The Referees or The Twelfth Man

[Sithbare]

@Mascot

So have I, but that doesn’t make it a penalty.

For every other team apart from us , that was a stone wall penalty. Whether Gakpo intended to shoot or pass has little to do with it. The referee just got stuck up his own arse.

[cynicaloldgit]

@Mascot

the Fulham player has no intention of fouling Gomez,

(Puts on best Clint Eastwood voice)

Intention’s got nothing to do with it.

The challenge is clearly careless and, had it been committed by a Liverpool player, would certainly have resulted in a Fulham penalty.

Anyone who argues otherwise is trying too hard not to play the victim.

[Sithbare]

Cynnie. My man. I’ve got you.

[redalways]

I’m not going to pass any judgment on the incident, because I really don’t know.

But what I will say is I agree with this general principle. That’s literally what the rules are for, to decide what is okay and what isn’t. Two wrongs don’t make a right, just because some teams get wrong decisions that benefit them, doesn’t negate that the decision was wrong, whether a similar one is for us or against us.

Just because something appeals to your sense of justice about whether it’s right or wrong doesn’t make it right or wrong by the letter of the law. If the rulebook says it’s a foul, it’s a foul. If it’s not, it’s not.

Otherwise you end up getting bullshit like Mike Dean’s comments yesterday, for which I think I have seen absolutely no comment on in any news outlet. You don’t referee a game differently just because it’s a Conference League game or a top of the Premier League clash. If it’s a foul, it’s a foul. If it’s a booking, it’s a booking. If it’s a sending off, it’s a sending off. That Mike Dean can feel so comfortable making those comments, just like Clattenburg those years ago, suggests that the refereeing culture is simply rotten.

[cynicaloldgit]

@redalways

That’s literally what the rules are for, to decide what is okay and what isn’t.

The problem is that the rules leave plenty open to interpretation. Deliberately, of course, so that referees can manufacture the desired outcome.

“In my opinion, it wasn’t careless” - whenever a foul is on a Liverpool player.

“In my opinion, it was clearly reckless” - whenever a foul is committed by a Liverpool player.

The double standards have been evident for decades now, but the holier than thou element of our support don’t want to come across as victims, because they swallow the media narrative about Liverpool fans being whiners.

Fuck that: injustice is injustice.

[Sithbare]

And that Kyle Walker disgrace. Any other team , he would have been sent off.

[Sithbare]

@cynicaloldgit

The double standards have been evident for decades now, but the holier than thou element of our support don’t want to come across as victims, because they swallow the media narrative about Liverpool fans being whiners.

I do think we lot tend to take the moral high ground on those things. That’s redundant when there are fucking idiots on the other side.

[cynicaloldgit]

Nah; it’s simply swallowing the media narrative.

“Liverpool fans all “whingeing Scousers”, so I won’t play up to the stereotype.”

In fact there are a few people on here who go too far the other way, to try to prove that they’re anything but “whingeing”, notably Rambler.

[mackie]

@cynicaloldgit

The problem is that the rules leave plenty open to interpretation. Deliberately, of course, so that referees can manufacture the desired outcome.

Rules will always be open to interpretation, there’s no other way.

Of course on top of that, the referees are imperfect humans. Even having robot referees would not solve the issue, since robots will have been programmed by humans.

It doesn’t mean I don’t agree with there being a bias against us, but rules have not been made deliberately to manufacture the outcome.

As in real life, it’s good enough to have rules that you selectively enforce.

A good example from your screenshot is the one where holding an opponent should apparently result in a free kick. If that was enforced, the game would currently have a magnitude of order or two more of direct free kicks. But no, it is selectively applied to the good will of the ref.

[cynicaloldgit]

@mackie

If that was enforced, the game would currently have a magnitude of order or two more of direct free kicks.

Which is what they should do. It would swiftly bring an end to holding, especially in the penalty area.

[mackie]

@cynicaloldgit

Which is what they should do. It would swiftly bring an end to holding, especially in the penalty area.

I entirely agree, in the meantime, it’s a selectively applied rule that can be used to screw over or advantage some teams.

Like charging people for using Marijuana anywhere where it’s illegal in the world.

[Sportbilly1966]

To be fair he is normally very good assistant referee especially offsides and throw-ins, however,like most he is shit at assisting

[Sportbilly1966]

No he wouldn’t!

But I think laws should change so he should

[Sportbilly1966]

Holding is a DELIBERATE action

[RedOverTheWater]

I thought we had a shout for a penalty. The defender moved across and stuck out his left leg and brought Gomez down.

Ref didn’t give it. Neither did he give them reds for stuff on Robbo and Gravenberch. I’m much more concerned about the dangerous foul play not being suitably punished than arguing the toss over a penalty shout not given.

[rupzzz]

@rupzzz

Im still not clear about Robbo’s red, and the same issue was picked up by Lineker on MOTD.

When Robbo brought Harry Wilson down, it was after Wilson made a heavy touch that he was never going to get to. The ball ran to his team mate, giving him a clear goal scoring opportunity, that he failed to score. So did Robbo actually deny a clear goal scoring opportunity?? Had Fulham scored from the (clear) chance Robbo wouldnt have been sent off i assume?

The ref only blew his whilstle after Alisson collected the ball…so the ref played advantage? The striker fluffed the shot, so he pulled it back? Im not clear if this whole situation was technically reffed correctly therefore.

Dermot (SSN Ref Watch) doesn’t think Robbo should have received a red card.

Ref Watch: Liverpool defender Andy Robertson should not have been sent off...

Side note - Ref watch doesn’t look at the Gomez incident.

[WeeJoe]

I wonder if we’ll put in an appeal based on the rules. He clearly didn’t deny a goalscoring opportunity when they had a goal scoring opportunity which they missed. There’s no way Wilson would have had a better opportunity than Raul.

Fair play to Lineker for calling this out on MOTD

[mattyhurst]

Seems interesting to see so many voices against it.

Then again if we appeal it he maybe available for Soton and miss Spurs.

[FGred]

The ex ref gallagher has come out to say that the Robertson red was not a red in his opinion at a stretch a yellow.
Sorry just noticed in a previous post this was already posted.

[Limiescouse]

I imagine the Key Match Incident panel will view it as an error, both of the ref and of VAR, for not intervening, but we wont bother with an appeal given the suspension is due to be served in the cup against Southampton and we could do with resting him anyway. Or maybe, given he only played 10 mins this game counted as his rest? FWIW though, the error will be for the fact that Wilson’s touch across goal, towards and across Virgil, meant the goal scoring chance was not “obvious”, not for the fact that Fulham still had a shot. That part is a consistent with the rule.

Dale Johnson raised an interesting point though that further calls the VAR into question - the check for offside was irrelevant. Robbo bringing the ball down resets play from that through ball and so Wilson is allowed to challenge him from there regardless of whether he was on or offside from that initial ball through. What it seems like is VAR spent so long concentrating on a tight offside that was irrelevant to the correct decision that it forget to check if the incident was actually an obvious goal scoring opportunity. We have been here before