Fabinho Liverpool goal

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Remind anyone of anything?

Mane in a offside position in the line of sight of the defender - apparently not interfering with play so not offside.

Cantwell in the line of sight of the keeper - apparently interfering with play so offside.

 

hmm

[Ken Hairy 4,272]

Thought the same, saying nothing.... 😂

[Sideshow Tim 110]

It's Liverpool, what do you expect? 

To be fair, Cantwell was almost standing on Schmichels feet for ours. Mane did at least try to get out of the way. 

[Ken Hairy 4,272]

I'm guessing this is a nasty one on Elliott as Sky aren't going to show the replay? 

[The Real Buh 3,765]

They can take this with them when the “big clubs” go to their European superleague

Our own league, minus the crooks where we can have our own unique product minus all the VAR and other shenanigans

sounds good to me

[Feedthewolf 5,885]

Just now, Ken Hairy said:

I'm guessing this is a nasty one on Elliott as Sky aren't going to show the replay? 

Having slowed it down, you can clearly see his leg pointing in the wrong direction even from a distance. Very glad they're not showing the replay.

[Sideshow Tim 110]

1 minute ago, Ken Hairy said:

I'm guessing this is a nasty one on Elliott as Sky aren't going to show the replay? 

Yeah missed the challenge but it doesn't sound good. 

[cambridgeshire canary 7,803]

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/gvrmew

 

In other news in the same match Harvey Elliot just got his leg broken and every bone in it shattered into a thousand shards and has been stretched off and taken to the hospital.. 🥴

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

6 minutes ago, Sideshow Tim said:

It's Liverpool, what do you expect? 

To be fair, Cantwell was almost standing on Schmichels feet for ours. Mane did at least try to get out of the way. 

I agree but there was ZERO chance of Schmeichel getting to McLeans header, the Leeds defender could conceivably have blocked the shot had he seen the ball leave Fabinhos foot.

[Sideshow Tim 110]

Agreed, but keepers will always get the protection in those kind of scenarios.

Bring back the days where they used to bundled into the goal! 😂 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

I normally get bored with people claiming we are hard done by but it did show up that the clamour that technology would solve everything is just rubbish. Very little difference in my opinion.

[NFN FC 1,142]

16 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/gvrmew

 

In other news in the same match Harvey Elliot just got his leg broken and every bone in it shattered into a thousand shards and has been stretched off and taken to the hospital.. 🥴

Looked like a fair challenge. Elliott has got really unlucky there. He'll be out for the season

[Jim Smith 2,610]

[dylanisabaddog 6,149]

Norwich 0 Liverpool 3

Norwich have no ambition 

 

Leeds 0 Liverpool 3

That's what you expect when you play teams as good as Liverpool 

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

18 minutes ago, NFN FC said:

Looked like a fair challenge. Elliott has got really unlucky there. He'll be out for the season

It seems, per the bbc live text that it was an innocuous challenge, but “VAR had a look and because of the injury that the challenge has caused, Leeds defender Pascal Struijk is off.”

Surely it’s the challenge rather than the outcome which determines whether there’s a (red) card?

 

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Guess this was clearly given as offside, stood in front of defender. 😂

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

He’s barely further in front of the defender than Cantwell was  - that surely has to be offside, definitely interfering with play

Edited September 12, 2021 by Branston Pickle

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Couldn’t make it up could you. 

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

He’s no further in front of the defender than Cantwell was - that has to be offside.

Cleared by VAR

[By Hook or Ian crook 943]

Here is the problem now with the rules of football, they are too open to interpretation by officials. Other sports have black and white rules. Take the LBW law in cricket for example they have a black and white set of rules for DRS. There is not room for interpretation if it’s within the guides of the rules it’s in or out. Sadly with football and the offside it’s to open to one person believing a person is active or passive and what constitutes a new phase of play or not.
 

The rules need to be black and white for all to take away the ability to interpret the same situation two different ways. 

[Baracouda 47]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

It seems, per the bbc live text that it was an innocuous challenge, but “VAR had a look and because of the injury that the challenge has caused, Leeds defender Pascal Struijk is off.”

Surely it’s the challenge rather than the outcome which determines whether there’s a (red) card?

 

the live commentators in the link above, said it was an excellent challenge at the time. 

[Baracouda 47]

Just now, By Hook or Ian crook said:

Here is the problem now with the rules of football, they are too open to interpretation by officials. Other sports have black and white rules. Take the LBW law in cricket for example they have a black and white set of rules for DRS. There is not room for interpretation if it’s within the guides of the rules it’s in or out. Sadly with football and the offside it’s to open to one person believing a person is active or passive and what constitutes a new phase of play or not.
 

The rules need to be black and white for all to take away the ability to interpret the same situation two different ways. 

football has the most subjective rules and lots of loopholes perfect for fixing games. Which we know has happened in the past. 

[Greavsy 2,645]

1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

I'm guessing this is a nasty one on Elliott as Sky aren't going to show the replay? 

[Well b back 3,606]

If you watch the actual footage as well clearly the defender on the line is not only obstructed in his view, but Mane takes a very slight step to the left and the defender clearly instinctively also moves to the left, giving him absoloutely no chance of even trying to put his right leg across the goal to try and block it. VAR decision not interfering.

Schmichel absoloutely no chance of stopping McCleans header, ball in the air from the corner. VAR decision interfering.

Like @keelansgrandad ( Pukki’s last year aside ) I used to think we were just unlucky. After the last two weeks and making comparisons I have to say, somethings not right. I wonder if the posters saying Cantwell’s decision was correct, can now explain to me why the Liverpool goal decision was also correct. I just dont get it.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

7 minutes ago, Well b back said:

If you watch the actual footage as well clearly the defender on the line is not only obstructed in his view, but Mane takes a very slight step to the left and the defender clearly instinctively also moves to the left, giving him absoloutely no chance of even trying to put his right leg across the goal to try and block it. VAR decision not interfering.

Schmichel absoloutely no chance of stopping McCleans header, ball in the air from the corner. VAR decision interfering.

Like @keelansgrandad ( Pukki’s last year aside ) I used to think we were just unlucky. After the last two weeks and making comparisons I have to say, somethings not right. I wonder if the posters saying Cantwell’s decision was correct, can now explain to me why the Liverpool goal decision was also correct. I just dont get it.

What will no doubt be claimed is that the linesman flagged for one but not the other. But that’s a nonsense. 

[Mr Angry 2,023]

Mane steps back towards the goal when Fabinho shoots, the stills that have been shown on here are clearly after the ball has left Fabinho's foot. From what I've seen, Mane was level with the keeper when Fabinho took the shot, therefore not offside.

[Heading South 24]

8 minutes ago, Well b back said:

If you watch the actual footage as well clearly the defender on the line is not only obstructed in his view, but Mane takes a very slight step to the left and the defender clearly instinctively also moves to the left, giving him absoloutely no chance of even trying to put his right leg across the goal to try and block it. VAR decision not interfering.

Schmichel absoloutely no chance of stopping McCleans header, ball in the air from the corner. VAR decision interfering.

Like @keelansgrandad ( Pukki’s last year aside ) I used to think we were just unlucky. After the last two weeks and making comparisons I have to say, somethings not right. I wonder if the posters saying Cantwell’s decision was correct, can now explain to me why the Liverpool goal decision was also correct. I just dont get it.

It is only when in front of a keeper this rule applies not defenders !

[Jim Smith 2,610]

2 minutes ago, Heading South said:

It is only when in front of a keeper this rule applies not defenders !

No it isn’t - an “opponent” 

[Ian 1,212]

3 minutes ago, Heading South said:

It is only when in front of a keeper this rule applies not defenders !

Wrong.

• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

 

[Heading South 24]

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

No it isn’t - an “opponent” 

Keepers