PickledRed
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,499
- Supports
- Liverpool
Almost as convincing a defence as…<insert Everton joke here>
Almost as convincing a defence as…<insert Everton joke here>
First of all, can you show the stats for penalties against from the 90s? I searched for them to try and verify your claim but can't find any penalty stats older than 02/03.Why is it a joke? United went a decade or so not conceding a penalty at Old Trafford from 90s into early 00s. Mainly because they controlled football matches and offered few opportunities for opponents to win penalties.
I can barely remember an incident over the past year where Liverpool ‘got away’ with a penalty decision. The main story you should take from that stat is the brilliance of the Liverpool defenders. Engineering bias into statistical patterns is merely a form of cognitive dissonance that football fans of all types specialise in.
Today’s Gordon incident when he stepped into Matip’s path was possibly a penalty but he also looked for it. This means it’s not clear and obvious so VAR won’t overturn the on field decision. Pretty easy to explain.
He did.He didn't "step into Matip's path". He carried the ball and ran with it in front of Matip to force Matip to pull out of the challenge and allow him to run towards goal. Instead, Matip pushed him in the back with his elbow which sent him over because he was running at full speed. You're making it sound as if they were in a 50/50 and Gordon leaned into him. It was a stonewall penalty but VAR just chose not to give it because he didn't fancy it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Probably a more prescient stat that led to defeat:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This can’t be realProbably a more prescient stat that led to defeat:Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He carried the ball towards goal and cut across Matip (in front of him) to force Matip to pull out or foul him. Matip didn't pull out of the challenge and instead pushed him from behind, with his arm blatantly in the back, and ruined his opportunity to run at goal.He did.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Everton had 17% possession across 90 minutes. They didn’t keep the ball well.This can’t be real
When you do something wrong and is deliberate, that is what you're doing. Rationalising it, explaining it, passing it off as if it's the normal thing to do. If you're allowed to do that by your surroundings it will continue until the lines are blurred everywhere you go.That's absolutely mental. It sounds like a cop out though just because they fecked up and didnt act. So instead of admitting their mistake, they're just coming up with worse excuses
It’s certainly a likely penalty but Gordon steps across, Matip makes minimal contact.He carried the ball towards goal and cut across Matip (in front of him) to force Matip to pull out or foul him. Matip didn't pull out of the challenge and instead pushed him from behind, with his arm blatantly in the back, and ruined his opportunity to run at goal.
You're making it sound as if Gordon didn't have the ball and only got in front of him to impede him. I'm sure Gordon would've liked the opportunity to go 1v1 with the goalkeeper, and did what every attacker is taught to do in that situation. Get yourself between the defender and the ball and force the defender to make a decision. So yes, he was looking for it in the sense that he created a situation where he either got a 1v1 or a penalty, but the refs had other ideas.
In the game of football, are you allowed to push people in the back as they're running with the ball?
Watch it again, not only did Matip push Gordon, Matip also stood on Gordon's right foot, and Gordon said in the post match interview that he went down because Matip stood on his foot. Gordon didn't mention anything about the push (the push was enough for the penalty to have been awarded, nevermind Matip standing on his foot as well).He carried the ball towards goal and cut across Matip (in front of him) to force Matip to pull out or foul him. Matip didn't pull out of the challenge and instead pushed him from behind, with his arm blatantly in the back, and ruined his opportunity to run at goal.
You're making it sound as if Gordon didn't have the ball and only got in front of him to impede him. I'm sure Gordon would've liked the opportunity to go 1v1 with the goalkeeper, and did what every attacker is taught to do in that situation. Get yourself between the defender and the ball and force the defender to make a decision. So yes, he was looking for it in the sense that he created a situation where he either got a 1v1 or a penalty, but the refs had other ideas. What would Gordon have had to do to not be "looking for it"? Stop the ball and ask Matip if he may proceed to attack? Or what? The responsibility to not be fouled shouldn't really be on the attacker. The onus is on the defender to not commit a foul, but-it seems that every Liverpool supporting person has forgotten that with media kissing their arses at every opportunity.
In the game of football, are you allowed to push people in the back as they're running with the ball?
How can you say there was minimal contact from Matip?It’s certainly a likely penalty but Gordon steps across, Matip makes minimal contact.
Folks can scream at the clouds all they like but this is a very typical example that we’ve seen when an on field decision isn’t overturned as it’s not clear and obvious. That doesn’t mean it’s 50/50, it just means it’s on the soft side so the ref’s decision is maintained.
Problem is that VAR most definitely has not just been turning obvious and clear errors. If it was 50/50 let the ref himself decide by looking at it on the screen.It’s certainly a likely penalty but Gordon steps across, Matip makes minimal contact.
Folks can scream at the clouds all they like but this is a very typical example that we’ve seen when an on field decision isn’t overturned as it’s not clear and obvious. That doesn’t mean it’s 50/50, it just means it’s on the soft side so the ref’s decision is maintained.
You keep reiterating that Gordon steps across as if that somehow lessens his ability to draw a foul or as if "stepping across" is some kind of dark art that should be punished by not giving deserved fouls. He, being the ball carrier, has the right to take up any position on the pitch as he wants. Like I said, the onus is on the defender to not commit a foul once the attacker has got in front of him. Matip clearly pushes him in the back, and apparently steps on him too. So I ask you again, are you allowed to push a player in the back from behind?It’s certainly a likely penalty but Gordon steps across, Matip makes minimal contact.
Folks can scream at the clouds all they like but this is a very typical example that we’ve seen when an on field decision isn’t overturned as it’s not clear and obvious. That doesn’t mean it’s 50/50, it just means it’s on the soft side so the ref’s decision is maintained.
HopefullyReferees aren't that shit tbh, they are deliberately helping Liverpool out.
I’ve just seen that clip.It’s certainly a likely penalty but Gordon steps across, Matip makes minimal contact.
Folks can scream at the clouds all they like but this is a very typical example that we’ve seen when an on field decision isn’t overturned as it’s not clear and obvious. That doesn’t mean it’s 50/50, it just means it’s on the soft side so the ref’s decision is maintained.
The ‘push’ was so light. It was an incident that didn’t warrant overturning the on field decision. That’s the reality of how VAR works. After almost three seasons of this model, I’m amazed that this is still a point of outrage.You keep reiterating that Gordon steps across as if that somehow lessens his ability to draw a foul or as if "stepping across" is some kind of dark art that should be punished by not giving deserved fouls. He, being the ball carrier, has the right to take up any position on the pitch as he wants. Like I said, the onus is on the defender to not commit a foul once the attacker has got in front of him. Matip clearly pushes him in the back, and apparently steps on him too. So I ask you again, are you allowed to push a player in the back from behind?
No need to be hopeful about it. It's been happening all season longHopefully
Did you read my first paragraph? ThanksI’ve just seen that clip.
You either need spec savers or you are a wum
Drumroll please……..
Great news. Keep me posted.No need to be hopeful about it. It's been happening all season long
This has been my standard response every time VAR and refs being bent for us come up.Hopefully
It is clear and obvious you fecking plumDid you read my first paragraph? Thanks
So why didn’t VAR overturn?It is clear and obvious you fecking plum
It's a simple yes or no question though and you wont answer it The answer is no. The reality is that if you as much as touch a player from behind when he is through on goal he is almost entitled to go down, it's known how strict that rule is in football. One of the very few potentially grey-area rules that are actually being applied consistently, globally. But no, you're right the norm is that if VAR think it's soft foul they wont let the ref go to the monitor. Just yesterday VAR sent the ref to the monitor because there was a potential soft penalty in the United game.The ‘push’ was so light. It was an incident that didn’t warrant overturning the on field decision. That’s the reality of how VAR works. After almost three seasons of this model, I’m amazed that this is still a point of outrage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authoritySo why didn’t VAR overturn?
They’ve literally slowed it down on MOTD and suggested it’s borderline. Agree or disagree with that, but it’s obviously not cut and dry.
The definition of unclear and unobvious.
Why are you arguing the point so much here You obviously realise it’s very contentious. if you thought it was clear cut, you wouldn’t be spending your night arguing about it.The lads on MOTD2 are indicating it’s a tough call. Why would VAR overturn it based on the way VAR is utilised?
When Jamie Carragher says in the post match analysis that it was a "Stonewall penalty" then even the most ardent Liverpool fans with their rose-tinted glasses on would listen to why Jamie Carragher has said that...The ‘push’ was so light. It was an incident that didn’t warrant overturning the on field decision. That’s the reality of how VAR works. After almost three seasons of this model, I’m amazed that this is still a point of outrage.
We were winning that game regardless of that being given. Everton made fewer passes as a team than Thiago did on his own across the 90 minutes. Allan made two passes all game and they were kick offs.Everton shouldve got that penalty. If it was Liverpool it would've been given.
Nah they're all screwing Everton over. They didn't get a stonewall penalty against City either.Referees aren't that shit tbh, they are deliberately helping Liverpool out. Today was unbelievable
That wasn’t even close. Little push but Gordon was looking for it. If Gordon would have sold it better maybe a decision would have to be made. The only people moaning about it are on this forum today. Same with Manes little hand to the face in the middle of chaos.It was nothing but a yellow. Now I know how you felt ages ago when we would call out the refs anytime a decision went united’s way. You must have loved it.Everton shouldve got that penalty. If it was Liverpool it would've been given.
We do generally speaking control most of the possession in our games. I can't remember many times reading on here in the last year a lot of outrage about a penalty not being given against us. Lots of outrage about yellows not given to Thiago or Fabinho, penalties given in our favor, opponents missing sitters and some other bits and pieces but tbh I think we've been good at avoiding situations where a penalty could be given for the most part.Would have to have a look but the fact it is almost double the next side is a bit dodgy.
The bolded doesn't matter if the rules aren't clear and that is my point. Doesn't matter if the VAR ref or manager triggers a review. The refs can simply declare any type of situation non-reviewable and again that's a rules issue. All challenges do is add another potential stoppage of play that can be abused, and more importantly it in itself doesn't fix the issue of clarification.What in my post suggests that I do not realise that a challenge can be lost or wasted on a non-overturned call? At no point have I suggested that the challenges would be infinite.
The problem, as it is now, is that the officials are looking at each decision (at least we're told that but we don't really know unless play is stopped and the graphic comes up), then randomly applying a "clear and obvious" filter on top of everything which muddies the waters and leads to incorrect decisions standing because they were only "very" incorrect and not "clearly and obviously" incorrect. Plus we have the very dodgy aspect of one team having everything reviewed in their favour and nothing that could go against them reviewed with the same scrutiny, like in our game against Arsenal.
Let me just ask you one thing. Over the six or seven incidents where VAR could get involved in the game between Arsenal-United, do you think that the usage of VAR was fair and balanced for both teams? I'll remind you of the incidents in question
- Elanga being pushed by Tavares while 1v1 not being subject to clear and obvious threshold and Pawson not being asked to review it (call on field, no foul)
- Cedric handball not being subject to clear and obvious threshold and Pawson not being asked to review it (call on field, no handball)
- Telles tackle on Saka being subject to clear and obvious threshold and Pawson being asked to review it (call on field, no foul/goal)
- Tavares handball being subject to a lengthy VAR review and thus potentially meeting the clear and obvious criteria (call on field, penalty)
- Elanga being pushed and then sat on by Tavares not being subject to clear and obvious threshold with Pawson again not being asked to review it (call on field, no foul)
- Nketiah's position not being subject to clear and obvious threshold with regards to interference with de Gea's line of sight (call on field, no offside)
Were those incidents (I've not mentioned the offsides for either side) fairly judged by the VAR official? Particularly the non-handball call on Cedric and the sheer thought that the Tavares handball might not have been a penalty under the same threshold, shows a built-in lack of fairness which stems from the way that VAR is used and the lack of transparency in how VAR is used. Now I'm not saying that it's definitely corruption on the part of the VAR official, but it's either that or that "clear and obvious" is way too subjective for some referees to handle without introducing biases.
If it's only a matter of clarifying the rules, how would you clarify them to ensure that all teams have a fair chance of having contentious decisions reviewed to the same standard? Because for me, the current system with the VAR's discretion to send the referee to the monitor, plus the lack of transparency, plus the high threshold to overturn a decision, does not lead to the correct decisions being made.
A challenge system would mean that it's the team at the end of a decision that decides whether the call is reviewed by the same referee that made the original call, and if that referee was to review his own decision then we wouldn't need any of the clear and obvious nonsense. It would just be a matter of the same guy getting a clearer view and him being able to say "ah, had I seen it this way in real time I would've done this". And obviously you'd have a limited amount of challenges (three for the entire game or two per half or something, keeping those that lead to a change in decision), to avoid teams using them to waste time.
Having watched more or less the same number of games this season of Liverpool and Everton, I've noticed more decisions going Liverpool's way than any other team. I know there is this cliche that things even themselves out but I don't buy it.Nah they're all screwing Everton over. They didn't get a stonewall penalty against City either.
Not sure about that.We were winning that game regardless of that being given. Everton made fewer passes as a team than Thiago did on his own across the 90 minutes. Allan made two passes all game and they were kick offs.
Mane being sent off would've had an impact. Would've given Everton some hope and allowed them to come out of their shell a bit more. 32 passes across the entire first half as a team.
I wonder if Villarreal will try something similar on Wednesday.
I don't believe those conspiracy theories that the referees were given a fat envelope and stuff like that but I honestly think the media has a lot to do with the general perception of a controversial decision. The way the media responded to that Cancelo's (City) handball against Everton in the last minute was monumental and got a level of attention across the media circles that culminated in an apology from the officials.Just to remind everyone that Everton didn't get a last minute penalty against City a few weeks ago that would have effectively made the game a draw!
Infact it was so obvious that the referee association had to issue an apology afterwards, something I had never seen before in my life
I would be wont to believe that this is just a case of inconsistent application of VAR...
But not according to the CAF, the referees are all helping liverpool
Carry on though, Let's not let facts and logic get in the way of our conspiracy theories