The Footie Thread

[Lucifer MorningStar]

If it was the same referee, the same VAR official, the exact same situation each time, you would have a point. However, each official will see things slightly differently, each example has slight differences. There are bound to be inconsistencies because they are open to interpretation.

This is being talked about because we have endless sports news shows to fill and it also distracts from a woeful performance from one of the teams involved. It wasn't us guv, it was the ref.

One thing, I bet Robertson doesn't stand there again for a corner. That's within his control, and knows the consequence. He's there to mess with the eyeline of the keeper, what else is his purpose in that position?

Absolutely superb point, imagine the ref being human and interpreting things different to another one. Just like on here people can't agree with it, I think it was the right decision based on what I saw and how Robbo ducks out of the way that alone shows he interfering with play.

 

[RichA]

Yet Matz Sels was being completely impeded when Bournemouth scored from a corner 2 weeks ago. Surely the rules should be the same?

Don't get me wrong, we deserved to lose to Bournemouth (and even if we didn't deserve to, it's football law that we do ) and I don't feel sorry for Liverpool in the slightest, but referee inconsistency is still being talked about week in and week out.

The Bournemouth goal you're talking about was scored directly from the corner kick. There can't have been an offside so the same rule didn't apply.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Agreed, yes. That's effectively what I was saying - the goalkeeper is making countless micro-decisions with his positioning, assessing who is around him. It's not just about whether he sees the effort and dives, he has already positioned himself in a way that he can react to any potential touch by Robertson.


I don't know which ones you mean so I can't really comment on that. If they were identical to this one then they should also have been disallowed, and if they weren't, then the mistake was in those games and not in this one.

Or the mistake was in this game as there was no movement towards the ball to affect it which is the rule

 

[Arthur Wedge]

If it was the same referee, the same VAR official, the exact same situation each time, you would have a point. However, each official will see things slightly differently, each example has slight differences. There are bound to be inconsistencies because they are open to interpretation.

This is being talked about because we have endless sports news shows to fill and it also distracts from a woeful performance from one of the teams involved. It wasn't us guv, it was the ref.

One thing, I bet Robertson doesn't stand there again for a corner. That's within his control, and knows the consequence. He's there to mess with the eyeline of the keeper, what else is his purpose in that position?

The same referee and same VAR allowed the same sort of goal last season

The same referee has been involved in the same sort of incident 3 times now

It’s a mess with the offside rule , they are creating their own mess

When it comes to high profile games and an incident like this has an affect then it will be talked about

The telling thing for me is how many “non Liverpool pundits etc” are saying it shouldn’t have been disallowed

 

[Pin-seeker]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987640381710979446

 

[Neilds]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1987640381710979446

Looking at that it seems to show he is reaching out to feel for the keeper and then adjust his position to get in the way.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Looking at that it seems to show he is reaching out to feel for the keeper and then adjust his position to get in the way.

I hadn't seen that angle before and already thought it was the right decision, but now seeing that I see it exactly as you've described and confirms for me even more it was the correct decision. I also don't believe for a minute had that been the other end then Liverpool fans would be calling for it to be allowed and would be be calling for it to be offside and that he was interfering with their keeper.

 

[Orikoru]

Or the mistake was in this game as there was no movement towards the ball to affect it which is the rule

Is it though?



Neither of these points mention moving towards the ball.

Oh wait, is this the bit you're looking for?

 

[Orikoru]

I hadn't seen that angle before and already thought it was the right decision, but now seeing that I see it exactly as you've described and confirms for me even more it was the correct decision. I also don't believe for a minute had that been the other end then Liverpool fans would be calling for it to be allowed and would be be calling for it to be offside and that he was interfering with their keeper.

Yeah, I didn't see that either, he literally has his hand on the keeper's chest about half a second before Van Dijk heads it. I think that's game set and match on this case.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Is it though?

View attachment 59945

Neither of these points mention moving towards the ball.

Oh wait, is this the bit you're looking for?

View attachment 59946

So which part did Robertson do

He didn’t prevent the opponent from playing the ball

He didn’t obstruct the opponents line of vision

And he didn’t make a movement that impacted the opponents ability to play the ball ?

He didn’t challenge an opponent.

And he didn’t attempt to play the ball

And surely “attempting to play the ball” will include moving to the ball unless you think he attempts to play by a mind trick

 

[irip]

Yeah, I didn't see that either, he literally has his hand on the keeper's chest about half a second before Van Dijk heads it. I think that's game set and match on this case.

I understand that the rule was changed to not interfering to make it more entertaining but I think I would go with if your inside the 18 yard box your offside no matter what.

The Liverpool goal for me is absolutely offside and can’t see how anyone can argue it.

It may of happened previously and the goal allowed but that for me is the mistake not the disallowed goal yesterday.

 

[Orikoru]

So which part did Robertson do

He didn’t prevent the opponent from playing the ball

He didn’t obstruct the opponents line of vision

And he didn’t make a movement that impacted the opponents ability to play the ball ?

He didn’t challenge an opponent.

And he didn’t attempt to play the ball

And surely “attempting to play the ball” will include moving to the ball unless you think he attempts to play by a mind trick

We discussed it higher up the page. His mere presence there affects the goalies ability to play it, because he was forced to adjust his starting position. Especially when Robertson had his hand on his chest a split second before.

I understand that the rule was changed to not interfering to make it more entertaining but I think I would go with if your inside the 18 yard box your offside no matter what.

The Liverpool goal for me is absolutely offside and can’t see how anyone can argue it.

It may of happened previously and the goal allowed but that for me is the mistake not the disallowed goal yesterday.

Yup. Unless they have the red-tinted goggles on of course.

 

[Tashyboy]

Read a lot about the disallowed goal and I am gobsmacked no one has mentioned this.

Was it last week when Donnarumma was impeded by a Bournemouth player, so much so that he was impeded in getting his punch of the ball away. There was discussion re whether it was a foul or not. Irrespective of what our thoughts were the goal stood. With interference from a player on the keeper the Goal stood.
From Liverpools point of view, they know through statistics and analysis of what is a “weakness” and they have done exactly the same thing, interference with the keeper. Only this time he was in an offside position. Liverpool/ Robertson knowingly did what they did.

 

[irip]

We discussed it higher up the page. His mere presence there affects the goalies ability to play it, because he was forced to adjust his starting position. Especially when Robertson had his hand on his chest a split second before.


Yup. Unless they have the red-tinted goggles on of course.

I’m a follower of Liverpool.
Supporter would be pushing it as I don’t give them any money so my support is cheering loudly at the telly as opposed to contributing financially.

It doesn’t mean I can’t see things objectively or disagree with things the club or its players do.

I accept that all fans of clubs will sometimes show bias towards their teams though.

Apart from Liverpool supporters obviously

 

[Aztecs27]

The Bournemouth goal you're talking about was scored directly from the corner kick. There can't have been an offside so the same rule didn't apply.

Yes, you're right - that makes perfect sense actually.

As you were

 

[Arthur Wedge]

We discussed it higher up the page. His mere presence there affects the goalies ability to play it, because he was forced to adjust his starting position. Especially when Robertson had his hand on his chest a split second before.

If Robertson that imposing a player that his “mere presence” affects a top class GK

The GK knows that if Robbo goes for the ball then it’s offside

It was just a good header out of his reach

It’s very much subjective call because of the state of The offside rules

There have been multiple incidents of similar issues

Yup. Unless they have the red-tinted goggles on of course.

Didn’t release Rooney was suddenly Liverpool bias , or Gary Neville as well

 

[Swango1980]

But the keeper wasn't likely to be positioning himself to cover any further involvement from Salah.
He absolutely would have been aware of Robertson and consciously or subconsciously ruling out any attempt by Robertson to play the ball goalwards before fully committing himself to the dive to his left. A top class goalkeeper can cover 0.4 meters in a tenth of a second. That might have been enough to make a save.

I'm not aware of the extensive research that proves a top class goalkeeper can cover 0.4 metres in a tenth of a second, or how those precise numbers tie in with the precise numbers of the incident yesterday.

I'm simply saying that it is my belief, that was a goal if Robertson was there or not. And it is a good example of an incident that different officials will have different conclusions, or even the same official will have inconsistent conclusions if similar incidents happen in the games they are in charge of.

An interesting factor is what goes on before the player is caught offside, as it also applied to the other incident (Arsenal game I believe) which they compared this to on MOTD. The player backed into the keeper (but not a foul) before the shot came in, clearly impacting the keeper's movement. Once the shot came in, the point in which the player was in an offside position, they had moved to the side so no longer blocked the keepers view. In Arsenal game, the goal stood. Yesterday, the goal did not stand.

I think it is a rule that is destined to always be inconsistent from one game to the next. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it in future, such as "if an offside player is inside the 6 yard box, it is automatically given offside, regardless of whether they had any impact on the play"

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think it is a rule that is destined to always be inconsistent from one game to the next. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it in future, such as "if an offside player is inside the 6 yard box, it is automatically given offside, regardless of whether they had any impact on the play"

I think this would be a very simple and sensible amendment to the current rule

 

[clubchamp98]

I've just watched it now, the ball is going straight towards Robertson and he ducks to allow it over his head and in. Feels harsh if you're a Liverpool fan, but I think disallowing is the right call, with the rules being as they are. As you say, it's consistent with other ones that have been disallowed. If he's stood on the other side of the goal from where it goes in, then it's a goal, in my opinion.

What do you think of the City one against Wolves last year.?
They showed it on MOTD last night.
Even Dermot was struggling on ref watch today.
Same ref!

 

[clubchamp98]

I'm not aware of the extensive research that proves a top class goalkeeper can cover 0.4 metres in a tenth of a second, or how those precise numbers tie in with the precise numbers of the incident yesterday.

I'm simply saying that it is my belief, that was a goal if Robertson was there or not. And it is a good example of an incident that different officials will have different conclusions, or even the same official will have inconsistent conclusions if similar incidents happen in the games they are in charge of.

An interesting factor is what goes on before the player is caught offside, as it also applied to the other incident (Arsenal game I believe) which they compared this to on MOTD. The player backed into the keeper (but not a foul) before the shot came in, clearly impacting the keeper's movement. Once the shot came in, the point in which the player was in an offside position, they had moved to the side so no longer blocked the keepers view. In Arsenal game, the goal stood. Yesterday, the goal did not stand.

I think it is a rule that is destined to always be inconsistent from one game to the next. I wouldn't be surprised if they change it in future, such as "if an offside player is inside the 6 yard box, it is automatically given offside, regardless of whether they had any impact on the play"

You’re just being silly now!
That’s far to sensible I can’t see that happening