Fabinho Liverpool goal

[Ian 1,129]

15 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

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.

Really? Quick screen grab here, looks well offside to the eye.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ian
Better pic

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Glad I don't have Sky. I'd rather watch Corrie eating nettle cakes than this VAR nonsense.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

I can’t wait for the inevitable Netflix documentary on wide ranging corruption in the premier league

[Heading South 24]

54 minutes ago, Ian said:

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

 

So when they are all standing in front of each other at corners , they are all committing an offence ……. Nonsense 

[Baracouda 47]

2 minutes ago, Heading South said:

So when they are all standing in front of each other at corners , they are all committing an offence ……. Nonsense 

yes, but only if they are offside. 

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

Is this “ interfering with an opponent “ ?

 

[Greavsy 2,413]

58 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Glad I don't have Sky. I'd rather watch Corrie eating nettle cakes than this VAR nonsense.

Is VAR exclusive to Sky, Eddie? 

[Greavsy 2,413]

8 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Is this “ interfering with an opponent “ ?

 

He's certainly not lurking....... 

 

[hogesar 9,658]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

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 

Hugely accurate analysis representing both some posters on here and pundits 😅😅

[Well b back 3,203]

49 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Is this “ interfering with an opponent “ ?

 

VAR decision - No Red Card, He got The Ball

[nutty nigel 7,531]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Is VAR exclusive to Sky, Eddie? 

Was just assuming it was on Sky. 

Whatever channel it was on I don't have.

I turned my set off after Farming Diary with a little grumble about Gerry Harrison not being on this week.

[Greavsy 2,413]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Was just assuming it was on Sky. 

Whatever channel it was on I don't have.

I turned my set off after Farming Diary with a little grumble about Gerry Harrison not being on this week.

That wasn't the question though Eddie. 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

5 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

That wasn't the question though Eddie. 

What question?

Here's a question...

Quelle est votre taille?

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by nutty nigel

[Greavsy 2,413]

 

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

What question?

Here's a question...

Quelle est votre taille?

 

Saucy,  surprised you didn't ask......

comment tu t'appelles

This question.....

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Is VAR exclusive to Sky, Eddie? 

Keep up!

[nutty nigel 7,531]

So.. the conversation and images were from this afternoon's game. As I said whatever channel it actually was I don't have.

I think we'll be alright to chat like this until we get to the top of page 3...

Edited September 12, 2021 by nutty nigel

[Greavsy 2,413]

10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So.. the conversation and images were from this afternoon's game. As I said whatever channel it actually was I don't have.

Not strictly true, what you actually said was.....

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Glad I don't have Sky. I'd rather watch Corrie eating nettle cakes than this VAR nonsense.

So I repeat the question......

3 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Is VAR exclusive to Sky, Eddie? 

Its just if I can watch on prime, discovery, bbc, itv, bt, etc and they don't have var I think that may be a better viewing experience,  and we may stand more chance of getting a result.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

Not strictly true, what you actually said was.....

So I repeat the question......

Its just if I can watch on prime, discovery, bbc, itv, bt, etc and they don't have var I think that may be a better viewing experience,  and we may stand more chance of getting a result.

No idea what you're going on about. If the game was on another channel I'm glad I wasn't watching it. 

Knee high to a grasshopper I reckon...

[Mello Yello 2,289]

10 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

Is this “ interfering with an opponent “ ?

 

'Mean Machine' having a 'Snatch'......

[Greavsy 2,413]

8 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

No idea what you're going on about. If the game was on another channel I'm glad I wasn't watching it. 

Knee high to a grasshopper I reckon...

Rather that than the brains of one!! 

So is VAR exclusive too Sky? 

You're worse than a politician for avoiding the simple question, Eddie

Edited September 13, 2021 by Greavsy

[Google Bot 3,275]

16 hours ago, Well b back said:

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

Schmeichel also had hold of Cantwell and was pulling him back as the corner came in, Think we were outsmarted by a very clever keeper personally. He was always going to be calling infringement if the ball found the back of the net.  And lucky for him offside was a factor so VAR couldn't ignore it.

Personally think it's a quite different scenario to the Mane one.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Google Bot

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

It really stinks of making it up as you go along, but if Mane wasn't there, then Raphinha would not have had any advantage considering the ball went straight through Ayling's legs; who is also directly in Raphinha's line of sight to the ball. 

Is that the reason the goal counted? 

If a Leicester defender was directly infront of Cantwell then I'm sure our goal would've still been disallowed, so... 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

4 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Rather that than the brains of one!! 

So is VAR exclusive too Sky? 

You're worse than a politician for avoiding the simple question, Eddie

It's like this Lofty....

I don't know what channel it was on. I assumed it was on Sky because it was Sunday afternoon. Whatever channel it it was on I'm glad I wasn't watching it.

 

[Greavsy 2,413]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's like this Lofty....

I don't know what channel it was on. I assumed it was on Sky because it was Sunday afternoon. Whatever channel it it was on I'm glad I wasn't watching it.

 

So why would you state you are glad you "dont have Sky" specifically? You do know its dangerous to assume Eddie?  

17 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Glad I don't have Sky. I'd rather watch Corrie eating nettle cakes than this VAR nonsense.

And is VAR an exclusive Sky 'extra',  as yes or no will suffice, im sure you can cope with that? (but I bet you don't as per!)

Cheers Eddie! 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Whatever channel that VAR nonsense was on I'm glad I wasn't watching it. I assumed the pictures highlighting that nonsense were from Leeds v Liverpool and I assumed it was on Sky.

I'm sure that will not stop your LMS making you argumentative further, but it is what it is.

Cheers Lofty👍

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

With all the money sloshing about this league and how so many dodgy characters from all around the world have a vested interest in certain results you would have to be extremely naive to think that there's isn't any corruption or match fixing going on. There are also historically plenty of examples around the world of ref's getting found out for match fixing in certain games. 

Yeah you can argue that the rules are difficult to interpret even with technology, so why then do we ALWAYS end up on the wrong side of them? 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Christoph Stiepermann

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

It really stinks of making it up as you go along, but if Mane wasn't there, then Raphinha would not have had any advantage considering the ball went straight through Ayling's legs; who is also directly in Raphinha's line of sight to the ball. 

Is that the reason the goal counted? 

If a Leicester defender was directly infront of Cantwell then I'm sure our goal would've still been disallowed, so... 

They haven’t provided an explanation so it’s hard to tell. I would say though that without Mane there, Raphina at the very least has a chance of blocking the shot on the line. Mane jumps out of the way at the last minute which in fact makes the defender mimic his movement.

I’d love to know why it was allowed because if they turn round and say it’s because he wouldn’t have stopped it anyway then for me that just proves we were done over with the Cantwell decision. 

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

10 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

With all the money sloshing about this league and how so many dodgy characters from all around the world have a vested interest in certain results you would have to be extremely naive to think that there's isn't any corruption or match fixing going on. There are also historically plenty of examples around the world of ref's getting found out for match fixing in certain games. 

Yeah you can argue that the rules are difficult to interpret even with technology, so why then do we ALWAYS end up on the wrong side of them? 

This is it for me. Bit like with the TMO in rugby you can probably find an offence or an interpretation of an offence that allows you to come to a decision either way in many scenarios. But the common factor is that unless it’s absolutely blatant (such as the pen v Leicester) then 9 times out of 10 we seem to be on the wrong side of the decision. 

[Baracouda 47]

34 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

With all the money sloshing about this league and how so many dodgy characters from all around the world have a vested interest in certain results you would have to be extremely naive to think that there's isn't any corruption or match fixing going on. There are also historically plenty of examples around the world of ref's getting found out for match fixing in certain games. 

Yeah you can argue that the rules are difficult to interpret even with technology, so why then do we ALWAYS end up on the wrong side of them? 

This is particularly the case with American sports (https://www.thefixisin.net/top-10). As sports become more and more financed by media and the more they will want to guarantee the 'entertainment' side of things. 

 While we call these leagues "sports," they are in fact businesses. Their business is entertainment. The NFL, for one, has actually argued this fact before the Supreme Court as recently as 2010. Being "entertainment," the leagues are legally entitled to do what is needed to entertain their audience, such as the creation and promotion of certain "storylines." Despite arguments to the contrary, this makes the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL on par with professional wrestling (WWE) as well as circuses, ballets, music acts and magicians.

(https://www.thefixisin.net/the-proof-5-facts)

So I think, there are many people from a wide range of perspectives with an interest to protect their investments in sport. Particularly, with the same group of people now entering the european football scene, they will have the same thought process as they do in the states. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Baracouda

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

This is particularly the case with American sports (https://www.thefixisin.net/top-10). As sports become more and more financed by media and the more they will want to guarantee the 'entertainment' side of things. 

 While we call these leagues "sports," they are in fact businesses. Their business is entertainment. The NFL, for one, has actually argued this fact before the Supreme Court as recently as 2010. Being "entertainment," the leagues are legally entitled to do what is needed to entertain their audience, such as the creation and promotion of certain "storylines." Despite arguments to the contrary, this makes the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL on par with professional wrestling (WWE) as well as circuses, ballets, music acts and magicians.

(https://www.thefixisin.net/the-proof-5-facts)

So I think, there are many people from a wide range of perspectives with an interest to protect their investments in sport. Particularly, with the same group of people now entering the european football scene, they will have the same thought process as they do in the states. 

And that is why we are not welcome in this league. We don't generate enough interest from neutrals at home or abroad and for 'fans' of all these big clubs our role or place in this circus of a league is to be the team that all the big clubs beat. We don't make big money signings, we don't hire famous managers, we don't cause controversy and relatively speaking we don't pay that much in agent fee's either.

 

This is why officials are instructed to interprate the rules in any way that prevents us from getting results if they can. They aren't always successful but over the course of a season and considering everything else going against us it is of course going to result in us getting less points than we deserve and probably relegation. 

The Premier League is a product (mostly geared towards international fans nowdays) and all the clubs involved would go bust without the Sky money so does anyone seriously think that they have no power to influence results when they're the one who pays for it all? Look at human nature and all of human history to see that it's laughable to suggest otherwise. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Whatever channel that VAR nonsense was on I'm glad I wasn't watching it. I assumed the pictures highlighting that nonsense were from Leeds v Liverpool and I assumed it was on Sky.

I'm sure that will not stop your LMS making you argumentative further, but it is what it is.

Cheers Lofty👍

You ok hun (Eddie)?