Football: Liverpool You Stupid Bastards

[baxus]

Let's not lie here, I would take that penalty if it was called for my team, especially when my team is in this state and needs all the help it can get. It would still not make it a penalty, though.

I think the worst part of that call was ref going to check VAR and deciding in under a second. If it was that clear there would have been no need for VAR in the first place. Stand there and look at it from multiple angles before making a call. Don't just behave as if "check VAR" means "go check if the monitor is still there".

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Let's not lie here, I would take that penalty if it was called for my team, especially when my team is in this state and needs all the help it can get. It would still not make it a penalty, though.

I think the worst part of that call was ref going to check VAR and deciding in under a second. If it was that clear there would have been no need for VAR in the first place. Stand there and look at it from multiple angles before making a call. Don't just behave as if "check VAR" means "go check if the monitor is still there".

My problem is also with the VAR process here.  In the recent past we have seen VAR scrutinized for several minutes over pixels here and there, and on this occasion the ref runs over to tap the monitor and depart without more than a glance?  Either use VAR consistently or not at all, because that demonstration was farcical.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, if you accept that those penalties have been awarded (without getting overturned) this season, then you really have little grounds to complain. You can say it's an horrible call, and it really shouldn't be a penalty, but apparently EPL referees agreed you can award a penalty there. Thus not a clear and obvious error, thus no reason to overturn the penalty. Sucks to be on the receiving end.

It's not like Liverpool lost the game because of that penalty.

[baxus]

Did you see the match?

That penalty just killed off any chance or even belief that Liverpool had of getting anything from this match. Of course, with the way Liverpool have been playing for a while, it's not that likely that Liverpool would've scored even once let alone twice. Still, we didn't get the chance to see that.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hum, sorry, I don't think the penalty call in the 83rd minute killed the game for Liverpool, If the penalty had been given in the 50th minute, or so, maybe I could buy into that argument. Liverpool really didn't feel like scoring to me. But then again, without that call maybe Pickford would have set up Origi, it just doesn't feel likely this season.

[Mark Antony]

Zero chance we were gonna score imo. We’ve been in that situation a bunch over the last couple months and haven’t shown anything.

[Rorshach]

7 hours ago, baxus said:

Not really. He slid in between DCL and the goal in order to block the shot which a defender is supposed to do. Then DCL ran into him AFTER taking the shot. Sure, he went for a deflected ball but at that point Trent was already in his way and DCL should've acted accordingly. It's not as if a striker has a free pass everywhere in the box once he's in it, you know?

Yeah. 

Point I'm making is that ... since he's actually *missed* his tackle, he has no reason to be in anyone's way. It isn't within the rules to throw yourself into people's running lanes and claim that since half a second has passed, you're now free to be there. 

You miss a tackle and impede a player, you get free kicks and penalties. Especially when they deny others clear goal scoring opportunities. 

[Rorshach]

6 hours ago, baxus said:

Let's not lie here, I would take that penalty if it was called for my team, especially when my team is in this state and needs all the help it can get. It would still not make it a penalty, though.

This makes no sense. "My team in this state"? We were winning the game, and are level with you guys on points as of now, fighting for European spots. Have won a lot of games away this season. "This state"? 

Get real.

[baxus]

8 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

This makes no sense. "My team in this state"? We were winning the game, and are level with you guys on points as of now, fighting for European spots. Have won a lot of games away this season. "This state"? 

Get real.

I meant in the state Liverpool is in, when they struggled to score for so many games.

But don't let that get in the way of you getting offended for no reason at all.

11 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Yeah. 

Point I'm making is that ... since he's actually *missed* his tackle, he has no reason to be in anyone's way. It isn't within the rules to throw yourself into people's running lanes and claim that since half a second has passed, you're now free to be there. 

You miss a tackle and impede a player, you get free kicks and penalties. Especially when they deny others clear goal scoring opportunities. 

He didn't "throw himself into people's running lanes" since DCL was running towards the goal and was then running towards the ball that was deflected away from the goal. Or is the whole penalty box striker's running lane?

Your team won the game, got the three points. Enjoy that. Sure, refs make mistakes, sometimes those mistakes are in your favour, sometimes they're not. It's all part of the sport. The way you're trying to prove that this was as clear a penalty as they come sounds like you're aware that it wasn't.

[Rorshach]

8 minutes ago, baxus said:

I meant in the state Liverpool is in, when they struggled to score for so many games.

But don't let that get in the way of you getting offended for no reason at all. (1)

He didn't "throw himself into people's running lanes" since DCL was running towards the goal and was then running towards the ball that was deflected away from the goal. Or is the whole penalty box striker's running lane?

Your team won the game, got the three points. Enjoy that. Sure, refs make mistakes, sometimes those mistakes are in your favour, sometimes they're not. It's all part of the sport. The way you're trying to prove that this was as clear a penalty as they come sounds like you're aware that it wasn't. (2)

(1). Misread. Sorry. My bad.

(2). Was going to reply, but you went crazy there, and ... sorry. Can't take you seriously. Try arguing without reading my mind next time.

[baxus]

I stopped taking you seriously once you started claiming that Trent went into DCL's line of movement so I guess we're cool.

[Rorshach]

Well, you can look from about 7:30 and forward, and pinpoint where exactely DCL changes direction, and whether or not TAA moves into his line of running. 

I'll accept your apology after. 

[baxus]

I wouldn't hold my breath for that apology if I were you.  

[Rorshach]

11 minutes ago, baxus said:

I wouldn't hold my breath for that apology if I were you.  

I'm not. 

I just notice you argue from feelings and not facts. But you still manage to try to get into my frame of mind, and speculate what I must think.

Deeply silly. 

[baxus]

Yeah, if you say so then it must be true.

[Rorshach]

Nah.

But your lack of arguments does. 

Try to go against it. Go to the video. Show where 1) TAA *doesn't* slide into DCL's running lane and 2) DCL changes direction.

You know, argue facts. Instead of the empty rethoric you now employ.

[BigFatCoward]

It's a penalty, but it's not that clear cut. Thats about as much discussion as is required surely? 

[mormont]

I mean... it's fairly clear cut if you know the Laws.

[Rorshach]

I'll absolutely apoligize for dragging the discussion out. Not needed in itself. 

Sorry about that.

[Consigliere]

It was a penalty. TAA is unfortunate in the sense that he didn't know much about it and certainly didn't intend to obstruct DCL but intent is not a factor in these cases and an accidental foul is still a foul. What the referee did get wrong is that once he awarded a penalty, TAA should have been sent off as well for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity - it's a shit rule but it's still the rule as David Luiz and Arsenal fans found out.