A&H

RMA vs LIV

For me Valverde played the ball, then there is a deflection off Konate, then a deflection off Fabinho. The players were so close, and in the action of blocking a shot and/or tackling, so it must be offside.

I would like to see the goal again as my show did not show the check.
 
The Referee Store
The ref missed a yellow card for Mane on Kroos. Minus 0,1 there. Other than that, I though he did well.

The whole match though was very weird. Locking the gates on fans. Ball boys acting strange. No replay of the VAR check on the goal here. If I was a City fan I'd be paranoid!
 
He was deffo on...

Thought ref didn't get much wrong on the pitch but I didn't like him stopping Liverpool taking a quick throw for no reason and not adding time on for the fk at the end, was certainly warranted
 
Screenshot 2022-05-29 at 1.10.16.png

Well, that's not a good look. Konate had a fantastic match. Trent has got this wrong by a foot. But Virgil probably won't want to see this again.
 
I too thought the FK at the end should have been played. It takes 30 secs tops and would have made up for minor time wasting in the 5 mins stoppage.

I thought a yellow for SPA against a RMD player was missed in the 1st half, looked like he tried to manage it. Unless some very generous interpretation was used to determine it wasn't SPA ...
 
At the point Konate and Fabinho both make movements towards the ball, Valverde is yet to make a touch so for me, they have made a deliberate play on the ball. So onside for me
 
It was confusing during the check but once the decision was made and it was explained why then fair enough. However on Mostyn Rec on Saturday mornings out alone I would have defo given the goal 😁
 
I think having slept on it I am at peace that konates deliberate play was a save, valverde was trying to play the ball towards/into/near the goal and thus Benzema remained in offside position and commits an offside offence.
 
Interesting... what about a save or block?
My feelings are if you go to kick the ball but somebody marginally gets there before you and kicks it into your foot, you’ve still kicked the ball, therefore intentionally played it. We could obviously go back and forth here as we don’t know exactly what the defenders were thinking but for me, they’ve both attempted to play the ball but an attacker got there first, but all within the same action
 
My feelings are if you go to kick the ball but somebody marginally gets there before you and kicks it into your foot, you’ve still kicked the ball, therefore intentionally played it. We could obviously go back and forth here as we don’t know exactly what the defenders were thinking but for me, they’ve both attempted to play the ball but an attacker got there first, but all within the same action
But, a save is a deliberate play, and the outcome of the attacker getting their first makes that deliberate play a save.
 
The expectation is that the attacker is penalised for a being in an offside position from a 'save' or 'deflection' as per Page 209 of the pamphlet
Besides, the AR guessed (we all have to take a punt occasionally) that it was offside and there's no way VAR could claim the AR made an obvious error with that guess, so the AR was correctly attributed with the correct decision

On this occasion, I could've had two pints of Scumpy whilst waiting for the VAR room to figure they weren't beholden to interfering with this outcome. That's if I could've dodged the racist French Police en-route to the bar, or squeezed passed the equally prejudiced UEFA Congragation 'pleasuring themselves down below' instead of them taking up the hundreds of best seats in the house to actually watch the game for a change
1653821551183.png
 
Last edited:
I think this is the type of play where VAR really increases controversy. It creates the illusion for many people that there is an objectively correct and discernible answer that should have been solved for on review. There is no forgiveness involved. I think this play would be much less discussed without VAR.
I was messaging someone about this incident last night and outlined the various things that would be considered from the LotG and how the officials reached their decision. The reply I got was "fair enough but good luck explaining that on a Sunday morning" and I realised that it would probably be easier for us at lower levels. I feel we could probably sell it either way and players would most likely begrudgingly accept it whereas with this it has been forensically analysed from various angles and at various speeds which makes it harder.
 
I was messaging someone about this incident last night and outlined the various things that would be considered from the LotG and how the officials reached their decision. The reply I got was "fair enough but good luck explaining that on a Sunday morning" and I realised that it would probably be easier for us at lower levels. I feel we could probably sell it either way and players would most likely begrudgingly accept it whereas with this it has been forensically analysed from various angles and at various speeds which makes it harder.
Agreed- I think either decision could be pretty easily defended in a grass roots game. “It was a save, so it can’t reset OS” or ”the defender played the ball, so there’s no OS—either way, it’s a one sentence explanation of a judgment call by the R, and we move on.
 
Back
Top