KingArthur

It was. Just looked it up. Was nowhere near over the line.

Was my man of the match today alongside Wolte.

If this is regarding to Schär v Foden: Now you are changing your argument. But again you are trying to be clever and you are not. Ball was in play when Schär hit Foden.

I can wait. But already Schär's foul couple from weeks ago was stated not to be foul because of some made up rule. But this is pointless.

Yes, because they often are quite moronic. Liverpool have fans making stats about where the refs are from and how refs from these and those cities are not giving them decisions. It has become absurd.

Well, of course it has to be in your opinion? Because you say that it is a stonewall penalty, so when our defender does that it is a penalty by your logic. Sad thing is, that when that happens you will forget about this and make a reason why it then is not a penalty. That is how football fans work. I have given up whining about referees a long ago.

Lol what? I said no penalty, so when Burn tackles like that, I say that not a penalty.

Next time Burn tackles like that, I defend to the end. And you will be saying "lucky it wasn't a penalty". If you say that is stonewall penalty, then it is also when our players makes that tackle of course.

Schär stopped goalkeeper taking a quick throw, Chelsea player was booked for exactly same thing 2nd half. But yea, nevermind. I just lost my mind when people say refs are to blame.

I think Bruno was so eager to win that he was all over the place. Then when we lost it there were too much space everywhere.

And for example Messi at World Cup. Headed past the goal and GK clattered him -> penalty.

Richarlison. What a player and what an asshole

It really doesnt. There have been a lot of penalties given after the shot was taken already. A foul is a foul shot or not. Difference is if for example the collision is not avoidable.

There were also decisions in our favour. Like Schär and Hall not getting clear yellow cards first half. People always only remember the decisions that went against them, that is my whole point.

So next time when Burn makes that tackle, and penalty is not given, you are fine with it? Right call? That is when I call your bullshit.

I think his movement in the box was a lot better today.

He slipped. Without that most likely no problem dealing with that.

Looked bad, but there was not a lot of force.

You just dont get it. If you say that is penalty, then you have to say the same when it is Dan Burn making that tackle. I will make sure that you will when that happens.

Taking a shot does not mean you can be clattered after that man you make no sense

Well, on the back means automatic penalty. I give up, but will be back when our CB makes that same tackle. Everyone will be saying clear pen then of course…

Yes, he didnt have intention to play the ball. He tackled Gordon off it.

His shoulder on Gordon’s shoulder. A bit later and it would be on AG’s back

The reason why it wasnt a penalty was that VAR decided there was not enough contact to clear and obvious error. You agree?

So Schär doesnt play the ball? So clear pen then? You cant tackle a guy in the box without touching the ball right? Why Schär's tackle, that only hits the players ankles is fine, but James' is a foul? You make no sense mate.