Everton v Liverpool

[ladbroke8745]

Not sure what threads etc you’ve seen, but I’ve not seen anyone complain about time added on. Granted I don’t have social media, but if time had been the issue, my phone would have blown up with messages. The main issue people have is the potential foul on Konate.

It is all over social media about the time.
I think they don't like the fact he scored 2 minutes after the initial added time. They also mention that apparently there was just 17 seconds to go of the 5.
They forget that in the 5 minutes added on they wasted time so that was likely added on. Not sure of the exact restart time from the head clash to when the goal went in, but I don't imagine it was that long.

What Liverpool fans should be complaining about is the poor defending. Just keep the ball.
Instead they cleared it badly and kept giving it back.

 

[Runner Ref]

It is all over social media about the time.
I think they don't like the fact he scored 2 minutes after the initial added time. They also mention that apparently there was just 17 seconds to go of the 5.
They forget that in the 5 minutes added on they wasted time so that was likely added on. Not sure of the exact restart time from the head clash to when the goal went in, but I don't imagine it was that long.

What Liverpool fans should be complaining about is the poor defending. Just keep the ball.
Instead they cleared it badly and kept giving it back.

I really didn’t see Liverpool particularly wasting much time. Especially enough for the officials to think it was worth adding on for- it needs to be very obvious and exaggerated for them to do this. Time will without doubt have been added on for the injury alone.

I’d take those comments you’re seeing online with a heavy pinch of salt. Just had a Quick Look at the limited comments I can see on social media, and they’re also saying Jones should have got a straight red for his challenge and Everton should have had a penalty……..

The number of people who were at the game that have text me have remained the non-foul, no one has mentioned the added time.

 

[Archer]

Might just start texting Runner Ref after every match I go to tbh.

 

[RefereeX]

But they seem to have missed when Salah pushed the two Everton players into each other which led to approx 80s of additional extra time due to a head injury. They were also playing with 9 men for 30s.

*I haven't seen this incident but have heard there was a stoppage for 2 Everton players colliding and both receiving treatment*

Did they have to both leave the field of play after receiving treatment? Because this would be wrong in law?

 

[Runner Ref]

Might just start texting Runner Ref after every match I go to tbh.

Any texts will need to be filtered via my secretary @RefereeX

 

[GraemeS]

Oliver's foul tolerance was all over the place. Not giving the foul in the buildup to the last goal was consistent....with about half of his decisions, including the ridiculous decision to not give a foul on Salah that would have killed the game just before that goal.

But the foul on Konate before the final goal is just a really obvious push. I was watching what the TV showed while the VAR check was going on and immediately felt a) it's probably onside and b) if they don't forget to check the rest of the APP, that's an easy overturn for a push on a defender who otherwise would have easily cleared the ball. I don't know if they failed to spot it as a possible incident or if they did and made the wrong call not to get involved, but it should have been an easy call both live and for the VAR.

 

[GraemeS]

I really didn’t see Liverpool particularly wasting much time. Especially enough for the officials to think it was worth adding on for- it needs to be very obvious and exaggerated for them to do this. Time will without doubt have been added on for the injury alone.

I’d take those comments you’re seeing online with a heavy pinch of salt. Just had a Quick Look at the limited comments I can see on social media, and they’re also saying Jones should have got a straight red for his challenge and Everton should have had a penalty……..

The number of people who were at the game that have text me have remained the non-foul, no one has mentioned the added time.

The added time was definitely bordering on excessive: goal was scored at 97:10 I think, in a game where +5 was announced. There was a delay for the clash of heads, but it was a pretty free-flowing added time aside from that. So I don't think anyone would have been surprised if he'd just added one and finished the game around 96. It's not egregiously wrong to play over 2 on top of the announced stoppage time, but it falls in the "acceptable" rather than "best" decision category.

The actual other big mistake in added time was missing the foul on Salah around 93 minutes. Even taking butterfly effect aside, that would have easily allowed some time to be wound off the clock, could conceivably have been a 3rd Liverpool goal (FK centre of the D with TAA on this pitch is about as high% as any team will ever get of scoring from a DFK), and would have significantly reduced the time left for an Everton 2nd.

That, missing the push on Konate and falling for a dive for the FK that resulted in the 1st Everton goal are the 3 real howler decisions in the game for me. You can chuck in a terrible advantage that only had the effect of cancelling what would have been a 2YC for an Everton player as well, and it definitely starts to feel like MO made a number of really poor decisions at key moments, and you're resorting to making a pretty weak case for a Bradley 2YC before you even get far enough down the list to find one that benefited the red team.

 

[RefereeX]

Oliver's foul tolerance was all over the place. Not giving the foul in the buildup to the last goal was consistent....with about half of his decisions, including the ridiculous decision to not give a foul on Salah that would have killed the game just before that goal.

But the foul on Konate before the final goal is just a really obvious push. I was watching what the TV showed while the VAR check was going on and immediately felt a) it's probably onside and b) if they don't forget to check the rest of the APP, that's an easy overturn for a push on a defender who otherwise would have easily cleared the ball. I don't know if they failed to spot it as a possible incident or if they did and made the wrong call not to get involved, but it should have been an easy call both live and for the VAR.

Interesting debate I've just heard about the nudge on Konate at work. I don't quite think it's enough for a foul and I certainly don't think it's enough for a VAR intervention. I've just had a chat with 2 Liverpool fans and 1 spurs fan. The Liverpool fans both said it wasn't a foul, the spurs fan said it was (strangely). I can accept the view that it's a foul absolutely, but you're never going to see that recommended for review by VAR to disallow a goal.

 

[RefereeX]

falling for a dive for the FK that resulted in the 1st Everton goal

Only seen a still image and not a video but was it really a dive? I'm led to believe he kicked the ground causing him to fall over?
Either way, would you be calling it a howler if nothing came of the free kick? Clearly it wasn't a foul, but lets face it, it's a free kick almost on the half way line. Failing to defend it is a Liverpool problem.

 

[GraemeS]

Interesting debate I've just heard about the nudge on Konate at work. I don't quite think it's enough for a foul and I certainly don't think it's enough for a VAR intervention. I've just had a chat with 2 Liverpool fans and 1 spurs fan. The Liverpool fans both said it wasn't a foul, the spurs fan said it was (strangely). I can accept the view that it's a foul absolutely, but you're never going to see that recommended for review by VAR to disallow a goal.

We're going to go down the whole VAR spiral here, but I'm baffled by that stance.

Did the referee see it as a push? If yes, why didn't he make the call? And if no, then he's clearly wrong, and VAR should be intervening to point out that the defender was clearly pushed. I'm not really sure what the point is of authorising VAR to make decision in the APP if clear pushes aren't in that remit?

Only seen a still image and not a video but was it really a dive? I'm led to believe he kicked the ground causing him to fall over?
Either way, would you be calling it a howler if nothing came of the free kick? Clearly it wasn't a foul, but lets face it, it's a free kick almost on the half way line. Failing to defend it is a Liverpool problem.

Context matters. That's the entire concept behind KMI's (or whatever they're called now) - we judge referees for their decisions in the moments that turn out to be the most important ones. MO falling for a dive in the middle of the pitch is poor refereeing regardless - but it becomes a howler and an incorrect KMI because that rubbish decision spawns a goal.

And I have zero issue calling it a dive. Regardless, it's a very very very soft decision, a foul given for no contact with opposition players - which makes it all the more baffling that Salah and Konate didn't get the fouls for significantly more contact later in the game. Like I said in my first post, the most generous interpretation is that his foul tolerance was basically set on "random" for the entire game - and I'm not sure that's particularly acceptable.

 

[RefereeX]

We're going to go down the whole VAR spiral here, but I'm baffled by that stance.

Did the referee see it as a push? If yes, why didn't he make the call? And if no, then he's clearly wrong, and VAR should be intervening to point out that the defender was clearly pushed. I'm not really sure what the point is of authorising VAR to make decision in the APP if clear pushes aren't in that remit?


Context matters. That's the entire concept behind KMI's (or whatever they're called now) - we judge referees for their decisions in the moments that turn out to be the most important ones. MO falling for a dive in the middle of the pitch is poor refereeing regardless - but it becomes a howler and an incorrect KMI because that rubbish decision spawns a goal.

And I have zero issue calling it a dive. Regardless, it's a very very very soft decision, a foul given for no contact with opposition players - which makes it all the more baffling that Salah and Konate didn't get the fouls for significantly more contact later in the game. Like I said in my first post, the most generous interpretation is that his foul tolerance was basically set on "random" for the entire game - and I'm not sure that's particularly acceptable.

It's not a KMI... it's a free kick in the middle of the park. It wouldn't be considered to be a KMI, because the free kick itself is not a match changing situation. It's not in an advanced enough position to create a goals coring opportunity. Do you think the decision to award that free kick would be reviewed by a KMI panel? I don't know if you have an expectation that premier league referees should never get fouls wrong, but you're going to see incorrect fouls given in almost every game. Liverpool failed to defend a very routine, middle of the park free kick.

I would imagine the referee saw it (Konate incident for 2nd goal) as football contact that isn't a push of enough consequence to deem it a foul. That view point is not clearly and obviously wrong.

I have no skin in this game. I probably have a slight bias towards defending the decisions of referees, but occasionally call them out as incorrect (see the penalty awarded to Club Brugge last night). You've said before that you like to think you can see beyond your Liverpool fandom bias and view things as a neutral. I don't believe that to be the case. You often construct a reasonable argument, but never seem to accept that your viewpoint may not be the only acceptable one.

 

[Runner Ref]

Only seen a still image and not a video but was it really a dive? I'm led to believe he kicked the ground causing him to fall over?
Either way, would you be calling it a howler if nothing came of the free kick? Clearly it wasn't a foul, but let’s face it, it's a free kick almost on the half way line. Failing to defend it is a Liverpool problem.

The ‘foul’ for the free kick in lead up to first goal was definitely a dive. No one was close to touching him. But he did kick the ground a few mins later and went off injured. So think that’s probably what you’ve seen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1889764152773640611

 

[Paul_10]

I think maybe in Europe, that 'push' may of been intervened upon but in the PL, it has to be alot more obvious, whether that's right or wrong will split opinion but the fact it has not outraged the pundits(unlike that lewis skelly red card) from what I have seen suggests the VAR was right not to intervene.

I didn't see the issue of Oliver giving advantage to Gakpo and not showing a second yellow to the Everton player. I thought Gakpo was too honest(or nieve) not to go to ground there but his pass did potentially create a Liverpool attack. I would suspect Oliver may not of produced a second yellow though, higher threshold for second yellows, keeping it 11v11 or he won't see it as a SPA may if been reasons why.

And Bradley's potential second yellow card was never a yellow card offense nevermind a second yellow.

 

[RefereeX]

The ‘foul’ for the free kick in lead up to first goal was definitely a dive. No one was close to touching him. But he did kick the ground a few mins later and went off injured. So think that’s probably what you’ve seen.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1889764152773640611

Yeah that's definitely not the still image I saw.

 

[GraemeS]

It's not a KMI... it's a free kick in the middle of the park. It wouldn't be considered to be a KMI, because the free kick itself is not a match changing situation. It's not in an advanced enough position to create a goals coring opportunity. Do you think the decision to award that free kick would be reviewed by a KMI panel? I don't know if you have an expectation that premier league referees should never get fouls wrong, but you're going to see incorrect fouls given in almost every game. Liverpool failed to defend a very routine, middle of the park free kick.

I don't reeeeallly care what a KMI panel thinks, that's not going to materially affect my thoughts on what is or isn't an important decision in a game. MO buying Everton dives was a bit of a trend of the first half, this one just happens to have been both one of the most obvious and also one of the most impactful. And it's part of the argument that his foul detection and consistency of foul tolerance for this game was a) generally really poor and b) had a significant negative impact on Liverpool.

I would imagine the referee saw it (Konate incident for 2nd goal) as football contact that isn't a push of enough consequence to deem it a foul. That view point is not clearly and obviously wrong.

I have no skin in this game. I probably have a slight bias towards defending the decisions of referees, but occasionally call them out as incorrect (see the penalty awarded to Club Brugge last night). You've said before that you like to think you can see beyond your Liverpool fandom bias and view things as a neutral. I don't believe that to be the case. You often construct a reasonable argument, but never seem to accept that your viewpoint may not be the only acceptable one.

I think it's a very similar argument you make about VAR each time, and an argument I struggle with generally - not just in Liverpool games, I just happen to watch a higher proportion of those games so it's more likely to be those games I feel I can make an argument for in the context of the match.

MO was giving soft fouls all game. In the context of the dive that led to the first Everton goal, the relatively soft contact he booked Bradley for being worth a yellow, probably a dozen other examples I could pick going through the game, that much of a push on Konate is clearly a level above what he's giving fouls for elsewhere. VAR should be helping him keep his tolerance for goal and penalty incidents as consistent as possible with his tolerance elsewhere in the game.

 

[one]

Here is my take of added time.

On 90min 5min added time was decided and announced. Injury time around 94th was 1min 45 seconds wistle to whistle. There was no other cases warranting further added time.

My guess is MO had decided to add 2 full minutes. Just about any of us would have done the same. Everton's attacking opportunity to score started around 96.55. At 97.00 it was a promising attack. Goal was scored at 97.06.

It's all well and good to say there was too much time added. Maybe there was from a fan viewpoint. Two things everyone needs to know.

1. Referee has discretion over how much time is added.
2. No one nutral expects full time to be blown during a promising attack. But even that is at the referee's discretion.

 

[RefereeX]

I don't reeeeallly care what a KMI panel thinks, that's not going to materially affect my thoughts on what is or isn't an important decision in a game. MO buying Everton dives was a bit of a trend of the first half, this one just happens to have been both one of the most obvious and also one of the most impactful. And it's part of the argument that his foul detection and consistency of foul tolerance for this game was a) generally really poor and b) had a significant negative impact on Liverpool.

It's a poor argument. Have you ever refereed a game and a team blame you for a goal conceded after a corner they deem to be incorrect or similar? Have you never thought to yourself 'it's not my fault you couldn't defend the corner'? Equally, MO could have given that incorrect free kick near the half way line, Liverpool clear the ball in and go up the other end and score. Are you still considering that free kick decision to have had a major impact on the game? As without it, Liverpool probably wouldn't have scored... (hypothetically). The first goal last night was Liverpool's fault for failing to defend a very routine free kick. In my opinion their defending of that free kick was a bigger error than the award of it by Michael Oliver.

VAR should be helping him keep his tolerance for goal and penalty incidents as consistent as possible with his tolerance elsewhere in the game.

No it shouldn't. It should be intervening on clear and obvious refereeing errors. If you believe that's what VAR should be used for then fine, but that's not what it's been asked to be used for. If a referee describes an incident to VAR and it's not vastly different to how the referee has described it, you're not gonna get an overturn.

 

[RefereeX]

Here is my take of added time.

On 90min 5min added time was decided and announced. Injury time around 94th was 1min 45 seconds wistle to whistle. There was no other cases warranting further added time.

My guess is MO had decided to add 2 full minutes. Just about any of us would have done the same. Everton's attacking opportunity to score started around 96.55. At 97.00 it was a promising attack. Goal was scored at 97.06.

It's all well and good to say there was too much time added. Maybe there was from a fan viewpoint. Two things everyone needs to know.

1. Referee has discretion over how much time is added.
2. No one nutral expects full time to be blown during a promising attack. But even that is at the referee's discretion.

Add in the fact that the 5 minutes added is a minimum and in theory the total stoppage time calculated to that point may have been 5 mins and 30 seconds, meaning that with the additional 1 min 45 seconds added they're then to play until 7 mins and 15 seconds...

 

[one]

Salah pushed the two Everton players into each other

Honestly baseless comments like this discredits other things in the post even when they have merit and changes a referee post to a fan post.

There was absolutely no contact between Sala and the two players before the clash or when it happened. There is a close up replay leaving no doubt.

 

[Paul_10]

MO was giving soft fouls all game. In the context of the dive that led to the first Everton goal, the relatively soft contact he booked Bradley for being worth a yellow, probably a dozen other examples I could pick going through the game, that much of a push on Konate is clearly a level above what he's giving fouls for elsewhere. VAR should be helping him keep his tolerance for goal and penalty incidents as consistent as possible with his tolerance elsewhere in the game.

You see if I was a Liverpool fan I would be annoyed with Bradley for that first yellow, absolute needless foul in the least thretening part of the pitch because he just wanted to give one to his opponant infront of the Everton fans.

Oliver also had a clear view of the 'push' so if he thought there was nothing in it and the pictures back that up, then no chance VAR getting involved.