Josep Dowling
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,659
Liverpool’s win had nothing to do with Oliver’s performance so suck it up unfortunately.
I disagree , there are a couple promising newer refs right now.maybe so but unfortunately he is also most likely currently the best ref on the prem list
Yeah he’s wildly inconsistent.Just wanted to go through the game without having to make any decisions, then handed out some token yellows in the 85th so that nobody’s wondering how a tough game went by without any yellows. Bunch of through the back tackles just let go, wild slides went by without yellows etc.
You’d need a whole new term for Oliver.Yeah he’s wildly inconsistent.
The term cnut already exists.You’d need a whole new term for Oliver.
Which hand ball was that? Silvas or Arnold’s?He was in an excellent position to see the handball. How he missed it i am not sure.
And if that is not a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene, i don't know what is.
He is the yan to Martin Atkinson's yin. He is a very good ref who occasionally misses things but which ref doesn't? Atkinson is just a malicious cheat.Terrible ref. He is Liverpools version of Howard Webb.
It's not clear and it would be good to get a former refs explanation (given current refs organisation would never consider it), but....Which hand ball was that? Silvas or Arnold’s?
He was in an excellent position to see the handball. How he missed it i am not sure.
And if that is not a clear and obvious error for VAR to intervene, i don't know what is.
I think he's bottled it waiting for the VAR to intervene, then the VAR doesn't want to intervene cos it doesnt want to undermine Oliver. A real messVAR getting the blame but Oliver couldnt be in a better position to see it.
It doesnt really matter if VAR thought it was a pen or not if Oliver stands by his decision.
I honestly think he stood by his decision which is admirable in a way.I think he's bottled it waiting for the VAR to intervene, then the VAR doesn't want to intervene cos it doesnt want to undermine Oliver. A real mess
I mixed the dogs wet and dry food with the same spoon I then used for my crunchy nut granola this morning. It was a mistake but nevertheless I stand by my decision, which is admirable in a way.I honestly think he stood by his decision which is admirable in a way.
I think he needs to spend more time than an hour if that's the case.Hes awful. You know he spends at least an hour in front of the mirror before a game getting his hair ready for the TV screens.
This.Still hate his face
That’s not how it works though. If Trents hand ball is deemed to be a pen, then Silvas hand ball clearly created a goal scoring opportunity, meaning Liverpool should have a free kick.It's not clear and it would be good to get a former refs explanation (given current refs organisation would never consider it), but....
If Silva's handball was accidental : it wasn't creating a goal scoring opportunity so I think, doesn't get given under new rules. So you'd move to the next one = penalty.
If Silva's handball is deemed deliberate, it's a free-kick to Liverpool and game should have stopped.
The official line after the game was announced as Arnold's handball didn't meet the current requirements. On that basis, they're implying that Silva's wasn't the issue.
The first is apparently not argued by PGMOL. According to MOTD they specifically ruled it out. They're arguing the second one - ie a close range deflection. Problem with this is it is absolutely arguable and blatantly poor reasoning. Silva was 25 feet away and TAA clearly moved his arm towards the ball, making himself bigger in the process.That’s not how it works though. If Trents hand ball is deemed to be a pen, then Silvas hand ball clearly created a goal scoring opportunity, meaning Liverpool should have a free kick.
If Trents hand ball is accepted as a close range deflection and no pen, Silvas hand ball is not punishable, and you should play on.
You can argue for both, but there is simply no way it’s a pen.
They are not arguing the first one because the second one was not deemed punishable. If it was, they would have to include the first one, and award Liverpool a fk.The first is apparently not argued by PGMOL. According to MOTD they specifically ruled it out. They're arguing the second one - ie a close range deflection. Problem with this is it is absolutely arguable and blatantly poor reasoning. Silva was 25 feet away and TAA clearly moved his arm towards the ball, making himself bigger in the process.