Post match: Liverpool v Aston Villa (EPL 20/5/23 3pm)

[Quicksand]

@Prolix

@Quicksand

By moving towards the ball he plays it. Ergo goal should stand.

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.

Categorically?

Wow!
He played the ball. Not Virgils fault it was a shit attempt though.

And as much as people interpret the laws, the fact remains.
He played the ball.
That much is Categorically true.

[Mascot]

@Limiescouse

It’s not a complicated decision. While there are some where the judgement call is debatable, this wasnt one. For Virgil to be played onside by a touch from the defender it has to be deemed to be a deliberate, constructive play. Essentially viewing the defender having been in clear possession of the ball, rather than simply blocking a shot or cross, as happened in that sequence.

That’s fine, and I totally understand that. It has to be a deliberate playing of the ball by the defender.

Someone needs to explain to me why Konsa swinging his left leg at the ball, presumably to knock in behind for a corner, isn’t a deliberate action.

[Sportbilly1966]

I think the issue here is that he was preventing the ball going to another of our players and by playing the ball he inadvertantly played it to Virgil and that is my issue with this rule.

I fully understand by the letter of the law the offside was penalised correctly but it isn’t like he was trying to prevent it going to Virg, who when the ball was last touched by Diaz wasn’t really in active play as the ball was going in the opposite direction. He only became involved in active play when it was touched by their defender

[Mascot]

@Roydom

It hit Diaz on the way to VVD.

Don’t think it did mate.

[RedWhippet]

I’ve found a clip of the offside. Sorry, but he has clearly played the ball to stop it falling to a very much onside Konaté (I think):

https://twitter.com/bitginger/status/1660049297054879747?t=2AzMLu9Y1BiUBBFft5dgdQ

[Mascot]

@RedWhippet

I’ve found a clip of the offside. Sorry, but he has clearly played the ball to stop it falling to a very much onside Konaté (I think):

x.com

Yeah. It’s an outrageous decision.

[WooltonRed]

Not according to Danny Mills, he couldn’t understand why it needed VAR, it was so obviously offside. He doesn’t even attempt to hide his hate for LFC.

[cynicaloldgit]

Even the MOTD pundits last night said the goal should have stood. That’s how obvious it was.

[RedOpium]

The crap he came out with all game was embarrassing if it was AVTV one might understand.

[Quicksand]

@Rambler

According to IFAB

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• 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
• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

Why is there a need to school people on the laws of the game.
This is the “hide behind” rationalisation of every decision that goes against us.

Anyone complaining is told about the laws, and in some cases told by people who “played” the game.
As if the great unwashed never kicked a ball or understood the rules.

We all know or at least attempt to know the offside law. What you and others are blithely ignoring is that the Villa player actually plays the ball. He has a bad touch, but thats not covered in the myriad of rules.
VVD is played onside by that touch.
Its way easier to try to drown these decisions in making the laws complex. Way easier than accepting that the decision was incorrect.
And then ask why?

[WooltonRed]

I stopped listening to Talksport a long time ago and only tuned in yesterday because it was the only commentary of our game I could find. I won’t be listening again, Durham and Mills were a disgrace with their comments, no impartiality at all. They even took time out to stick the knife into Klopp.

[JU97ICE]

“We totally understand the rules”

Ignores rules

“But he definitely played the ball”

[Quicksand]

@JU97ICE

“We totally understand the rules”

Ignores rules

“But he definitely played the ball”

Look at the video @RedWhippet posted.
In that position the defender HAS to play the ball.
He doesn’t have time to work out whether VVD is offside or not.
The instinct and training compells him to play the ball, and hope that he clears it to prevent a goal.
By playing the ball he plays VVD onside.
The issue here isnt understanding rules.
The issue is misinterpretation of “playing” the ball.

[MarcusBerglund]

Yes, you are right, but first of all Skipp should not be on the field, because his brutal tackle on Diaz was a 100% red card. So, if the referee did the right thing, we would not talk about Jota’s incident.

[Redbj]

because …

[koptician]

@MarcusBerglund

Yes, you are right, but first of all Skipp should not be on the field, because his brutal tackle on Diaz was a 100% red card. So, if the referee did the right thing, we would not talk about Jota’s incident.

. Not even up for debate.

Very similar to what happened away at spurs when Kane dodged a nailed on red card when he nearly to Rovno’s leg off but Robbo was red carded for a similar challenge. A lot of frustration had built up by then. That match also had a blatant penalty fir a clear foul on Jota denied…by Tierney

[costared]

Fact is Villa were very well organised ,quick ,physically,strong and determined in defence. The same traits applied when they were in posession. Sadly we were not quite sharp enough
and they outfought us abit in MF , also we lookeda bit insecure defensively.
Their best player should definitely have been sent off and I thought Cash was playing with fire when he seemed to foul Diaz when he was last man and it was a scoring opportunity.The ref , as on other occasions, did not even give a fre kick . Had he done so could that have been e red card offence as well I wonder. I suppose Fab could have gone for the amount of fouls he committed but they were all silly little fouls , not career threatenig onesand two of them did not even look like fouls to me.
Many of the team look like they need a rest and hopefully a few weeks off and a proper pre season will bring them back to their best.

[Roydom]

I thought it did at the time. If it didn’t then its a bad call imo. Subjective Klopp described the decision.

[RedWhippet]

@WooltonRed

Not according to Danny Mills, he couldn’t understand why it needed VAR, it was so obviously offside.

In fairness, when I was watching it in realtime I thought Diaz was offside. Obviously, they checked that but that is a factual matter. Not sure if Mills was referring to that.

Clearly VVD was in an offside position but the subjectivity was whether the intervention played him on. That’s where the gaslighting about the rules start.

There was a goal that Salah scored earlier in the season that was far more debatable. It was in the air and Mo, who was offside, was possibly the only player that the defender was aware of. Had he not intervened it would have gone towards Darwin. As it was the goal that Mo scored from an offside position stood.

You can see that there is a clear lack of consistency here.

[redalways]

Somehow I get the feeling that even the best midfield in the world will see similar posts about them more than a few matches a season…

The fact is, few players can have a good day all of the time. You want them to have a good day most of the time, an okay day as much as possible for the rest of the time, and just avoid bad days in general, but you can’t always do that.