I can only recall the header that went over the bar, when the lad should’ve scored. We should’ve been out of sight by half time.
1 Like
I’m with you. We have plenty of history with Tierney, and I’m one of those who say that the league is fixed anyway, but this time around, I think that both disallowed goals had nothing to do with the refs being bent or biased against us. They just applied the rules as they saw fit, and to be honest, I had the feeling on both occasions that it was the right decision.
However, had they had the chance to stick the knife into us, I’m sure that they’d have done it with glee.
Was quite fresh to seeing a team not preventing about 20 chances 
1 Like
Ermm its more highlighting inconsistencies.
1 Like
I know but that still doesn’t mean Burnley were so good in the second half.
You thought our 1st disallowed goal was correct?
1 Like
Well they did have a header that nearly cleared the top of the stadium, so they basically drew the game.
1 Like
Where did i say that.
The server wouldn’t be able to handle that amount of photo’s
1 Like
That’s a reply to Hope, yer big numpty
1 Like
Haven’t seen it since, but at the time, I thought it was correctly disallowed.
For me the 2nd one was rightly disallowed, although I haven’t seen the push.
The 1st was just a diabolical decision as I can’t see any contact their defender furked up
You’re starting to sound like an Arsenal manager 
2 Likes
Oh yeah 
The replays don’t show any contact whatsoever, their defender furked up and is obvious from his reaction
3 Likes
No, they were poor. I managed to work out how to watch the game without the commentary, because Guy Mowbray was so bloody annoying.
3 Likes
The line of sight, fair enough.
But for the first Gakpo strike, that was a gift to Burnley. Charlie Taylor had no complaints at all. It’s a decision that I feel nearly all refs would’ve let play on.
From The Guardian match report: By the half-hour mark, Liverpool had notched seven shots on target, the seventh could have resulted in the second goal, only for Tierney to generously adjudge that Núñez fouled Charlie Taylor in the box prior to Gakpo finding the net. VAR checked but accepted the view of the referee.
Ref tells VAR he saw contact so will give foul. As there is contact, VAR won’t get involved. It’s like those Harry Kane specials when he makes contact. If the ref gives it, it will stay given.
4 Likes
I’ll have to see a replay then. 
On my first look at the Gakpo one, I though it was a foul. On second viewing Darwin barely touched him and it’s one of those where the defender throws himself down and buys a soft foul. If PGMOL was really interested in getting g decisions right, Tierney would have been sent to the monitor to look again.
The Elliott goal should have stood. The reason why Salah is in an offside position is because he is literally aggressively pushed into an offside position by the Burnley player, who knows exactly what he is doing. That’s the context to the decision, that Tierney fails to apply.
5 Likes