you have point with Henderson Appearances
34
Goals
0
Wins
18
Losses
8
in attack 5 shots on target with accuracy of 23%
2 assists
31 tackles in 34 games with success rate of 70%
20 interception in 34 matches
look at all his statistics they are all miserable
Naby made a decent enough contribution in the title winning season. Also off the top of my head he was excellent int the 0-5 smackdown on Utd at OT last season.
3 Likes
All the defence of the refs decisionsā¦
@Rambler evening out the red card decisionsā¦
The offside rule explained as if posters have no
clueā¦
The argument isnāt about the rule, its about wheter or not Konsa plays it.
By moving towards the ball he plays it. Ergo goal should stand.
@Rambler ā¦if it makes you happier then Jota should have got red.
That evens it up nicely.
@The-AllMightyReds
Cutting two players out of a picture for comedy value is trite and frankly childish.
Both had injuries that blithed their careers, but are still Liverpool players.
3 Likes
503 shouts and finger pointings.
1 Like
No two incidents are ever the same. If you think them both having raised feet is enough to treat the same then fine, but at least one explanation for why they are different and can reasonably be treated as different has been offered right before you asked your question.
1 Like
Played an even bigger part in the treatment room, 90m+60m in wages.
Someone should have slipped a 12month contract extension in with the autograph hunters :0)
6 Likes
Nahā¦ if you go in towards your opponent with a raised boot you are likely to injure them. Both did that. You are looking for nuances when they donāt exist. I normally respect your opinions but on this occasion you are wrong. You are looking at slow motion replays and trying to look for differences. The position of the opponents head is not relevant. Both went in hard with a high boot towards their opponents and should have walked.
Football is played at speedā¦no way can you say either deliberately tried to injure their opponent but both were recklessā¦
Nuances are what makes it appropriate to treat 2 incidents differently that superficially look the same. But again, I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I am saying that there are reasons beyond blind loyality to think that one might be a red and the other not.
As for them being reckless, that is by definition only a yellow card. They would need to be considered serious foul play or violent conduct to be reds, two things for which the criteria is, unsurprisingly, quite nuanced.
1 Like
My memory of the Jota incident is a bit hazy, but I donāt think there was forceful contact, but it was still contact with the head. Mingsās was full force on a player running forward but in the chest. Either could be given red, or yellow. If Jotaās was still at the head but with the force Mings applied I think that would have turned out into a nailed on red.
3 Likes
Pretty much. The force of the contact is entirely relevant. But is the footballing nature of itā¦how far the player came from in making the challenge and the resulting certainty of impact with the opponent.
Whatever one may think of the seriousness of kicking an opponent in the head, when done as part of a legitimate footballing play, they are almost never treated as red cards.
1 Like
Two different incidents. It is true that both could have got red, but both received yellow. But still quite different to me.
Jota on Skipp, foot up, trying to bring the ball down under control, Skipp slightly ducks in for the header, definite high boot, but no real force to it. Red would have been harsh, and yellow seemed fair enough.
Mings on Gakpo, lots of force, sees the player, studs high into the chest at force, then raked down from top to bottom for good measure, giving Gakpo bruises, cuts and scrapes that are about a foot long. Red was very much deserved, but he got off with a lenient yellow. It happens.
Had Jota gone in with anything like the same sort of force, and raking technique, Skipp would have looked like Freddie Kruger.
The galling thing is Mingās put in a MOTM display when he was very lucky to be on the pitch.
Mane on Emerson. That changed the way Mane challenged goalkeepers for the rest of his Liverpool career.
Actually, there might have been more force in the one on Emerson. I kind of remember stud gouges in his face 
What is that now, 10 unbeaten? With half a midfield - not a bad platform for next season.
5 Likes
Draw against Villa at home. Bucking follocks.
This is the bit I donāt quite get. Had he not attempted to play the ball it would have likely fallen to an onside player. (I couldnāt find a replay of the incident to confirm it) If it hadnāt been for this intervention there would likely have been a goal scoring opportunity. Does that not make it a deliberate play regardless of whether his intervention messed up?
2 Likes
This is categorically untrue.
Or, the very least, it reflects what you think the rule should be rather than what it currently is.
IMO the standard of any intentional movement towards the ball nullifies offside is a very harsh one. I do think Virgil attained an advantage from his offside position.
1 Like
It looked to me like he moved his left foot deliberately in order to stop it going back across the box.
But as the rule is written, ādeliberateā play is a product of being considered in control, not the other way around. Simply making a deliberate movement is not sufficient.
1 Like