The Butcher Posted Sunday at 09:28 Share Posted Sunday at 09:28 3 minutes ago, El Prontonise said: I don't think you get how bad infrastructure is over here when there's any weather. Absolutely incredible. It's the same every year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Prontonise Posted Sunday at 09:28 Share Posted Sunday at 09:28 Just now, The Butcher said: Absolutely incredible. It's the same every year It's embarrassing, I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Sunday at 09:32 Share Posted Sunday at 09:32 Never forgive, never forget those Beasts from the Boro calling our game off in 2003 for snow when they had about 10 players out. If we’d won that we’d have been right in the mix. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted Sunday at 09:33 Share Posted Sunday at 09:33 5 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Meeting again at 12 for a final decision. What about all the Moan U fans coming up from the South who need to set off early? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Prontonise Posted Sunday at 09:34 Share Posted Sunday at 09:34 Just now, mouldy_uk said: What about all the Moan U fans coming up from the South who need to set off early? It's more likely all the Irish Liverpool and Man Utd fans can't get over since Manchester and Liverpool airports are shut. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groundhog63 Posted Sunday at 09:36 Share Posted Sunday at 09:36 7 minutes ago, BeloEmre said: You can’t call of a fotball match because of this ffs 🤣 Street in Liverpool named after me? Nice. Fitting it's got a bombed out church as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted Sunday at 09:38 Share Posted Sunday at 09:38 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fak Posted Sunday at 10:04 Share Posted Sunday at 10:04 25 minutes ago, mouldy_uk said: hahaha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted Sunday at 10:13 Share Posted Sunday at 10:13 (edited) 1 hour ago, El Prontonise said: Just seen that Brighton penalty. Jesus Christ, football is gone as a physical sport. I saw a clip where someone clicked through frame by frame and Saliba definitely caught him late after Pedro had played the ball at which point I don't see how it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch, or any other part of the body and its not even questioned imo Edited Sunday at 10:14 by Hhtoon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joelinton7 Posted Sunday at 10:15 Share Posted Sunday at 10:15 47 minutes ago, Sibierski said: Big L for Prem if they lose a game to some snow, and it’s got to be squeezed in some mid week slot. It’s not really the Prem though. It’s Liverpool City Council. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Prontonise Posted Sunday at 10:16 Share Posted Sunday at 10:16 Just now, Hhtoon said: I saw a clip where someone clicked through frame by frame and Saliba definitely caught him late after Pedro had played the ball at which point I don't see how it's not a foul. Anywhere else on the pitch, or any other part of the body and its not even questioned imo Frame by frame? Not enough for that. Football is played at normal speed not in freeze frames, you can make any challenge look late by slowing it down., there's always going to be collisions etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christ Posted Sunday at 10:23 Share Posted Sunday at 10:23 4 minutes ago, El Prontonise said: Frame by frame? Not enough for that. Football is played at normal speed not in freeze frames, you can make any challenge look late by slowing it down., there's always going to be collisions etc. Long held the belief that VAR should only be able to judge incidents in real time rather than in slow mo. Everything looks suspect as fuck when you take it down to an unnatural speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted Sunday at 10:26 Share Posted Sunday at 10:26 2 minutes ago, El Prontonise said: Frame by frame? Not enough for that. Football is played at normal speed not in freeze frames, you can make any challenge look late by slowing it down., there's always going to be collisions etc. Welcome to football post VAR im afraid. Besides, the ref deemed it late in real time speed and and then VAR using freeze frames. It WAS late. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted Sunday at 10:27 Share Posted Sunday at 10:27 50 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said: Street in Liverpool named after me? Nice. Fitting it's got a bombed out church as well Had a superb dirty pizza joint there when I was in uni. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted Sunday at 10:29 Share Posted Sunday at 10:29 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted Sunday at 10:31 Share Posted Sunday at 10:31 6 minutes ago, christ said: Long held the belief that VAR should only be able to judge incidents in real time rather than in slow mo. Everything looks suspect as fuck when you take it down to an unnatural speed. I don't disagree tbf but the ref did call it as a pen in real time and he wasn't wrong in this instance. So not entirely sure why there is so much furore about it...not like VAR overturned a wrong call Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groundhog63 Posted Sunday at 10:33 Share Posted Sunday at 10:33 3 minutes ago, joeyt said: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted Sunday at 10:51 Share Posted Sunday at 10:51 15 hours ago, 54 said: What essentially happened there was Pedro took the ball past Saliba, and Saliba's challenge was late and he caught him. If that description was on the floor, it's 100% a penalty, it should be the same if its in the air. It 100% a penalty. 15 hours ago, healthyaddiction said: Why is the intention of the player of any matter? Most fouls are unintentional. João Pedro got to the ball first, Saliba misses the ball and headbutts him. If that was their feet instead of their heads, João Pedro nipa in ahead of Saliba and nicks the ball past him and then Saliba follows through and kicks João Pedro in the legs, is that a foul? Of course. Why's it different just because it's his head? Saliba makes contact with the ball though. Had Saliba not made any contact with the ball then I'd agree with you but he does. Horrible decision IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted Sunday at 10:59 Share Posted Sunday at 10:59 4 minutes ago, Shak said: Saliba makes contact with the ball though. Had Saliba not made any contact with the ball then I'd agree with you but he does. Horrible decision IMO. Yeah, but in real time, the ref clearly doesn't see that very very slight touch from Saliba, and I don't think there is enough wrong with it to overrule the decision from VAR's point of view. Even with that little touch, its the correct decision imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Edgar Posted Sunday at 11:02 Share Posted Sunday at 11:02 (edited) Saliba didn't make contact with the ball from his initial action. He was beaten to the ball and then made contact with the Brighton player. The ball glancing off his head as a result of the Brighton player winning the header is incidental. Saliba did not intend for that with his action, but his action did result in the contact because he was late. Edited Sunday at 11:03 by David Edgar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shak Posted Sunday at 11:12 Share Posted Sunday at 11:12 7 minutes ago, 54 said: Yeah, but in real time, the ref clearly doesn't see that very very slight touch from Saliba, and I don't think there is enough wrong with it to overrule the decision from VAR's point of view. Even with that little touch, its the correct decision imo. 5 minutes ago, David Edgar said: Saliba didn't make contact with the ball from his initial action. He was beaten to the ball and then made contact with the Brighton player. The ball glancing off his head as a result of the Brighton player winning the header is incidental. Saliba did not intend for that with his action, but his action did result in the contact because he was late. Imagine it was with the feet though. Striker and defender go for the ball, striker gets there first and tries to nick the ball towards goal. However, just after the striker makes contact the defender gets his foot on the ball too before he makes contact with the striker. That's not a foul and neither was this, if you make contact with the ball before you make contact with the player you're considered to have won the ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted Sunday at 11:13 Share Posted Sunday at 11:13 (edited) Just because you make some contact with the ball doesn't mean it's not a foul, we see that all the time. "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: (...) Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off" - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct So presumably the ref judged his challenge was careless: he was looking at the guy throughout and stuck his head in and made contact with his head. I don't know whether I'd have given a penalty or not as I haven't seen it at full speed and things do look worse in slow motion, but far less contact with feet is often given as a foul. Edited Sunday at 11:14 by Checko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Prontonise Posted Sunday at 11:22 Share Posted Sunday at 11:22 8 minutes ago, Checko said: Just because you make some contact with the ball doesn't mean it's not a foul, we see that all the time. "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: (...) Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off" - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct So presumably the ref judged his challenge was careless: he was looking at the guy throughout and stuck his head in and made contact with his head. I don't know whether I'd have given a penalty or not as I haven't seen it at full speed and things do look worse in slow motion, but far less contact with feet is often given as a foul. This is it for me, too many fans are like contact = foul nowadays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Edgar Posted Sunday at 11:24 Share Posted Sunday at 11:24 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Shak said: Imagine it was with the feet though. Striker and defender go for the ball, striker gets there first and tries to nick the ball towards goal. However, just after the striker makes contact the defender gets his foot on the ball too before he makes contact with the striker. This isn't the same. The attacker has won the ball in the challenge and just because the ball has then glanced the defender doesn't mean that the defender has successfully tackled/intercepted/played the ball. The ball has just glanced off them. If it was with the feet, the attacker has got to the ball first and made contact sending the ball in a direction, as the ball travels it glances the defender's foot/leg and then the defender's attempt to get the ball has seen him arrive late and kick/trip the attacker. Just because a defender touches the ball when contesting doesn't mean they have won the ball. You can, as a defender, foul a player and make contact with the ball. I'm not arguing for/against the actual incident being a penalty btw. Just outlining what the thought process was for the referee and VAR officials. I think it comes down to the level of contact between the defender and attacker in this scenario. Edited Sunday at 11:26 by David Edgar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted Sunday at 11:27 Share Posted Sunday at 11:27 6 minutes ago, Shak said: Imagine it was with the feet though. Striker and defender go for the ball, striker gets there first and tries to nick the ball towards goal. However, just after the striker makes contact the defender gets his foot on the ball too before he makes contact with the striker. That's not a foul and neither was this, if you make contact with the ball before you make contact with the player you're considered to have won the ball. I don't think Saliba did get his head to the ball per se, he mistimed his challenge and caught Pedro - it was the redirection of the ball by Pedro that hit Saliba and he wasn't anticipating that. He didn't win the ball he was going for and it was luck rather than judgement that Pedro's knock glanced off him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now