I’d have been happier if they’d addressed the fact he was a fucking cheat as a ref.
9 Likes
I was watching a compilation of our 24/25 goals the other day, and I still can’t believe that one that Darwin eventually tucks away, where Salah got wiped out by the last man and Coote waves play on. It’s still an absolutely wild decision.
2 Likes
Wild yes, unexpected No!
1 Like
I remember commenting at the time that I thought it was a good decision, as he had allowed the advantage. I didn’t realise at the time that he just thought it was a perfectly acceptable intervention.
Oddly enough, that video was released hours later. I’m still curious what it was that let them sit on that recording for several years and suddenly release it.
1 Like
There was a week of discussion among “rules experts” about how to handle the unusual scenario in which another player still has an opportunity to score after a DOGSO foul only to later realize the cunt waved play on and the entire conversation was irrelevant 
2 Likes
I’m not sure if our game is included, but the Ref Cam is being introduced:
Now, aside from the fact that I think there are far too many distractions on the TV coverage, I think this is a bad idea.
This doesn’t help improve the officiating, but it gives pundits more to drivle on about. The camera is attached to the earpiece, so it doesn’t necessarily show what the ref was looking at. The “blind bastard” accusations will probably get worse.
I’m hoping this will be a passing fad, but I suspect it will simply be another tool for the social media wankers to bang on about.
6 Likes
They used it in the Premier league summer season thing… it adds literally nothing to the coverage.
2 Likes
Its terrible. Its a textbook case of releasing a product just because technology improvements makes it available and not because anyone asked for it or identifying a problem it solves.
2 Likes
Yeah. Whereas a miked up ref (ala Union) would be a good addition (alongside a purged/new Ref organisation)
3 Likes
While the technical side of the game is forever being tweaked, in the hope it makes improvements to the rules/games, one thing still makes me wonder… and that is the penalties are still taken, 12yds from the goal-line… It is to be remembered, this distance was set back in the day when a laced up leather football, was the same weight as a medicine ball… even heavier when it was sodden with the wet mud.
Now we know when the rules of the games were established, it was in the days of steel toe cap boots… but even so, in ‘toe-y-ing’ a penalty against the keeper, those medicine ball footballs, surely could not move through the air at any sort of pace. More importantly, they could not travel at the speed of todays ‘beach-ball’ equivalent.
With a penalty, in theory, and the modern-day restrictions a goalkeeper has to endure, no-one should be missing a direct shot on goal, and thus, scoring from 12yds…
I feel penalties today, are game deciders more than they ever were in previous decades… It is probably why referees are always reluctant to give one, or in other cases, the biased bar stewards are too eager to point to the spot… In short, they carry such a favourable advantage of scoring, moreso than they ever did in past games.
Instead of reducing the massive advantage of being awarded a penalty versus what it used to be like, maybe calculate offering goalkeepers a better chance of producing a save, either by moving the penalty spot a further 3yrds back, or, bring a heavy, old weight, laced up football onto the pitch from the dug-out, for the sole purpose of penalty use…!
Obviously, this was drafted with my tongue firmly placed against my cheek… but the point remains, the powers that be, need to look for ways to keep the enjoyment within the game for the fans, NOT, for the numpty’s or pundits in the media.
For Reference :0)
In the late 1800s, when football was gaining popularity, players typically wore their heavy, leather work boots for matches. These boots, designed for manual labor, often included steel toe caps for protection. The use of these work boots, while providing some protection, also led to injuries due to the weight and potential for accidental contact during play.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
** Early Football:*
Association football, as it was known then, was largely an amateur sport, and players often used their existing work boots.
** Work Boots:*
These boots were typically made of thick, heavy leather with steel toe caps and were designed for durability and protection in demanding jobs.
** Modifications:*
Players would sometimes add nails or tacks to the soles of their boots to improve grip on the muddy pitches.
** Transition to Football-Specific Boots:*
As the sport evolved, football-specific boots were developed, but early designs still often incorporated elements from work boots, including the steel toe cap and high ankle support.
** Dangers of Steel Toe Caps:*
The steel toe caps, while providing some protection, also posed a risk of injury when players accidentally kicked each other.
** Evolution of Football Boots:*
Over time, football boots evolved to become lighter, more flexible, and designed for better performance and comfort, with a focus on speed and agility.
2 Likes
Banning the stuttering run up would be a start.
8 Likes
Someone on the BBC Sports page described it as “doing a full morris dance”. Made me chuckle, although maybe we should embrace that, and have the penalty taker wear the full bells, flowers and wave hankies around. To even things up, the goalie should have the option of twatting them with a stick.
7 Likes
There is a rule about needing to perform a continuous motion once the run up has started, but like lots of other rules refs just ignore it because it would be too impactful to do anything about it.
3 Likes
Yup half of them stop it’s obvious.
1 Like
Anatomy of a VAR decision.
15 minutes into the game last night, Marco Senesi gets into a mix up and appears to handle the ball, deflecting it from the path of Ekitike.
The commentator points out that Liverpool are appealing for a handball, and Gary Neville goes ‘Ooooooooh’.
A VAR check ensues. On the replays we can see there are two handballs - one where the ball deflects up onto Senesi’s arm from his leg, but a second handball where Senesi clearly swipes at the ball, brushing it with his fingers.
The check is cleared, and a free kick is given to Bournemouth, although no-one understands why (it is likely to be because while Liverpool are appealing, a Bournemouth kicks it at Gakpo’s arm)
Carra states that they can hear the the VAR feed saying that the ball has come off the player’s knee first therefore no handball. He seems adamant that they are looking at the wrong handball. He remarks that what they are describing is not what happened.
After the game, a statement is released that despite what the live feed said at the time, the reason why they did not recommend a red card was because Senesi was “too far from the goal for it to be a denial of goal scoring opportunity”.
For reference, it was closer to the goal than Gravenberch’s tackle in the last competitive game Liverpool player, for which he got a red and missed this one. I don’t think there is any threshold in the rules around distance from the goal.
It seems pretty obvious to me that they looked at the wrong handball, but rather than acknowledge that error, they thought it would be better to invent a post hoc justification for not intervening that isn’t actually in the rules and talks apart just by looking at the last game at Anfield.
12 Likes
…also, when players are capable of scoring from their own half, as we have seen on occasion, how can any distance be considered too far from a goalscoring opportunity…
1 Like
It would be nice to have a separate, non-discussion thread where we could post incorrectly awarded Liverpool-related incidents from every (PL) match - both those that are in our favour and those that are against us. I wonder which of those lists would be longer, eh…
I don’t know the point of VAR where you can see the last defender clearly handling the ball to prevent a break - and that from many different angles.
1 Like
We have this one?
There absolutely is. There are 4 considerations when determining if something qualifies as DOGSO
- distance to goal
- general direction of play
- likelihood of control
- number of defenders
It is supposed to add up to an assessment of whether it was certain the attacker was going to be able to get a clear shot in a 1-1 situation and pretty obviously the further away from goal you are the more the other factors are able to raise doubts. In practice though they make some pretty absurd decisions (think the one on Dom 2 years ago where they claimed that because he chopped the ball backwards to open up a shooting choice from about 12 yards out he was not “going towards goal”. I think this one is pretty defensible though given Hugo was not even in possession of the ball.
The bigger issues that raises questions is that if Hugo did not have a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity because of the assessment of the 4 criteria above, then that applies to the first handball as well. This incident (2 incidents) are only reviewable if it was a potential red card offense and that means the workflow is to determine if it was DOGSO first before deciding if there was a foul to review. Why was the first one cleared on the basis of it not being a handball but the second was cleared because it was not DOGSO?
2 Likes
We’ve done it and was a fucking disaster within about 2 games and just got filled with mindless fury.
1 Like