Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Everton 2-2 Liverpool - Saturday 17th October, 2020


football forum

Recommended Posts

  • Subscriber
7 minutes ago, Stan said:

It's because the offside took precedence - it's the first incident. The rules state that no further action can be taken (despite the reckless nature of the challenge endangering an opponent) because of the offside. 

There's no penalty to give because the offside happened. So not sure what the 'potential penalty incident' is? 

That's not what I mean. There is a foul in the box, you've heard VAR and as a ref because its a potential penalty that you haven't reviewed yourself you should be at a monitor just as much as I'd expect them to go there if the linesman doesn't raise his/her flag to go see the incident themselves which in this case happens to be true. This also doesnt mean Pickford should see red or that he should be sent off the pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 442
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator
9 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

That's not what I mean. There is a foul in the box, you've heard VAR and as a ref because its a potential penalty that you haven't reviewed yourself you should be at a monitor just as much as I'd expect them to go there if the linesman doesn't raise his/her flag to go see the incident themselves which in this case happens to be true. This also doesnt mean Pickford should see red or that he should be sent off the pitch.

But the foul in the box happens after the offside decision?

No point looking at the monitor because the offside gets looked at first. As soon as Van Dijk is adjudged to be offside, everything else that happens after that is a moot point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
8 minutes ago, Stan said:

But the foul in the box happens after the offside decision?

No point looking at the monitor because the offside gets looked at first. As soon as Van Dijk is adjudged to be offside, everything else that happens after that is a moot point.

But the ref didn't make the offside call, VAR did. And, the game was let to go on and at that point the linesman hasn't raised his flag so the ref is literally going on what VAR is saying. Meanwhile, there is a foul in the box post the offside which no one is clear on until VAR review for the offside. The player is already receiving medical attention why not just jog up to the monitor have a look take a look while VAR does it analysis and everyone is on the same page? 

Just to be clear my point of contention isnt the act post the offside which was not the reason for VAR to be involved in the first place its the fact that the referee stops the game to have the incident reviewed as its a foul then waits for VAR to give the decision and should it not be an offside I still think the ref has to go to the screen to review the incident. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

It's one thing idiot fans doing it in their echo chambers on reddit and Twitter but Julien Laurens is a reputable, usually insightful and intelligent neutral commentator. He isn't even a former Liverpool player like so many of the others. Surely you can see the difference? Here's another one who's supposedly an unbiased commentator, just look at the hypocrisy:

I'm sorry but last time this happened to one of our players, Son basically had a national media campaign trying to get his ban overturned and it was "by the way, hopefully Gomes is alright too". It leaves a pretty vile taste in the mouth when you contrast it with all this hysteria.

It's shite losing a key player for a long period of time but it happens to everyone at some point and when you've all come to terms with it you'll look back and accept that Pickford clearly didn't put any intent into that challenge and all this talk about assault and 8 month bans was just a little bit ridiculous.

I can actually accept Liverpool fans still being angry because they're emotionally invested but some of these neutral commentators are just jumping on the bandwagon because it's a good opportunity to get liked and retweeted by those thousands of fuming Liverpool fans.

To be fair, Jim Beglin played for Liverpool for six years, so hardly unbiased. Also, there is a mechanism for players to get retrospective bans if the referee didn't see the incident, so it's not a completely ridiculous question. You're unlikely to see it these days as VAR has seemingly unofficially replaced retrospective review, but it does exist

For the record, Son's challenge was shocking and it's an absolute disgrace the red was overturned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stan said:

It's because the offside took precedence - it's the first incident. The rules state that no further action can be taken (despite the reckless nature of the challenge endangering an opponent) because of the offside. 

There's no penalty to give because the offside happened. So not sure what the 'potential penalty incident' is? 

Where do the rules state that? Obviously the penalty doesn't matter because play stops as soon as there's an offside, but that doesn't change the nature of Pickford's challenge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

But the ref didn't make the offside call, VAR did. And, the game was let to go on and at that point the linesman hasn't raised his flag so the ref is literally going on what VAR is saying. Meanwhile, there is a foul in the box post the offside which no one is clear on until VAR review for the offside. The player is already receiving medical attention why not just jog up to the monitor have a look take a look while VAR does it analysis and everyone is on the same page? 

But what's he going to the monitor for?

If he gave a punishment for the foul (through VAR or looking at the monitor or not), the officials would literally be making the laws and taking the rules in to their own hands as it will have been determined there was an offside in the build up and anything that happened after that isn't necessarily relevant. 

Even if he looked at the monitor and deemed it was a dangerous play/reckless foul, he's probably being told in his ear there's an offside decision to determine as well which takes precedence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, LFCMadLad said:

So the next time we have an offside decision... Mane (for instance) can walk over and nut Luke Shaw (for instance) and its ok because offside had already been given?

What a load of old bollocks xD

Well no because that would then be violent conduct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
6 minutes ago, Stan said:

But what's he going to the monitor for?

If he gave a punishment for the foul (through VAR or looking at the monitor or not), the officials would literally be making the laws and taking the rules in to their own hands as it will have been determined there was an offside in the build up and anything that happened after that isn't necessarily relevant. 

Even if he looked at the monitor and deemed it was a dangerous play/reckless foul, he's probably being told in his ear there's an offside decision to determine as well which takes precedence.

Just to be clear my point of contention isnt the act post the offside and it being a red card/sending off/violent conduct which was the reason for VAR to be involved in the first place its the fact that the referee stops the game to have the incident reviewed as its a foul then waits for VAR to give the decision and should it not be an offside I still think the ref has to go to the screen to review the incident. I dont think they could ever have given Pickford a red for that incident and I really doubt they will ever go back on it personally in any shape or form as rule amendments but what I am saying is that any infraction in the box that can lead to a goal-scoring opportunity when its called by the ref for stop in play requires the guy on the pitch to go to a monitor and review the incident with VAR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
10 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Where do the rules state that? Obviously the penalty doesn't matter because play stops as soon as there's an offside, but that doesn't change the nature of Pickford's challenge

It's not in those specific words of course but someone mentioned it earlier on in this thread I think. 

Think it's why some are saying - in jest - that Van Dijk shouldn't have got himself offside and then he would have avoided injury and/or got a penalty so it's his own fault :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stan said:

It's not in those specific words of course but someone mentioned it earlier on in this thread I think. 

Think it's why some are saying - in jest - that Van Dijk shouldn't have got himself offside and then he would have avoided injury and/or got a penalty so it's his own fault :ph34r:

Oh, someone said it on the internet? Well case closed then

Come on mate xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Their reason/excuse for not looking at retrospective action was that the officials saw and evaluated the incident during the game.

This rule has always been in place even before VAR and was the reason why you couldn't get a yellow card to be changed to a red for example. 

It makes no sense though. You're allowed to overrule a referee who has mistakenly given a red card to remove the ban, so why is it only allowed to do the opposite when the reason a red card wasn't given was because of the incident going unnoticed and never because the officials made a mistake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mel81x said:

Don't agree with what Julien is saying about length of bans or anything else but what he does say at the end is important when he says "Michael Oliver should go to the screen to see for himself". Why he didn't go we'll never know but if anything good should come out of all this its referees going to the monitor to review the incident. This was a potential penalty incident to be decided by an offside call in the box, the ref should be at the monitor not with his hand to his ear. Lots of teams are getting decisions pushed on them while refs just hand around waiting to hear and for me thats the biggest thing that needs changing about VAR when it comes to crucial decisions - goals, penalties and fouls that are considered malicious (anywhere on the pitch). 

Because the VAR official has to initiate it and should have asked Oliver if he'd seen it. 

It appears that Liverpool were told on Saturday night that the VAR official was preoccupied with checking the offside and didn't analyse Pickford's challenge. Fast forward to Monday and the story has changed to that is was reviewed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
1 minute ago, LFCMike said:

Because the VAR official has to initiate it and should have asked Oliver if he'd seen it. 

It appears that Liverpool were told on Saturday night that the VAR official was preoccupied with checking the offside and didn't analyse Pickford's challenge. Fast forward to Monday and the story has changed to that is was reviewed. 

And the VAR official in question gets to carry on doing a job and referee tonight's Leeds/Wolves game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Because the VAR official has to initiate it and should have asked Oliver if he'd seen it. 

It appears that Liverpool were told on Saturday night that the VAR official was preoccupied with checking the offside and didn't analyse Pickford's challenge. Fast forward to Monday and the story has changed to that is was reviewed. 

I honestly think they just make shit up as they go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...