Peter Walton
Who rarely goes against refs.
But there are people here who insist they are interpreting the law correctly.
1 Like
I donât think it is a matter of interpreting the law correctly - more a difference of what they believe they see. The crux is a matter of fact, not interpretation.
I thought he was moving deliberately, making intentional but poor contact with the ball with his left foot/leg.
2 Likes
What else is new âŚ
1 Like
No, you prove that you are good enough over a whole season, and this season, we havenât been good enough. That is all.
No drama at all on my side btw. Next season, we attack again and will surely do better than during this rotten one.
4 Likes
Found this amusing like.
https://twitter.com/ScouseCommie/status/1660306379192643584?s=20
3 Likes
Yeah Iâve just seen the offside.
Nope sorry thatâs on side.
Can see the Mings thing not given but looks worse than Jota, but accept that itâs bollocks.
However the offside seriously thatâs just poor.
2 Likes
The rules/interpretations stated by Rambler point out the deliberations taken to decide if an action is âdeliberateâ.
These rules/interpretations are guidelines that are set by IFAB and these are how a referee should determine what is classed as deliberate and if it is not classed as deliberate it would then be considered to be a deflection.
You are right in that in that Konsa did deliberately play the ball but unfortunately not as is required to be classed as deliberate within the Laws of the Game
For me, it is this one below that is the crux of the argument
- The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
Snore zzzzzz
The usual suspects being âfair minded, unbiasedâ coupled with our in house âprofessionalâ refs who know more than the rest of us uneducated canât see, canât read, canât undertand plebs.
I would love to see them argue our corner so hard when we face an injustice.
3 Likes
As long as there is no accountability from the PGMOL, the FA and PL, the shitshow that is Man City and the refereeing standards will cause the league to drop in reputation.
It seems there is a need for an independent regulator and auditor after all for not just financial stability but also the FA performance.
1 Like
You are just a WUM, never offer anything to a debate
The crux of the matter.
His touch was poor.
But it was still a deliberate play, with time to coordinate his movement.
You donât get minutes in the penalty area.
If he is clever he doesnât touch the ball and Virgil is offside. But he attempts a clearance and fucks it up.
And despite the interpretations on here, former refs such as Walton are saying the goal should stand. In a match where a potential CL place is at stake.
The same with the Mings tackle on Cody. Dreadful decision. But mention that here and its compared to Jota vs Spurs. As an atrempt to show some moral equity.
3 Likes
Unfair. Because someone disagrees with convention, it doesnât make them a WUM
2 Likes
Personally thought it should have stood (the goal) but again itâs masking a terrible performance.
The lack of Ingame intelligence to adapt to Villa defending how they did is a worrying sign we as a team arenât evolving.
Cant wait for a squad refresh and full preseason to see us back to playing quality football week in week out, guess what refs canât influence? Starting with intensity, scoring early⌠good luck with all the time wasting then.
3 Likes
If he doesnât touch it, it was going to Konate with only the keeper to beat. He needed to hoof it into the Kop but he didnât get the necessary height on it. The only debate I can see is whether that was because he had to stretch to get it but most defenders will be able to sky that kind of ball to safety 9 times out of 10. I think itâs pushing it to say it is some kind of forced error.
1 Like
Ultimately its a subjective decision because the rules are written in a way that allows for subjectivity. I think it very clearly met all the required standards for the goal to stand and I think it met the moral intent of the law - the Villa defender stopped a goal-scoring opportunity with his action but in doing so presented another one to Liverpool. If he doesnât touch the ball Liverpool likely score an onside goal - he make a move to the ball and intecepts it but gives it straight to van Dijk - previously not involved in the play - who creates the goal for Gakpo.
To me that meets both the technical and moral criteria of allowing the goal to stand.
The PGMOL can hide behind the subjectivity written into the laws and canât definitely be told they are right or wrong. However, I believe they know they fucked up despite what might be said publically.
4 Likes
I donât think they should be compared. Mingsâs tackle was quite a bit more forceful and probably should have been red. Jotaâs also probably should have been red. Less force but way too high. Both reds but still shouldnât be compared.
You win some and lose some with the refs.
The referee on Sunday has got some serious work to do to get them to even out.
Are you happy with this challenge from Fabinho against Ferguson in Jan this year?
How many people in the post-match thread that day mentioned it?
I am not going to argue that we have missed out on more sending offs than we have got away with. My memory isnât that good so I wouldnât know what the balance is. But you seem pretty confident. So I feel that the Jota high boot was incorrect and should have been red, the tackle on Diaz in the same game should have been red, Mings was red, Fabâs was red. Do you agree with that? Are there other challenges that you believe were incorrect, either way?
Instead of stating that the season was unjust in terms of missed red cards, back it up.
I said at the time that was a red, but itâs notability is the singularity of it.
You have to set that against all the terrible decisions weâve had. Getting away with one bad tackle doesnât even anything out.
3 Likes