Please do tell where the anticipated advantage would ensue at that time if Gakpo went ahead and scored?
You know you can look these things up and save all the unnecessary anguish?
the rule;
allows play to continue when an offence occurs and the non-offending team
will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offence if the anticipated
advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds
a few seconds had passed, the keeper had the ball in his handsā¦why are you not recognising the last very relevant sentence?
1 Like
Because it starts with āorā. Meaning the bit before it is equally, if not more important.
At the time he doesnāt gain an advantage if Gakpo runs up and scores. Literally no play has occured so the time part would seem irrelevant.
Itās really not that complicated.
incorrect.
if its advantage, which is the official line, the keeper has six seconds to release the ball, the watch doesnt stop. that time is NOT irrelevant.
by just throwing in the odd barb about it not being complicated doesnt really mean you win the debate by default becuase were all a bit daft.
also, by having the ball in his hands, thats the advantageā¦and its a decent one considering we cant kick it out of them
i finally found some footage of the incident, and yeah, thats not even close to a foul, surely no ref pulls that up even with the keepers protected status, i also have my suspicions Taylors not calling advantage, but waving play on, (i understand what he signalled, it doesnt mean he didnt make a mistake)which is why he turns his back, as Quicksand says, if your calling an advantage you dont turn your back? makes it even worseā¦
2 Likes
Cool, but it changes fuck all in reality. The ref knows his intentions and itās clear no one on the pitch really knew for sure what they were.
Itās common sense refereeing. If that was the other way round and Taylor letās Bowen score and gives it, those same people saying the refs a cheat for not allowing for us would call him a cheat for allowing it against us. If you want that to be a goal, you have to admit youād be okay conceding in the same circumstances. I have my doubts that would be the case.
Personally Iām fairly happy seeing them exercise an ounce of common sense even if itās not to the letter of the law. Afterall, thatās what we were crying out for from the Diaz incident.
1 Like
If Bowen gets the same chance Taylor allows it.
Therein lies the problem, we know he would allow it.
1 Like
My take is that the goalkeeper didnāt want to get yellow carded for time wasting, as in holding onto the ball too longā¦ throws it in front of him because the penalty area is clearā¦ takes his eye off it by fixing his socks over his kneesā¦ looks up and Gakpo is on him - he holds his arms up as though he is surrendering to the sheriff in a western film, because he knows if he attempts to dive back on itā¦ Gakpo toe-pokes the ball homeā¦!!
Taylor realising the same thing is going to happenā¦ Sees it is LFC going to score and thinks No Fucking Way are they getting thisā¦ blows his whistle like crazy to give himself an alibi ā
3 Likes
Honestly its a little bit tinfoil hat around here. I agree that referees have cost us points this season but the evidence presented that its a coordinated campaign directed against us is thin at best.
Its only an outright incident of cheating if you ignore pertinent information such as the referee indicating advantage and then turning his back on the play so he didnāt actually watch exactly what happened. Stopping the game can be argued but its far-fetched to imagine he thought this was the best opportunity to rob us on purpose rather than simply finding regular pushing an pulling in the box on the second goal which would have been incredibly simple to do.
The convulution makes it implausible.
Even the Spurs goal earlier this season. Yes they fuck it up big time. In the moment it felt like we were cheated and perhaps intentionally so. Then you hear the video and its clearly a room full of fucking idiots talking over each other and miscommunicating to the referee.
If the referee thinks āOh my god Gakpo is about to score I need to stop the game so Liverpool donāt winā then why allow the first two goals? Just find some bullshit reason to disallow them, video makes it easy to find a foul wherever you want one.
1 Like
Within a few seconds!
1 Like
He had advantage with the ball in his hands and then decided to drop it to the floor to play it up field when he could have easily kicked it from his hands by making that decision the advantage was over!
1 Like
I have never mentioned conspiracies, but the ref made a real hash of this and was wrong in blowing up and then proceeded to cover up, realising he had f*#cked up by waving for treatment for the keeper, that action in itself told the story.
2 Likes
Im not accusing everyone who is unhappy with this of being a conspiracy theorist but week over week this narrative of a grand anti-Liverpool conspiracy has been developing, mostly for extremely minor incidents, and is informing some peopleās view of this situation.
I agree with you its a fuck up. When Areola catches the ball he makes a clear action to that signifies he hurt himself a bit, but its doesnāt looks major and the ref pretty much ignores it and plays advantage. Then he turns round and see the ball on the floor and the goalkeeper still complaining about injury.
When hes called the play dead and walks over telling him to go down I think its less that heās worried heās messed up and needs to get Areola to pretend to be injured and more of an annoyed kind of āfor fucks sake go down then if youre that injuredā.
Iām neither defending nor attacking the referee for this. I think it would have been a bit cheap and ānot in the spirit of the gameā to get a goal from this situation but equally if Alisson just put the ball down and walked away my blame would be on the goalkeeper not the referee so I can see it both ways.
I donāt think we can really say the referee cost us the game. Scoring here would have been weird and unearned. We didnāt win because we allowed two unchallenged headers from a few yards out, in what was otherwise a good performance.
1 Like
Weird as for me āin the spirit of the gameā he should have never blown to stop Gakpo from scoring, the keeper by throwing the ball down outside the 6 yard area, where it should have been taken from if there was an award of a freekick, was going to kick it from the floor rather than his hands and just switched off, trying IMO to waste time.
But it is in the past and nothing we can do about it.
1 Like
Thereās a world of difference between a coordinated campaign, and a small section of officials with a disdain for Liverpool Football Club.
All it takes is that small section to produce a handful of wrong decisions in a season to derail a title challenge.
Itās been happening for years, and only the fact we were so far ahead in 2020 that they couldnāt make any meaningful difference, saw us win the title
2 Likes
To be honest, you are better than this?
Tin foil hat?
Thatās the last bastion of description to stop people expressing a view, to belittle it with a comment like this.
This is the view that most of us concerned with referee performance have been saying.
No grand conspiracy, no tinfoil hats.
You are a person whose use of stats as a barometer of how young players are progressing matters to the majority of the forum. You have an amount of respect on here.
So, regarding stats:
Even if Tompkins stats on bad decisions against Liverpool are grossly exaggerated, he still has some data that supports the view that some referees are demonstrating a bias against the club. The most damming stat being the fouls, or lack of on Salah. The question is why, and why is it unchallenged. That is allowing a percentage of Tompkins findings to be unproven. Still a body of evidence exists that needs to be questioned.
Taylors decision on Saturday cost Liverpool points. The Doku decision cost Liverpool points. The Spurs debacle cost Liverpool points. The Odegaard basketball move cost Liverpool a penaltyā¦
There is no conspiracy theory to deride, @Dane explains that notion away with ease.
2 Likes
āOR within a few seconds.ā
and penalises the offence if the anticipated
advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds
i read that different than youā¦
the āorā, to me, is not indicating an option of either one, its not two choicesā¦its the advantage is straight away or within a few secondsā¦
so from zero seconds to a few seconds, the ref has that period to pull it backā¦
think about it, your interpretation gives the ref āa few secondsāā¦orā¦whatever he/she wants. so if that was the case, you wouldnt even bother mentioning the few seconds part.
1 Like
There was no advantage at that time. If weāre counting the seconds it takes for the keeper to get up (whether itās a foul or not) then you arenāt giving him an advantage at that time or within a few seconds of actual play.
Itās common sense refereeing. Isnāt that what people have been asking for rather than steadfastly trying to follow the letter of the law.
Tell me youād be entirely comfortable with conceding a goal in the exact same circumstances and wouldnāt be arguing the exact opposite of your current stance?
2 Likes
TBH, I think he saw the keeper acting bizarrely and panicked because he wasnāt sure if he had communicated properly. I think it was the keeper with the brain fart. He thought he had a free kick and wanted to waist time.