I’d say probably fanciful. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
To be honest, I don’t think it really matters if they were watching the golf, having a slash nipped out for a fag, or we’re in the corner sleeping off their Abu Dhabi hospitality. They weren’t doing their jobs, and the should be held accountable.
I’ve seen loads of comments along the lines of ‘fucking scousers acting like nobody else has ever had a bad decision’. Which is so brain dead as to be hardly worth bothering with. And it so misses the point that this isn’t about the decision - it’s about accountability and respect.
There is now a repeated pattern of clubs (not just Liverpool) getting absolutely shafted by PGMOL. We all appreciate being a referee is hard, but on top of understandable mistakes, there are egregiously bad ones that there can be no excuse for. And not paying attention to the fucking game is surely in that category. In this case the usual PGMOL line that ‘Ah well, it’s one them, let’s move on’ is just not good enough.
Above anything, the thing that pisses me off about this, and incidents before it, is the lack of accountability and attitude within PGMOL that they don’t have to answer to anyone.
Liverpool obviously aren’t trying to get the game replayed. That would be silly. But what I think we are trying to do is force greater accountability and consequence within PGMOL for these errors, and that for the good of the game.
We still get knuckle dragging halfwits goading us over the Hillsborough lies. The improvement to the stadiums and the accountability of officials that resulted from that benefits all fans but you never hear that.
I hear fans of all colours calling out refereeing of a pitifully unacceptable standard in pretty much every game. Isn’t it about time that someone took a stand?
That is neither the point I’m making, nor necessarily something I disagree with. However, I will note that “common sense” is neither common nor a good basis to be making decisions from.
What do we want referees, or even rules for that matter, for? For the latter, isn’t it a case that in order to play a game fairly, all competitors need to be sure that they are playing the same game, with the same rules? It therefore also follows, that a referee is supposed to be someone who takes those rules, and applies them in a way that is consistent and fair across the competition. In this case, it’s not just the match between Tottenham Hotspurs and Liverpool, it’s all the Premier League games (since they are the same competition). I think this safely encompasses the view of those like @Mascot who just want all teams to be refereed the same way, whether it’s Liverpool, Everton, Manchester United, or Manchester City.
In that sense, the rules themselves could be completely archaic and/or bonkers, and as long as both teams have to follow the same rules, no matter how unfair, then it makes complete sense. See for example the handball in the Champions League Final that the Spurs fans bleat on about. That was the prevailing rule, and virtually every other similar handball in that situation under those rules was penalised in the same way.
This is where knowing the rules, the processes, the systems, and how the referees came to their decisions is important. It doesn’t have to be what feels like the right decision, as long as the rules are applied the same way no matter what the team is. In that sense, for example, if Udogie had been sent off for his foul on Gakpo, simply because it “looked bad” or was “excessive force” in the way Jones’ supposed transgression was, then it would be acceptable. Or if, in that match long ago, Kane was sent off for the same foul that Robertson got sent off for, that would be acceptable. And that’s about fairness, disregarding how stupid the rule is. My personal example is the Newcastle match earlier this season, where they were allowed to kick the ball away at free kicks, while Alexander-Arnold got a yellow card for putting the ball back to where he thought he got a free kick from, or Núñez getting a yellow card because the whistle went just as he was about to kick the ball forward in a counter-attack. If the game was refereed properly, then all those instances are either yellow cards, or not yellow cards at all. Not yellow cards for one team, and not for the other. So, the rules don’t have to make sense in that view, just as long as the rules are applied consistently.
Therefore, by that logic, if all fouls similar to Jones’ one were a sending off, then we should have no dispute with that. There was an argument earlier this season, I think over Virgil’s red card, where @Quicksand continually ignored the fact that the literal laws of the game because they didn’t feel right to them. When called out on it, they kept insisting it was as though only @Limiescouse was the only one who knew the rules, where in this case, it was quite clear that they themselves didn’t know the rules.
Knowing the referee’s interpretation is important to upholding the consistency and the application of the logic. However, it doesn’t mitigate another big part of the problem, which is that no system of laws is perfect. There will always be a niche case for which the laws “feel” wrong instinctively, or even unfair, but that is not on the referee. That’s why knowing where the fault lies is important, in order to make constructive criticisms, rather than emotional ones. It’s one thing to want the system to improve, it’s another to lash out emotionally just because one feels it’s wrong. Both are perfectly fine however, but we at least have to be honest which one it is.
What you are suggesting is indeed a valid way to improve the system. I would even go so far as to suggest that they should regularly play competitive games amongst themselves to understand such situations better. But that is only a minor part, somewhat tangential to the main problems here.
Worked at RHM many many moons ago for 12months when it was remodelled - I was an apprentice at the time… Used to stay at the Cross keys Hotel in the town centre - Think the nightclub was called Adam & Eve’s that was frequented also by the many Scousers that were attending the site…
Proper place was Rotherham… real mining community feel to the place… rough, tough but generally good people :0)
Why would that be silly? We quite clearly lost out on points, and that compromises the sporting integrity of the competition, as per the statement.
The silly part is that this state of affairs has been allowed to happen, or that a replay is unprecedented, or that penalties for referees are unprecedented.
Potential timeline of events for VAR audio release
Sky Sports reporter Melissa Reddy has laid out a course of events in the release of the VAR audio for Luis Diaz’s disallowed goal, and explained what Anfield chiefs hope come of it.
First she states that a review by PGMOL will take place, then the club themselves will gain access privately and only after this then will it become public.
“LFC want full transparency, not bits and pieces + examination of procedural failings.”
Take this from Spur’s point of view. Klopp chose to play Cody Gakpo in this game. That was his decision.
Now in a replayed game Klopp can’t use Gakpo, because he’s injured. Klopp would have to play Nunez. What happens if he then smashes in a brace and wins us the game?
Would that be fair?
A replayed game throws up all kinds of issues. What if between now and replay Son gets injured? What if the replay falls kindly for Liverpool in terms of fixtures.
Then there is the precedent for any club to demand a reply if there is a catastrophic error like this. Club’s would immediately start gaming that. And I can think of one club in particular who would love to lawyer up and get disappointing results replayed.
It would be madness. We can’t go there, and I don’t think that anyone at Liverpool wants to.
Be hilarious if they can actually point to decisions that went against them rather than for them. Would probably come in the form of odd decisions suddenly going against them late in games they’re already losing.
That’s a status quo bias. That presumes that the original outcome was fair to begin with. Was it fair?
They’re welcome to sue the PGMOL for damages. I’m sure our club would fully support it.
And that’s why no change will actually come about because of this. If the nuclear option is already off the table, then what?
Is this really neccessary, in light of the current debate?
I am certain that I was not alone in arguing against Virgils red card.
But you chose me as the one to set as an example?
Anyway…
Because any poster argues against @Limiescouse regarding the rules, or indeed his interpretation of the rules doesn’t necessarily make them wrong.
He can be and is incorrect in his understanding at times. As can you, as can I.
Also, for clarity its he/him.
You seem confused about my pronouns.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but has @Limiescouse said that he agrees with the interpretation of the Jones tackle or has he only described the guidance used by the referees to arrive at the conclusion that it was worthy of a red card?
It seems to be that we’re reaching a point where if you don’t agree with something you’re required to rearrange the terrain of facts to support that opinion.
But the issue is clubs will always say the latter happens to them, the offside goal rarely if at all happens that’s why it’s right to focus on it.
If we focus on the fact the referee lost control of the game in general that’s a better argument than going well that yellow and that yellow and that yellow.
Jota is dumb as fuck to get booked so quickly and I’m generally one of his biggest supporters on here.
Jones and the offside goal are rarer in the game especially when you consider Macallister saw no review for his sending off a month back and several pundits described it as the worst sending off they had ever seen.
I suspect they are taking a flier in the hope that the authorities will feel they have to give them something after such a shit show of an officiating performance.
This. Although less “worthy” of one and more understandable as to why it was given.
That was the one that came to mind. I read the literal rules that governed the situation that you were speaking about, and you were quite literally, by the letter of the law, wrong. Yet you refused to admit that.
I prefer to err on the side of caution, thanks for the correction though.
Referees who reach this level, as bad as we think they may be, have got this level by being assessed highly for their performances. The only way to do that is to consistently apply the rules according to their official interpretation at that time. There is little room there to apply their own interpretations, especially when they are at odds with what they have been directed to do. You can have an any opinion on what effect that has on how well the games are officiated, but you cannot expect refs at this level to be officiating by anything other than the interpretations they have been directed to apply.
I’d also respectfully offer that 16 years is a LONG time to have not been involved in refereeing if the conversation is current interpretations.
The fact may be true, but it also doesn’t negate that it was an awful, one-sided refereeing performance, where half the cards were factually wrong. Focusing on one or two incidents means that the PGMOL can quietly get away with Hooper’s overall performance.
