Burnley (A) - Tue 26th Dec 2023 (5:30pm)

[polymerpunkah]

Yeah the Gakpo one as well for me.

 

If there is no contact, how did he see a foul?

 

If you don't see a foul how can you call it, knowing that VAR is there to correct a possible error?

 

Tierney should be out of a job at this point. Not up to standard.

[Barrington Womble]

10 minutes ago, magicrat said:

Agree with that but unless we are more clinical I don't  believe we will win the title . Inevitable we will drop points to some of the dogshit teams

Depends how many points are needed to win the league for me. Anything in the 80s I think we can do it. I don't think we can get to 90s.

 

But I've never really been considering us winning the league. I didn't think we did enough in the summer and I've seen nothing so far to convince me otherwise. For any real chance of a title challenge, I think we need to go into the transfer market in January. 

 

Edit....also, with a real ref, that's.4 goals there yesterday and not 2. It seems we let the game slide because each time we scored, Tierney and his team wanted to find a way to rule it out. 

[Code]

Has the league ever been won on goal difference in the top division in England?

[Arnaud]

2 hours ago, Code said:

Has the league ever been won on goal difference in the top division in England?

89 ? 

[magicrat]

3 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

Depends how many points are needed to win the league for me. Anything in the 80s I think we can do it. I don't think we can get to 90s.

 

But I've never really been considering us winning the league. I didn't think we did enough in the summer and I've seen nothing so far to convince me otherwise. For any real chance of a title challenge, I think we need to go into the transfer market in January. 

 

Edit....also, with a real ref, that's.4 goals there yesterday and not 2. It seems we let the game slide because each time we scored, Tierney and his team wanted to find a way to rule it out. 

Thats the thing , no one really expected us to win it this season but now the opportunity is there it will be disappointing if we

fritter it away by not converting the chances we create.  Anyway the oil cheats will probably switch on and win 10 on the spin,  

[an tha]

3 hours ago, polymerpunkah said:

Yeah the Gakpo one as well for me.

 

If there is no contact, how did he see a foul?

 

If you don't see a foul how can you call it, knowing that VAR is there to correct a possible error?

 

Tierney should be out of a job at this point. Not up to standard.

He knew his mates in the VAR room were never going to correct his wrong call.

[an tha]

41 minutes ago, Arnaud said:

89 ? 

That was goals scored

 

Abu Dhabi won it on GD in 2012

[Rushies tash]

2 minutes ago, an tha said:

That was goals scored

 

In a way. Goal difference was the same, but the league had changed the rule (that season I believe) whereby goals scored would take precedence in the event two teams were tied on goal difference. I remember hearing that in the older system of goal average, we'd have won the league in 89.

 

[an tha]

13 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

 

In a way. Goal difference was the same, but the league had changed the rule (that season I believe) whereby goals scored would take precedence in the event two teams were tied on goal difference. I remember hearing that in the older system of goal average, we'd have won the league in 89.

 

Goal average stopped being used around 1976.

[Rushies tash]

7 minutes ago, an tha said:

Goal average stopped being used around 1976.

 

Yeah, I remember reading about it but couldn't recall when it changed.

[Barrington Womble]

28 minutes ago, magicrat said:

Thats the thing , no one really expected us to win it this season but now the opportunity is there it will be disappointing if we

fritter it away by not converting the chances we create.  Anyway the oil cheats will probably switch on and win 10 on the spin,  

 

But if the league is won on 80-odd points, everyone who doesn't win it is going to say that. I don't really disagree with what you say, I just think if we start getting stressed and want 2019/20 type form, we're all going to be disappointed and that stress will translate from the fans to the players at anfield. And the thing that could give us a big push (a couple of top class players on January) won't arrive because those Boston cunts already think they've gone big, so we're dealing with this flawed squad, like it or not.

 

For me this is a question of it's the start of a new team and a new way of playing, let's just try and enjoy it and see if we're in this sort of position with 6 games to go. If we are, maybe that's when I'll start worrying about it. 

[magicrat]

1 minute ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

But if the league is won on 80-odd points, everyone who doesn't win it is going to say that. I don't really disagree with what you say, I just think if we start getting stressed and want 2019/20 type form, we're all going to be disappointed and that stress will translate from the fans to the players at anfield. And the thing that could give us a big push (a couple of top class players on January) won't arrive because those Boston cunts already think they've gone big, so we're dealing with this flawed squad, like it or not.

 

For me this is a question of it's the start of a new team and a new way of playing, let's just try and enjoy it and see if we're in this sort of position with 6 games to go. If we are, maybe that's when I'll start worrying about it. 

You're spot on when you say the owners won't spend in January and it probably follows baring a minor miracle we won't win the title but it's good be involved after last season 

[Scooby Dudek]

10 hours ago, Scott_M said:

I’m more annoyed about the Gakpo disallowed goal than the Elliott one.

 

Whether we agree with them or not, the rules back up disallowing that goal.

 

Nunez simply didn’t foul the Burnley defender. He didn’t touch him. I’m yet to see an angle of the Nunez making any contact with him. You can see from the Burnley players reaction he knows he’s made a mistake, not that he’s been fouled. 
 

If Nunez hasn’t touched the opponent, isn’t that a clear and obvious error? 

Same for me. The pisser is when no foul is given, Palace away this year or Brighton away the other year, they can zoom in in super slow motion to show contact. Not clear and obvious but obviously a penalty against us. Yet here, apparently they can't zoom in to show no contact as it is not clear and obvious and therefore they go with the on field decision. 

To sum up, they are cheating cunts, fuck them and anyone who isn't us.

[an tha]

59 minutes ago, Rushies tash said:

 

Yeah, I remember reading about it but couldn't recall when it changed.

Better system in my view.

[an tha]

54 minutes ago, magicrat said:

You're spot on when you say the owners won't spend in January and it probably follows baring a minor miracle we won't win the title but it's good be involved after last season 

No way this season is going to need the silly form of those 97 and 93 pt but still not winning it seasons....

 

There is not going to be a need to win 20 games on spin and a draw be a disaster - it is going to be a case of just focusing on trying to collect more pts than the rest.

 

My own view is 85 will win it - a total within our capability IMO - one also within the capability of Arsenal and Abu Dhabi too - so it could be very close and of course every bit as nerve wracking and gut wrenching as those 90 pt plus seasons, but in a different way!

[VladimirIlyich]

18 hours ago, Scott_M said:

I’m more annoyed about the Gakpo disallowed goal than the Elliott one.

 

Whether we agree with them or not, the rules back up disallowing that goal.

 

Nunez simply didn’t foul the Burnley defender. He didn’t touch him. I’m yet to see an angle of the Nunez making any contact with him. You can see from the Burnley players reaction he knows he’s made a mistake, not that he’s been fouled. 
 

If Nunez hasn’t touched the opponent, isn’t that a clear and obvious error? 

'Strikes,pushes,or attempts to' is how it's now,more or less, worded. This is a catch all for their fuck ups. Practically designed for when two players start swinging at each other without contact,or an attempt to take somebody out without actual contact but used now as a get out of jail card for regular mistakes.

[Barrington Womble]

6 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

'Strikes,pushes,or attempts to' is how it's now,more or less, worded. This is a catch all for their fuck ups. Practically designed for when two players start swinging at each other without contact,or an attempt to take somebody out without actual contact but used now as a get out of jail card for regular mistakes.

What did you make of the offside? Can the ref just let the offside go because of the push?

[Freddo]

The twat and his team were probably right in law in that Mo was offside. It's how he ended up in an offside position is the issue. That was gamesmanship beyond word's and a panicked centre half who is shit.

The referee ruled the goal out for offside, he then should have awarded a penalty. A push in the area is a penalty, that's what law says. Anywhere else, it's a direct free kick. 

Doing that would put a stop to that level of gamesmanship immediately. Now, it's fair game. Do what you like. 

And Tierney and Hooper and Coote and cunts.

[VladimirIlyich]

7 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

What did you make of the offside? Can the ref just let the offside go because of the push?

To be honest I watched it in real time once or twice but was so angry at yet another VAR that I temporarily turned it off to cool down knowing they were looking for a way to rule it out. As another ref said on a forum 'Its being used as a way to rule out a goal rather than give it.' The previous offside tampering,pre VAR,were supposed to help the attacking team. Now its full circle. As for the offside,if Mo? is not impeding the GKs vision then there is no reason to cancel it. The first sentence in the offside law states 'It is NOT an offence to be in an offside position.' The only times it comes in is when that player Plays the Ball,Interferes with the defenders or GK or Gains and Advantage,eg a save by keeper and a tap in by Mo. If none of that happened then the goal should stand.

[aws]

We’re expecting a lot if we think a ref is going to ignore what the rules say to give us a goal even if it would be the just outcome.  The offside rule needs tweaking again so you’re not offside if you’re only there because of the actions of an opponent.  

[Barrington Womble]

54 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

To be honest I watched it in real time once or twice but was so angry at yet another VAR that I temporarily turned it off to cool down knowing they were looking for a way to rule it out. As another ref said on a forum 'Its being used as a way to rule out a goal rather than give it.' The previous offside tampering,pre VAR,were supposed to help the attacking team. Now its full circle. As for the offside,if Mo? is not impeding the GKs vision then there is no reason to cancel it. The first sentence in the offside law states 'It is NOT an offence to be in an offside position.' The only times it comes in is when that player Plays the Ball,Interferes with the defenders or GK or Gains and Advantage,eg a save by keeper and a tap in by Mo. If none of that happened then the goal should stand.

I don't think there's a doubt Salah is impeding the keeper. 100%. If you choose only a freeze frame of moment the ball is struck, I think it is offside. My issue is, is as Elliot is about to strike the ball, the defender puts 2 hands into Salah's back and pushes him into an offside position. There seems to be a school of thought, especially emanating from refs, that because the push isn't enough to push Salah off his feet, it's not enough for a pen. So if it's not a pen, it's not a foul, so it's then offside.

 

I don't understand why if a player pushes a forward with 2 hands like that why it's not a pen. If the ball had been crossed to Salah and he was pushed as he was about to strike the ball, I'm sure everyone would think it a pen (well except Paul Tierney). I don't really understand how that's not the case here. And in that instance if we scored after, they'd award the goal. 

[Rushies tash]

3 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I don't think there's a doubt Salah is impeding the keeper. 100%. If you choose only a freeze frame of moment the ball is struck, I think it is offside. My issue is, is as Elliot is about to strike the ball, the defender puts 2 hands into Salah's back and pushes him into an offside position. There seems to be a school of thought, especially emanating from refs, that because the push isn't enough to push Salah off his feet, it's not enough for a pen. So if it's not a pen, it's not a foul, so it's then offside.

 

I don't see it understand why if a player pushes a forward withn2 hands like that why it's not a pen. If the ball had been crossed to Salah and he was pushed as he was about to strike the ball, I'm sure everyone would think it a pen (well except Paul Tierney). I don't really understand how that's not the case here. And in that instance if we scored after, they'd award the goal. 

 

1. Direct free kick

 

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

charges

jumps at

kicks or attempts to kick

pushes

strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

tackles or challenges

trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)

holds an opponent

impedes an opponent with contact

bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official

throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

 

 

He could have awarded a penalty for the push had he been given the chance to see it by Hooper. Incredibly soft, but if they insist on hiding behind the letter of the law to disallow for offside, then they should also apply the law for this.

[VladimirIlyich]

5 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

I don't think there's a doubt Salah is impeding the keeper. 100%. If you choose only a freeze frame of moment the ball is struck, I think it is offside. My issue is, is as Elliot is about to strike the ball, the defender puts 2 hands into Salah's back and pushes him into an offside position. There seems to be a school of thought, especially emanating from refs, that because the push isn't enough to push Salah off his feet, it's not enough for a pen. So if it's not a pen, it's not a foul, so it's then offside.

 

I don't understand why if a player pushes a forward with 2 hands like that why it's not a pen. If the ball had been crossed to Salah and he was pushed as he was about to strike the ball, I'm sure everyone would think it a pen (well except Paul Tierney). I don't really understand how that's not the case here. And in that instance if we scored after, they'd award the goal. 

If it wasnt a foul but Mo is in an interfering position then it has to be ruled out. But as I despise VAR and how decisions are made outside of real time (not its supposed intended use) then I am not a good witness for a goal to stand.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Rushies tash said:

 

1. Direct free kick

 

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

charges

jumps at

kicks or attempts to kick

pushes

strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

tackles or challenges

trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed

Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned

Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)

holds an opponent

impedes an opponent with contact

bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official

throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

 

 

He could have awarded a penalty for the push had he been given the chance to see it by Hooper. Incredibly soft, but if they insist on hiding behind the letter of the law to disallow for offside, then they should also apply the law for this.

 

So would you consider the foul "careless"? That would be my take. 

 

As for it being soft, no softer than the reason they chose to rule out the other goal. As I say, these rules and arbitrary thresholds like "clear and obvious" make it piss easy for a cheat like Tierney to prosper. Oh, that's a bit soft there by Nunez, but fuck it, no goal, VAR won't overturn that. Oh that was a soft push on Salah, I could give it as I've shown I'm open to give soft decisions around goalscoring situations, but fuck it, let's let it go and see if VAR flag it. The whole thing is a fucking con to allow these cunts to do whatever they want and believe they get more decisions right, when all they do is make more bad decisions by doubling down on shitness. 

 

This wouldn't happen with. VAR separate from the refs and without the remit to be forgiving to refs and just have a target of the reason we were given VAR, get the big decisions right. It's not about rereffering games, it's about getting the right outcome. 

 

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

If it wasnt a foul but Mo is in an interfering position then it has to be ruled out. But as I despise VAR and how decisions are made outside of real time (not its supposed intended use) then I am not a good witness for a goal to stand.

 

The bit I have issue is trying to understand why it's not a foul. For me it's just a foul. I understand penalties are a big consequence, but if someone gets pushed like that while trying to score it's a pen. If that incident happens 30 yards from goal, it's a free kick. 

[Rushies tash]

5 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

The bit I have issue is trying to understand why it's not a foul. For me it's just a foul. I understand penalties are a big consequence, but if someone gets pushed like that while trying to score it's a pen. If that incident happens 30 yards from goal, it's a free kick. 

 

Yep. A bit like the grappling that goes on at corners, just because 'it happens all the time' doesn't make it less of a foul. But as we saw with the penalty Rodri 'won' against Man Utd, these cunts can choose to apply the laws to suit themselves.