Looking back at it, the grappling did have an effect because if Dier didn’t have his arm around his chest then the ball would have hit Bobby’s chest rather than Dier’s arm and therefore wouldn’t have come off at a funny angle and onto Bobby’s arm.
I win 
What about the linesman flagging Mo for offside?
Ridiculous decision for 2 reasons.
Conclusion? At the very least incompetent. But as the law of averages have to be taken in to account, bias.
Less of the insults maybe? Just because everyone doesn’t agree with your utopian agreeable and equitable view of the world.
Watching the game again last night on LFCTV, the commentators Steve Hunter(?) and Gary Gillespie were of the opinion that the only way that the goal could have been disallowed was if Bob was adjudged to have deliberately handled the ball.
If it was accidental handball the goal should have stood as the 2020/21 changes to the law states:
- ‘accidental’ handball by an attacking player (or team-mate) is only penalised if it occurs ‘immediately’ before a goal or clear goal-scoring opportunity
The goal was scored 11 seconds after the “handball” incident, and the ball had been passed from Bob to Tiaga, then Mane on to Salah, so can hardly be considered “immediately”.
I shall leave to others to explain how Bob “deliberately” handled the ball.
Or was it a case of burke and hare deliberately making up for disallowing the spuds goal?
To be honest, I’m not sure its worth the energy… Atkinson is useless and terribly bias, I’d put it down to that and move on.
Nothing will change till the PMGOL gets refreshed, new blood, remove the old useless farts who literally dont understand football.
A key message we heard from before this game, from Milner etc. Was we need to stop feeling sorry for ourselves, we need to accept that we always get the wrong rub of the green, we won the league despite it so we are good enough to do so again… Turn this into a siege mentality that we will win in spite of the dodgy and utterly incompetent officiating. Scrub off 1 goal, we’ll score 2…
I’m not convinced that Bobby’s handball is unintentional - he does move his arm towards the ball - and I think it’s a lot more intentional than the Dier one - the ball strikes his stationary arm.
The only question for me is how far back you go looking for the infringement. Bobby’s control is certainly sane phase of play and initiated the move that leads to the goal. The wording is ambiguous in this regard.
Put it this way, if we’d been on the end of that move, as in just swap the shirts over, I’d be fuming if that was given as a goal.
I don’t think there is much to complain about in the refereeing on Thursday. Atkinson was uncharacteristically reasonable in his performance, helped that he didn’t have a major decision to make, like a pen or a red card tackle.
We got away with one in the Son goal, which although technically is right to be chalked off, it’s not, in my view, in the spirit of the rules nor the best interests of the game to be disallowing those.
I agree, but I thought I would mention Gillespie’s view, as he goes out of his way not to show any bias towards Liverpool.
With regards to offsides, I have repeatedly said that the offside line should only be drawn from the foot nearest the goal. I know that isn’t the rule but it just simplifies everything, not some stupid armpit rule. So therefore IMO own little rule book Son was rightly ruled offside 
Bobby is being dragged and manhandled and pulled as the ball comes in. He’s fighting to keep the player off, maintain his balance and control the ball at the same time. The arms of a player in that position under that duress windmill around naturally. The ball then ricochets at an angle pretty quickly into Bobby’s arm as they try to keep him balanced, no way is that deliberately done.
I’d challenge anyone to tie their arms behind their back and try to run around and play football and then come back with the ‘unnatural’ position thing which is an utter and complete fallacy.
I understand the theory behind the VAR cancellation of the goal.
But it’s mystifying how anyone can watch that incident, with the benefit of a replay, in slow motion, and award a free kick to Tottenham.
So it leads me to assume they can only overturn a decision that results in a goal, and award a free kick to the defending team, yet the play should be stopped and brought back and awarded against the first foul as there was no advantage in playing on…
Unless they are thinking it’s not even a foul…
I can’t even begin…
Let’s takethis to a different scenario…
Mane is bearing down the left wing when he is tackled and the defender has the last contact as the ball leaves the grips of play by the finest of margins, manes next touch then doesn’t bring it back into play, but his touch after that does, the ref and the assistant lines person don’t pick it up with the naked eye in the moment and mane crosses for firmino to slot home
On the VAR review it is picked up as being over the line and a throw in is awarded to the opposition team as manes first touch is out of play…
The
Saw the incident yesterday, the ball initially hits diers arm and flicks onto Bob…so why isn’t it a free kick to us, cause of diers hand ball…arry was penalised for accidental handball…was it cause, after following play we scored, and that wasn’t in the script…?? (Only my take on it)…
Maybe the answer to why Spurs were given a free kick is a bit more obvious.
If free kick us awarded to Liverpool for Diers foul or Diers handball then why was advantage not used a goal given.
Easier decision for Moss/Atkinson to award free for Firmino accidental handball to cut the advantage argument out of the equation.
Makes sense, if as I suspect both gentlemen have an agenda.
Not sure i follow you.
the advantage cant remain once a subsequent foul is commited, that would be plain wrong, otherwise we’d be encouraging Firmino to pick the ball up and throw it…
the play should be bought back to the original foul, free kick LFC.
its like when you see two tackles in quick succesion…foul is given for the first foul, always…
Original foul: free kick Liverpool
If thats the case, and it should be the case the goal stands because advantage is played.
The decision to award Spurs the free makes it look like no offence committed by Dier. That decision is based on Firminos handball which they highlight without any reference to Diers actions. Therefore in their view advantage is null and void as only Firmino has an offence.
Makes it much more convenient
Because if you judge the Dier handball as the initial foul, and award a free kick to us, then the logical extension of that is that if it was our free kick then ‘play on’ is the right course of action, and the goal stands.
But Bobby did handball it, so the goal can’t stand. (No I don’t think it was accidental - he moves his arm towards the ball, and then touch with his arm is intrinsic to him get the ball under control).
Honestly, I think it’s a quirk of the rules. And I’ll say again, not a single person complaining about this on this forum wouldn’t be absolutely fucking raging if the situation was reversed and the goal allowed to stand.
He intentionally used his arm, the debate kind of ends there IMHO.
Ok
Open minded as always
Think I have PT(T)SD
You can have whatever you like, doesn’t alter him intentionally moving his arm to the ball. QED hand-ball. Unless you saw it differently? Maybe from a long way away or without glasses?
I saw Bobby fouled and both players handball, so two fouls against us but they get a free Kick. 
Yeah, but Atkinson plays on, which is the correct thing to do. Once the goal is scored the only thing they can check is whether Bobby handles it.