The problem with this kind of thing is when they changed the rule so that being offside didn’t always mean offside. I think it was Brian Clough who said, “if they aren’t interfering with play then what are they doing on the pitch”.
1 Like
Same referee in both matches - Kavanagh
3 Likes
I’m not sure that’s as relevant as who the VAR was, I think Kavanagh gave both as goals at first, no?
But in both it’s him who was required to make the decision. In those incidents, all the VAR is doing is telling him there was something potentially relevant by a player in an offside position, but the ref needs to go to the monitor and decide it was enough to be an offside infringement. He came to different decisions on the two calls demonstrating that it isnt an issue of the person on VAR.
The difference in outcome is not by itself is not a problem to me. It’s the incoherence of the arguments made to support it and the lack of alignment in the descriptions of the events and what I can see with my own eyes.
If Endo wasn’t offside but still blocked Colwill from attacking/defending the ball,could a free out have been given against us???
There is a point where a block can be a foul, but there was no insinuation this one was. It was given purely because he was in an offside position and in being so, supposedly, affected the ability of the defender to defend the situation.
Football matches can’t be refereed, and decisions made on “where they think” a player may move to.
Referees remind me of supermarket security guards.
Use and abuse the little bit of authority they’ve been given.
Also very similar characters to the little obnoxious twats in positions of authority you come across now and again with small man syndrome.
1 Like
Apparently it depends upon how the free kick is taken…!!!
They seem to make it up as they go along in order to land at the outcome they want… Here is the Liverpool Echo comment
Why Chris Kavanagh allowed Man Utd goal to stand just three days after ruling out Virgil van Dijk header for Liverpool
Liverpool supporters thought they noticed similarities between Virgil van Dijk’s goal and Casemiro’s
VAR threatened to ruin the Carabao Cup final on Sunday.
Indeed, Virgil van Dijk’s 60th minute opener was chalked off after Wataru Endo came from an offside position and was adjudged to impact Levi Colwill’s ability to play or challenge for the ball.
This decision was another matter of subjectivity and personal opinion. Whilst it seemed unlikely that Colwill would have been unable to impact the play, it ultimately came down to the opinion of referee Chris Kavanagh, who, after checking the monitor, decided the goal didn’t count.
Yet, Liverpool supporters would be forgiven for airing their frustrations when last night Casemiro nabbed a last minute winner against Nottingham Forest in the FA Cup fifth round, setting up a tasty quarter final clash between Manchester United and the Reds.
His header shared one blatant similarity with Van Dijk’s disallowed effort from the weekend - when Raphael Varane blocked Forest defender Felipe, in a particularly similar style to Endo.
Considering Kavanagh was in charge of both games, which were just three days apart, it asks the question as to why the official came to two different outcomes.
The law states: “if a player moving from, or standing, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball.”
Therefore the decision at the weekend comes down to if Colwill had a realistic chance of impacting the play before he was halted by Endo.
VAR decisions often hinge on fine margins and refereeing expert Dale Johnson explained that in this example the distinction lies in the two types of delivery and the height of the defensive line.
He explained that Andy Robertson’s floated cross against Chelsea’s high line created space for multiple runners seeking to meet the ball, potentially granting Colwill a clear run into the ball’s dropping zone, and that the law only demands that his ability to challenge for it is impeded, not necessarily that he must win the ball.
The United goal came from relatively different circumstances. Bruno Fernandes played a low free kick, with pace that saw the ball bouncing at the near post before Casemiro got ahead of his defender to score. This bounce of the ball significantly reduces the ability of any player who isn’t close to the Brazilian to get involved.
In addition the Forest defensive line is considerably deeper, making no space for runners and therefore hindering the ability to directly challenge the goal scorer.
While there is no debate over United’s goal, Liverpool still may feel hard done-by. However, after collecting a record tenth League Cup trophy, the decision remains an after-thought.
3 Likes
Thanks for sharing @sandsoftime …however for me at least.
The decision isn’t an after thought.
Of course its easily lost after such a magnificent victory. But the fact remains that Kavanagh made two polar opposite decisions on two similar incidents. Never mind the nonsense about the delivery of the ball…fucking waffle.
3 Likes
Dale Johnson absolutely contorts himself again trying to understand why the same referee gives two opposite decisions for the situation.
Maybe it’s a case of Occam’s Razor, Dale? They are shit at their jobs and they don’t know what they are doing.
1 Like
Sorry, didn’t realise he actually went to the monitor.
Yeah, they have to for an overturn of an offside that has a subjective element
I don’t recall Kavanagh going to the screen for that though, did he?
I get you…for the Utd game he wasnt required to go to the monitor because it was not an overturn so yeah, it wasnt technically Kavanaugh who made the final decision on the Utd goal. He just gave his decision as he saw it on the pitch in real time and the VAR did not recommend a review.
1 Like
Can’t even rely on them in the FA Youth Cup. Blatant handball missed.
1 Like
So it was Brook then…
1 Like
They also had a very good shout for a penalty before that
I see PGMOL have gone all in to support Paul Tierney after his “monumental error” on Saturday.
I mean that is really a piss poor response. They are usually circling wagons the second that it is suggested that an official has fucked up so badly it looks like a betting scam. I mean we ended up apologising to them when one of our players was physically assaulted by an official.
I’ve no great love for Paul Tierney but they are pushing him under a bus for what was a minor technical error of no consequence. What do you think he has done to deserve this? It’s a real eye-opener for their whole “respect the officials” bullshit.
1 Like
Ok
Stay with me on a real conspiracy theory…
Its widely accepted by Liverpool supporters that Tierney has an agenda against us. Klopp has referenced it, and there is evidence in Tomkins work that it is real.
PMGOL see this as an issue. Paul is doing ok, sure he denies Liverpool any fairness, but fuck it, they get what they deserve. Fuck all.
Now he has made an error. Two or three actually with more in favour of Forest. But Dean and Clattenberg have voiced opinions on the “monumental” call. PMGOL can let it pass, as they should but now they see opportunity.
A gentle admonishment of Tierney, good for the optics and its seen as he “helped” Liverpool.
Next time those fucking Scouse bastards whine about Tierney, then PMGOL can point to the day he helped them.
Its not a real punishment, nor is it an admittance of incompetence…
But the media will lap it up and use it to demonise Liverpool and go back to fellating Guardiola.
As I said…conspiracy theory, indulge me…maybe I am right!
6 Likes
PGMOL should be supporting their employee. Regardless of what he has done they do have a duty of care and they are completely failing on it here.
They are usually all over it and criticising managers who call out obvious incompetence. There should be a feedback mechanism for managers but I do agree that everyone should be avoiding pile-ons for the officials involved. It’s the sort of thing that eventually gets out of hand because there will be some lunatic who takes it too far (a bit like politicians who get involved in “culture wars” and then feign surprise when some trans-kid gets murdered.)
Tierney has just been thrown to the wolves here and that is completely unacceptable. His error was to blow his whistle half a second too late but you’d think he had been buggering some kid on the centre circle. I do wonder whether they are relying on this match not being shown live in the UK. I watched it live in Germany and I honestly couldn’t see what the furore was. I thought it was because the goal was scored after the minimum stoppage time (although the corner that led to that phase of attacking play happened before that.)
It’s almost as if they have run the game backwards and tried to find the last not 100% correct decision.
2 Likes