Almost as convincing a defence as…<insert Everton joke here>ok
Premier League Gameweek 33-35
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
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.
Second of all, Gordon 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 (while hiding behind the "there's a microscopic argument for not giving the foul so I'll not recommend an overturn" clause).
He did.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Probably a more prescient stat that led to defeat:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This can’t be realHe 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?
Everton had 17% possession across 90 minutes. They didn’t keep the ball well.
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 mental that the mind-state of referees and media in a multi-million dollar industry resembles that of a scheming, deceitful addict.
I've never been the one to entertain baseless claims of conspiracy, in the way Klopp and other media outlets did when he said United was being favoured by refs and getting bogus penalty decisions. There really is some shady shit going on though. Clattenburg gave us a clue, and he quit because he wanted to talk about it but it seems he has been silenced since his last outburst where he admitted refs create game-plans, keep in touch with narratives etc. I don't think he ment to give it to us as frankly as he did, but see past his arrogance and it makes a lot of sense and give some insight into the culture of referees. For instance, if a narrative has been set in place "Chelsea has nothing to play for", it's okey for a ref to help the other team win with any measure in his power. In the case with Chelsea-Spurs, he created a platform by not enforcing the rules, so that the emotions would run hot and Spurs could self destruct in those circumstances. This was a measure he admitted to planning and to make the deceit complete he purposefully didn't give out red cards to Spurs to avoid the spotlight being on him after the game.
Taking it back to refs right now. If we want to draw any conclusions based on that insight from Clattenburg, it's not that it's outright corruption we're looking for but we should now be looking for pre-existing narratives in the league and teams and then measure the oddity in decisions towards that. Hmm, that narrative of a title-chase by Liverpool was a thing for a while and so it's certainly a possibility the ref wouldn't want to give any huge match impacting decisions against Liverpool, like handing out a red card for example. He would then have the spotlight on him and "Liverpool and the world" could potentially blame him for costing them a title. Let the game go on, letting things go both ways would typically be the "style of game" preferred in this case as a referee could easily even out the decisions through the game so it's not looking more suspicious than what we've been accustomed to.
Didn't watch the game so it might not be accurate but I bet it is. As for the Arsenal-United match, the narrative has been about that top 4 struggle and lately that United is in turmoil with no manager and nothing to play for while Arsenal is on the coming up with Arteta. You could speculate that giving United points they don't really need is unnecessary when Arteta is much more likely to reach top 4 if given a chance. I think that's an insane narrative, but the surrounding negativity towards United is also beyond what I consider rational. If United win such an important away game, it almost changes the pre-existing narrative because then both clubs have the same amount of points which almost seems impossible to be true if we're listening to narratives about how bad United are at the moment. So the expectations for Arsenal to win this game was huge and a United victory would be a real upset and the referee would most likely be under the microscope if they won.
What did happen? The referee and VAR team gave 6 possible VAR decisions against United, and you know what? He isn't under the microscope for it. Because, things kind of look like they should according to the narratives, no real upset. United can't feel hard done by when they are so bad, and media won't make a fuzz over it, as why would they upset a narrative they are currently profiting heavily on?
This is the power of narratives, in football.
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.
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).
How can you say there was minimal contact from Matip?
Not only did Matip push Gordon, he also brought Gordon down by standing on Gordon's right foot as well!
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.
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?
If we can agree that no, you can't push a player in the back as they're running with the ball, then we have two possibilities: One, the referee does not think that a push in the back is against the rules. It would then be fair for the VAR to say "hey ref, he's pushed him in the back and you can't do that, so if you think you are allowed to do that then you've made a clear and obvious error". Two, the referee has seen Matip tackle Gordon with his shoulder and judged it a fair tackle. At that point, the VAR would reasonably be able to step in and say "actually, it's not a shoulder tackle, it's a clear push in the back, so you've made a clear and obvious error".
Referees aren't that shit tbh, they are deliberately helping Liverpool out. Today was unbelievable
Hopefully
I’ve just seen that clip.
You either need spec savers or you are a wum
Drumroll please……..
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.
No need to be hopeful about it. It's been happening all season long
Did you read my first paragraph? Thanks
Great news. Keep me posted.
The lads on MOTD2 are indicating it’s a tough call. Why would VAR overturn it based on the way VAR is utilised?
This has been my standard response every time VAR and refs being bent for us come up.
It is clear and obvious you fecking plum
So 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.
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.Var benefits everybody at some point. Man city got away with a blatant pen against Everton. Kane should have been sent off against Liverpool for the challenge on robertson. Jota didn't get a pen apparently 'because he was looking for it'. It doesn't just benefit liverpool
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. MOTD slowed it down and are undecided.
Great. Well done.
Won’t change anyone’s opinion who has looked at football and these types of decisions over the last few years and have seen similar tackles and have seen those given as penalties.
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...
Because Matip brought down Gordon by standing on his right foot!
You have been fooled by the commentary saying that it was a soft push, and they completely ignored that Matip brought Gordon down by standing on his right foot.
Heck watch the video you posted, it is clear as day! You have posted the video without even realising that Matip stood on Gordon's foot!
Now you are just blindly arguing your point because you have actually posted the video and it completely dismisses your argument!
With regards VAR, the referee would have communicated over his microphone to the video assistant referee that he didn't think it was a penalty because he didn't think that there was enough of a push from Matip for Gordon to have gone down.
At that point the video assistant referee should have intervened and said in the earpiece of the on-field referee, "Matip brought Gordon down by standing on his right foot"
The decision not to award the penalty was a clear and obvious error, because the referee judged it on the push, and not on the fact that Gordon was brought down by Matip standing on his right foot.
The on-field referee should have been instructed to go and view the monitor!
Everton shouldve got that penalty. If it was Liverpool it would've been given.
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.
Last edited:
Nah they're all screwing Everton over. They didn't get a stonewall penalty against City either.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Hand on heart,
If that Matip foul on Gordon's back happened at the other end, would it be given as a penalty to Liverpool?
For example if we had Keane foul Salah like that, would it be a penalty?
We all know the answer.
The Liverpool-loving media will brush this under the carpet of course, so we move.
If that Matip foul on Gordon's back happened at the other end, would it be given as a penalty to Liverpool?
For example if we had Keane foul Salah like that, would it be a penalty?
We all know the answer.
The Liverpool-loving media will brush this under the carpet of course, so we move.
Last edited:
Not sure about that.
A penalty to Everton could easily have ended in a draw.
I mean you only scored two goals all game and that was after Everton were a bit more positive when they went one goal down, leaving spaces for you to exploit. They could have sat on that goal and gone to ground at every opportunity and used subs to kill the game.
It was a match defining moment, but not the only one.
Last edited:
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.
However when the media deem another controversial as not that big or if it is explained away casually, it cannot get the traction that would warrant an apology.