely a large part of the country that love to tell people what they should and shouldn't be doing at all times who are loving it. It's not even people not sharing the same sentiment- there are a lot of people who would have wanted to go to the game to show respects this weekend who have now been told they can't.

What are people supposed to do? Just sit around feeling miserable all weekend?

14 after a few goes That's addictive so I'm going to put it down now before it ruins my life.

I'm assuming this is a (quite horrific) attempt at a joke??

Wasn't aware of that one. Fair enough, happy to stand corrected.

There's definitely something to this. It's why the Leeds manager was sent off on Saturday but Klopp was allowed to strop to his heart's content on Wednesday. Marriner knew it wasn't worth the bother it would bring if he sent him to the stands. For this reason as well I'm not in favour of ref facing the media after games which is often suggested. In the post-game presser on Wednesday Howe was asked questions like "are your team time-wasting cheats?" Whereas the interview with Klopp pretty much went along the lines of "Jurgen, is there anything that you would like to bring to the viewers' attention" and he got a platform to play his victim card. I wouldn't trust this country's journalists to ask fair, impartial questions of referees. I do like the idea a few pages back of the ref releasing a public written statement to explain why and how any controversial decision has been reached. If the affected club then want to complain further then they will be able to clearly explain their grounds for doing so.

This thing about "normal contact" is bollocks as well. Willock was in the air and he's been pushed into the keeper. What's he done in between to mean his contact with the keeper was less "normal" than the push on him, turned his fucking jetboots on??

Even if that ref on Saturday was looking at the replay thinking "this is bollocks, I made the right decision" it would have been at the back of his mind that no referee in the PL had ever previously gone to the monitor and not overturned the original decision. That's got to add an additional level of pressure not wanting to be the first to do so and potentially undermining a senior colleague. Especially if it turns out you're wrong. Now that taboo has been broken I reckon we'll see more refs stand by the initial call.

It's mental isn't it. We score a 98th minute winner and I'm floating across to Rosies high on life to enjoy it. You could be forgiven for forgetting that these had actually won the game the tantrums they've all been throwing the last 24 hours. Or that for all they are playing the victim card, they actually got every decision going from the ref on the night. It's bizarre.

???

Most Liverpool fans live in Ireland or the Home Counties these days tbf.

Sounds like Blanco's Mrs is furious

We don't know what's gone on behind closed doors, if he's had a longstanding gentleman's agreement that he'd always be allowed to leave for a better opportunity so long as we had cover/weren't in the shit then fair enough. He seemed to have similar at Sparta which is why we got him for so little. If he's just had a tantrum I'd tell him he's staying personally. My concern is that it seemed they were giving Pope painkillers to get him through last night. What caused that and what will the impact be on him?

This won't be a popular opinion on here but I think VAR was used the right way for that offside decision last night. For me, it's there to correct the howlers rather than spending ages re-doing every decision to the millimetre. Which it is impossible to do without a perfect 90 degree angle anyway. There should be an element of umpires call to decisions like that - I'd have been fuming if the flag had stayed down and they had gone back and ruled it out on that evidence. If they're going to use it consistently like that going forward then great, but I suspect they won't. The added time was bullshit and probably the ref letting Klopp's and Liverpool's tantrums get into his head.

Aye, it's a little unfair to hold up a daft celebration at the end of a fractious game when the adrenalin is pumping through their systems in the wider context of incidents that they won't have been thinking of at that moment. Hopefully someone from LFC has a quiet word with them, points out how it might look and they change their celebration. But doesn't warrant any more comment than that.

You joke, but he looked like he was about to do himself some damage during the last 15 mins of that first half. Fucking calm down and work out what you can change yourself you daft bastard. Guardiola has the right idea. Calm, calculating, already working out how he's going to turn things around. And doesn't look like he's going to have a cardiac arrest any moment.

Always the victims...

As long as we've got a clause in place that means we can recall him the minute Pope gets a bad injury. Actually, you probably can't these days with having to name a 25-man squad in advance. So yeah, not a good deal for us imo.

Mowbray is a good bloke who won't demean himself by pissing about with FTM badges just to curry favour. They won't warm to him.

The stat which does tell a story is having over 50% of your shots classed as blocked (as opposed to on or off target.) Backs up the conclusion I reached with my bare eyes that a lot of our attacking players seem to lack conviction and often take 2 or 3 shots where 1 should do to set ourselves before shooting, giving the defence time to close us down. Area for improvement there imo.

Apparently the penalty wasn't given because it "wasn't sustained holding" which is a new one on me. Not quite as bad as the "explanation" after the Chelsea game last season, but it's still bollocks. Has anyone seen the phrase "sustained holding" in the laws or guidance on interpretation this season? If not it just seems like they're making up the rules after the event.

Definitely thick enough to be genuine mackems