My wife can never let that one go either
Liv City - Klopp and Pep for maybe the last time
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
- Status
bester
RefChat Addict
I still think this is very subjective. Probably a penalty, no issue whatsoever if it was given, but it wasn't a clear and obvious error. There's enough doubt, I've been listening to so called football experts on the radio all day and whilst more say yes than no not everything thinks it was a foul.
But regardless of foul or no foul, I certainly wouldn't agree that it was anywhere even close to SFP. Doku was trying to pull his foot away by the time of the contact and the impact was very minimal.
What has also been pointed out several times is Liverpool fans have been calling up incandescent with rage to complain, but they were surprisingly quiet last weekend when they scored a goal not long after a very clear and obvious refereeing error. That decision wasn't subjective, the restart was incorrect.
But regardless of foul or no foul, I certainly wouldn't agree that it was anywhere even close to SFP. Doku was trying to pull his foot away by the time of the contact and the impact was very minimal.
What has also been pointed out several times is Liverpool fans have been calling up incandescent with rage to complain, but they were surprisingly quiet last weekend when they scored a goal not long after a very clear and obvious refereeing error. That decision wasn't subjective, the restart was incorrect.
The Nani one really could not have been any different. He was lunging, off the ground, and made contact with a hundred times' more power.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
But that is what has happened here. Oliver has refereed the whole occasion and not the incident.
Whatever your thoughts on the decision, the fact that we're 3 pages (and almost 50 posts) into a thread without there being a consensus is a fairly good indicator that: (1) the onfield decision by MO was not clearly and obviously wrong; and (2) Stuart Attwell was correct not to recommend an OFR.
We've all spent countless hours bemoaning the re-refereeing of games by VAR, so this has to be an improvement. It's a subjective decision and IMO it is right that VAR did not get involved (and it would equally have been correct for VAR not to get involved had MO given the penalty).
City were on the wrong end of a subjective decision where a foul was given to rule out a Ruben Dias goal in the reverse fixture and there was no consensus on that decision either. On that occasion Liverpool got the rub of the green, and yesterday City got the rub of the green. That's just football!
We've all spent countless hours bemoaning the re-refereeing of games by VAR, so this has to be an improvement. It's a subjective decision and IMO it is right that VAR did not get involved (and it would equally have been correct for VAR not to get involved had MO given the penalty).
City were on the wrong end of a subjective decision where a foul was given to rule out a Ruben Dias goal in the reverse fixture and there was no consensus on that decision either. On that occasion Liverpool got the rub of the green, and yesterday City got the rub of the green. That's just football!
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Absolutely. Some people are just unable to put their "fan" head away and see what's plainly in front of them.
Agree, and that is why I will never post on a game involving my team (on any forum or social media platform) until well after it has ended, usually not even until the following day. Doesn't matter how objective you are, as a fan of a team it is almost impossible to look at things without some element of bias.
Unfortunately for some fans that following day really means following year, or even decade, as they will never let it go and therefore will never be capable of looking at it rationally.
Normally I'd fairly easily understand the 'not C&O' stance, but this would be a textbook example of a boot to the chest, but not a sending off.
To discuss whether or not it's a foul should really not be up for debate in this instance. It's easily careless, possibly reckless and definitely a PK. Think Oliver will be gutted to have missed it.
To discuss whether or not it's a foul should really not be up for debate in this instance. It's easily careless, possibly reckless and definitely a PK. Think Oliver will be gutted to have missed it.
deusex
RefChat Addict
Lies! He grazed the cheating Madrid diver with the force of a feather floating to earth.
That's how I remember it anyway.
This one is really odd, still have that as a wonderful decision but there is still outrage about that call 13 years later.
Have had that red card as my hill to die on for years
YourBootsAreUntied
New Member
I personally, would've awarded the foul and subsequent PK. No qualms. It's Oliver who I speculate may have wished to avoid awarding a second PK in the 98th minute. And, no, I don't think it's fair to say that MO is out of his depth.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
It's true you were at one point speculating about Oliver's thought process, but before that you said:
Which sounds awfully like you saying "we" (you) wouldn't want to see a penalty given in the 98th minute.
I would also have to disagree with the bit about the player not being a direct threat. Whether he was or wasn't has nothing to do with whether it's a foul or not.
With all due respect, that's a nonsense reason to try and shut down discussion. Apart from anything else, most of the first page is either people agreeing with it being a missed penalty or discussing other incidents - only one dissenting post from @RustyRef . And similarly on page 2, you have a single dissenting poster making up around a third of the posts, but a clear majority seeing it as a missed penalty.
If a couple of dissenting voices are enough that you declare the conversation should be shut down, why are we bothering with VAR? Or a referee discussion forum for that matter?
So just to be clear, your stance is that this Nani example should have been a red card because of the force involved, but take that force away as with Doku and it doesn't just drop to a yellow or even foul only, but all the way down to "no foul"?
Having taken in to account the opinions of plenty of other people, I'm happy to accept that I'm obviously in the minority here, and I have respect for the opinions of plenty of people that think it's a foul so I would guess I'm wrong, but there's no getting away from the fact that VAR is supposed to intervene only in clear and obvious errors and I don't believe this could be defined as such. It's not just generating debate on here, it's all over social media.
Rightly or wrongly, the PGMOL still want the onus to be with the on field referee's decision unless it's clearly and factually incorrect. For me, that means unless a very large majority of people are going to look at it and say it's a penalty, then Oliver's decision should stand. From what I've seen all over social media, while the majority think it's a penalty, I don't think that could be described as a large majority.
What on earth are you talking about? Please point me to where I have said the conversation should be shut down, or that there shouldn't be a discussion?
For what it's worth I think it was a penalty, but I don't think it was a clear and obvious error and I therefore think it was right for VAR not to get involved. If people feel otherwise that's fine, and ultimatelty people are free to debate as much as they like (enjoying that you apparently think I have enough influence to shut down the debate
).I usually enjoy reading your posts and tend to agree with a lot of things you say, but it doesn't appear that you have the ability to be rational when it comes to decisions involving Liverpool, which is a shame.
I take social media with a pinch of salt - everyone has a bias and the vast majority don't actually know the laws, they're just going off what "feels" like it should/shouldn't be a foul. Of course City fans "don't think it should be a penalty" - but enough of broader social media will be made up of those City fans that if you can't accurately filter them out, it will look like enough of a dissenting minority to stop there being majority consensus. That's not a reasonable approach to take.
The hope is that we can work to a higher standard here. And that's why I wanted to highlight that the conversation is getting lost in incorrect bits of law. As far as I can tell, every post arguing it shouldn't be a penalty is either not citing law to make that argument, or is getting distracted by arguing why it shouldn't be a red card - and then for some reason, extrapolating that to mean that if it's not a red card, it can't be a foul. And that's the disconnect I'm struggling with here.
Last edited:
This bit:What on earth are you talking about? Please point me to where I have said the conversation should be shut down, or that there shouldn't be a discussion?
For what it's worth I think it was a penalty, but I don't think it was a clear and obvious error and I therefore think it was right for VAR not to get involved. If people feel otherwise that's fine, and ultimatelty people are free to debate as much as they like (enjoying that you apparently think I have enough influence to shut down the debate
I usually enjoy reading your posts and tend to agree with a lot of things you say, but it doesn't appear that you have the ability to be rational when it comes to decisions involving Liverpool, which is a shame.
seems to strongly imply to me that you think this is an accurate summary of the incident and is clear evidence of it not requiring VAR intervention. I think that's a really strange metric, especially given most of the arguments against this being a missed penalty seem to not be based in law.
A couple of people going "nah, I don't think that's a penalty" and that sparking 3 pages of response to try and understand where the stance has come from doesn't make for a conclusive body of evidence for me. And that goes double on here where we're supposed to discuss these things with a bit more knowledge of law that most of social media - the law-based explanation of why this shouldn't have been given hasn't been provided yet. IMO, it's entirely valid to say that we shouldn't be trying to summarise and end the debate yet.
As we well know, there is law, and then there is 'what the game expects'. My argument for it not being a penalty was not purely based in law, as if we purely base things on law we would have a lot more penalties than we do, my argument was also (although I may not have explained that it was) based on the fact I don't think that in terms of expectations of the game, that that should be a penalty.
Like I say, on balance, I would say that I'm wrong, but I think social media, as much as you have to try and filter the bias, is still a reasonable indication. As are the opinions of friends and colleagues. I work with a big Liverpool fan (actually from Liverpool too) and he said as much as he would have loved it to be given, he doesn't think it should be a penalty. He's got no interest in referees or refereeing, but that's the unbiased opinion of (just one) football fan.
The colleagues I respect the opinion of most, all said they think it was a penalty, but they didn't all say they thought it should be considered a clear and obvious error.
- Status