He played the ball or attempted to but that isn’t the point .
Trents defensive shortcomings evident again.
If someone is permanently blind, do you keep pointing out the number of times they’ve failed to see the point?
Says you.
Like you banging on about wanting Everton down you mean?
1 Like
The rule, in its intent and interpretation, doesn’t treat basic defending as “deliberate” plays of the ball.
Read the reasoning offered by the PL.
What relevance do you think it has given what has been explained over and over and over again? It is entirely consistent with the rule not treating defending as a deliberate play.
1 Like
Well that would depend if everyone thought for months and months Everton going down was set is stone, which I don’t believe to be the case.
If there is anything to lambast Trent over yesterday it wasn’t what we already know, it was how poor he was with the ball.
But we’re in Vibeland, where how you feel about anything is first filtered through “what is best for Liverpool FC?” and then the necessary arguments are reverse engineered from there. Bonus points for just insisting ad nauseam that X is “obviously” true, without providing any substantive support for that claim.
There’s an interesting discussion to be had about the spirit of the offside rule and how best to implement/interpret it. But we’ll never get there when some people just state over and over again “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.
I bet the goal would have stood had Villa scored it.
6 Likes
David Maddock of the Mirror was wandering whether all the bad calls from the very person that caused Klopp to be charged had cost the team and drawn another punishment his question below:
Was this payback for the questioning of officials - Brooks included - which earned the manager his touchline ban and a 75 grand fine, or just coincidence?
7 Likes
It is not “my interpretation”. It is just me trying to explain why Brooks’ use of the word deliberate doesnt mean what you think it should mean.
Personally not liking the way a rule is interpreted is totally reasonable. Expecting the refs to use your personal set of rules is not.
1 Like
Expecting the rules to be applied consistently is reasonable and it is this lack of consistency that annoys fans of all persuasion.
Interestingly, the Twitter link I put up earlier is now 404ed due to a request from the copyright owner. They really don’t want to leave documentary evidence around.
5 Likes
.[quote=“Prolix, post:170, topic:3537, full:true”]
But we’re in Vibeland, where how you feel about anything is first filtered through “what is best for Liverpool FC?” and then the necessary arguments are reverse engineered from there. Bonus points for just insisting ad nauseam that X is “obviously” true, without providing any substantive support for that claim.
There’s an interesting discussion to be had about the spirit of the offside rule and how best to implement/interpret it. But we’ll never get there when some people just state over and over again “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.
[/quote]
Says you
1 Like
Any other team in the League it stands.
2 Likes
Peter Walton and Jeff Winter have both said in there opinion he made a deliberate move to the ball. It appears its only Brooks and Stockley Park which think he didn’t.
7 Likes
Probably get an apology this week.
2 Likes
So it was a goal…we knew it, the team knew it, but the officials didn’t want to give it…
3 Likes
Our exasperating season in a exasperating microcosm. Baffling inconsistency, lacking intensity, yet also displaying real quality late in order to fall just short of what we hoped for.
1 Like