Referees

[VladimirIlyich]

5 hours ago, CapeRed said:

I guess his name was a clue to his nationality!!

He could easily have an Irish parent(s) and they named him while living in England? Step forward Liam Gallagher (Irish Grandparents) on that score. Not uncommon at all. I am also sure Dermot Gallagher doesn't sound very Irish on English tv,from the little I've heard of him?

[CapeRed]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

He could easily have an Irish parent(s) and they named him while living in England? Step forward Liam Gallagher (Irish Grandparents) on that score. Not uncommon at all. I am also sure Dermot Gallagher doesn't sound very Irish on English tv,from the little I've heard of him?

He doesn’t and regardless of his nationality he was shite as a ref and no better at analysing .

[Barrington Womble]

9 hours ago, Trumo said:

Here's Dermot Gallagher's take on Cody's disallowed goal. Bear in mind that the "genuine attempt" by the defender aspect of the offside rule has not actually changed since before 2017/18. In that season's home game against Spurs, Kane was already in an offside position when a through-ball was played towards him. Degsy was adjudged to have played the ball after sliding in and failing to intercept. The dribble-chinned gonk ran through and ensured he was upended by Karius to win a penalty (which he missed):

 

"A block is a block. A genuine attempt to play the ball is to take the ball under control, clear it for a corner or to clear it up field."

 

Therefore that incident should have been offside, which would make the call in Konsa's favour on Saturday OK. Gallagher does however go on to add that Mings should have seen red for his clumsy challenge on Cody.

 

To be fair to him, I watched the segment on sky. He'd already called out the ref (or knew he was about to) for yellow/red incident and like always he didn't want to do it twice. He never once said he thought it was offside. He allowed warnock and Smith to both say the player clearly played the ball and the goal should stand and he was asked as to why the ref might then choose to rule it out. His response to that was the above and some waffle about the laws don't help the ref as it brings it down to his subjective point of view if the defender deliberately plays the ball or not and it's not fair a ref should have to 2nd guess that. Although this is a weak answer, it wasn't him defending the decision, more him being directly asked why the ref could rule it offside and the ref can only call it offside if he is 100% certain the defender played the ball. 

 

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

He could easily have an Irish parent(s) and they named him while living in England? Step forward Liam Gallagher (Irish Grandparents) on that score. Not uncommon at all. I am also sure Dermot Gallagher doesn't sound very Irish on English tv,from the little I've heard of him?

I think he has a broad Irish accent and masked it when he came here as he didn't believe he would be taken seriously. 

[ZonkoVille77]

 

 

[ZonkoVille77]

 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 22/05/2023 at 06:49, VladimirIlyich said:

PL refs are deliberately incompetent,which is necessary for VAR to be 'needed' yet VAR is looked at by more of the incompetent idiots rather than an independent panel. It's also naive to think or believe that these 'top' refs in the PL are there on merit. Like everything else they have played the politics game and greased a few poles to get to the top level. When your refs are not given World Cup appointments in favour of colleagues from the likes of Namibia or Outer Mongolia then you know how bad it has become.

The PL exists within a bubble and match officials are parts of that world.

If Premier League refs get where they are on merit alone, should we assume that black people and women are just incompetent?  If any other group of employees was so solidly white and male, questions would rightly be getting asked. 

 

I suspect you're right: the people affecting the outcome of matches aren't the ones who are best at officiating, they're the ones who are best at pushing themselves forward.

 

 

(Also, even if we did have the best onfield officials, it makes no sense to draw the VAR officials from the same pool: it's a different set of skills.) 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

10 hours ago, Trumo said:

Here's Dermot Gallagher's take on Cody's disallowed goal. Bear in mind that the "genuine attempt" by the defender aspect of the offside rule has not actually changed since before 2017/18. In that season's home game against Spurs, Kane was already in an offside position when a through-ball was played towards him. Degsy was adjudged to have played the ball after sliding in and failing to intercept. The dribble-chinned gonk ran through and ensured he was upended by Karius to win a penalty (which he missed):

 

"A block is a block. A genuine attempt to play the ball is to take the ball under control, clear it for a corner or to clear it up field."

 

Therefore that incident should have been offside, which would make the call in Konsa's favour on Saturday OK. Gallagher does however go on to add that Mings should have seen red for his clumsy challenge on Cody.

Except Konsa clearly attempted to play the ball, not just block it.

[dave u]

On 20/05/2023 at 21:01, VladimirIlyich said:

What specifically did the ref get so wrong today? Apart from the Mings one? I don't feel he changed the game myself.

 

See this is exactly how they can get away with what they do. 9 times out of 10 you can look at any contentious incident and argue it both ways. It might be 50-50 or it might even be 80-20 but you can usually make an argument to defend any refereeing decision, and therefore anyone complaining about it gets shot down.

 

You're asking what he got wrong, and if you're going through each individual decision a case can be made to back up each call he made. And that's how they get away with it. He had four big calls to make, and on all four occasions he came down in favour of the same team.

 

The Villa pen is a pen. However, he blew the whistle and gave that immediately. What this means is that if it hadn't been as clear cut as it was and there was some debate over it, the on field decision would stand.

 

The Hendo one he did the opposite. Meaning even if VAR thinks that it's probably a pen, unless it's an egregious error they aren't going to ask him to look at it.

 

The Mings red card. If he pulls out a red VAR is not overturning it. But he didn't pull out a red, he pulled out a yellow, and again, overturns are unusual in these situations (the Jota one for example).

 

Then the offside goal. Again, he can make the decision he did as it's a subjective call. Most ex refs that have commented have said they would not have disallowed it and it was entirely about what decision he wanted to give. And he was never, in a million fucking years, going to give us a goal when there was a way of avoiding it.

 

An impartial ref would never have disallowed the goal given the other decisions that had been made earlier. I keep referencing the Clattenberg interview with Carra when he spoke about how as a ref you try to make sure the subjective 'could go either way' calls are evenly split to maintain impartiality.

 

People need to get away from analysing each individual decision to see what a ref is up to. It's never about that, it's about the overall approach. Anthony Taylor the other week for example. If you go through every one of the 19 free-kicks he gave against us and look at them in isolation, there's nothing particularly untoward about it. He wasn't calling the game the same for both teams though and he awarded the most fouls against us at Anfield for 15 years or something, precisely one week after Klopp had said/done what he did in the Spurs game. It's not a co-incidence.

 

John Brooks fucked us to get his own back on Klopp. I honestly don't know how anyone can even doubt that.

[dave u]

11 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Except Konsa clearly attempted to play the ball, not just block it.

 

It's more nuanced than that though, because the wording of it is as clear as mud.

 

This is what Dale Johnson at ESPN wrote about it...

 

 

Was Konsa deliberately trying to play the ball? Yes. Was it a "deliberate play" of the ball by Konsa? Not necessarily. It's clumsy wording from the lawmakers, because this is about a player being in control of their actions and the outcome. It doesn't excuse a defensive error, but it does mean an attacker should not be able to benefit if the defender has made a reflex action.

A "deliberate play" is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
- passing the ball to a teammate;
- or gaining possession of the ball;
- or clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it.)

The ball came at Konsa from a short distance and was dropping behind him until he attempted to get his foot on the ball, while it came off his leg, just below his knee, to run to Van Dijk.

 

Ezri Konsa had no control over the destination of the ball when it deflected off his knee. Another of the clauses for a "deliberate play" requires Konsa to have "time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control," and it's hard to argue that he did. Konsa can't realistically have any kind of control over the destination of the ball when it hits his leg, rather than being played by his boot. The Independent Key Incidents Panel is very unlikely to rule this as a mistake with the ball not coming off the foot.

 

It's correct in law, even if it's one that many people will be unable to get on board with. If the goal had been given, it probably wouldn't have been questioned by anyone other than those with a deep knowledge of this area of the offside law, which has become needlessly complicated in the search for simplicity; it's the kind of decision which wouldn't be helped by hearing the VAR audio from Tony Harrington.

 

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37705620/the-var-review-liverpool-offside-goal-tyrone-mings-red-card-arsenal-penalty

 

[Rushies tash]

13 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Except Konsa clearly attempted to play the ball, not just block it.

 

Exactly this. He made a genuine attempt to play the ball and clear it from danger. He just happened to shank it to Van Dijk.

[Pidge]

Doesn't the rule also state that the success of the play doesn't have a bearing on whether it was deliberate?  It's elite sports, you shouldn't be getting a pat on the head for fucking up.

 

He wanted to stop Diaz's header going back into the box and did so. Deliberately.

[No2]

The red card is the disgrace, I'd love to hear the recording of that chat. Honestly elite referees work full time analysing decisions from all over the world. Somewhere in Switzerland UEFA officials are showing this one to young referees on their progression panel and using it as a reference of incompetence. It's an absolute farce, I'd argue those officials aren't fit to protect the safety of players. Unless of course of the laws have changed to allow full scale assault once you knick the ball.

 

Brooks is looking at Gakpo on the ground with Wolverine attack marks on him, like the Virgil one at Goodison, they aren't against the clock here. There is no excuse to get that wrong.

[DaveT]

2 hours ago, Rushies tash said:

 

Exactly this. He made a genuine attempt to play the ball and clear it from danger. He just happened to shank it to Van Dijk.

He clearly tries to make contact with/block/however you want to describe it to stop it reaching Konate who is right behind him. Neil Mellor nails it in his match review on LFCTV. As well as calling out Brookes for the succession of soft free kicks. If he’d judged the challenge on Hendo by the same standards as the free kicks he gave to Villa, it would have been a pen. 

[gkmacca]

The way forward, no matter how dispiriting it might seem, is to hold serious talks with the PGMOL. Because this simply can't fester any further for either side. There's some really dodgy stuff happening on their side, and, understandably, it's driving Klopp crazy. We need our top-rated video analysts to compile all the clips we need, and Tony B et al to compile a list of the occasions when they've briefed against us, and then we need Gordon and Klopp to sit down and talk it through with them, and the refs can say their things, but a discussion needs to be had, and it needs to be made clear that we want a line drawn. But something of the nature of 'we can sort this in private or else we can take it public' needs to made clear, crystal clear, to this bunch of fecking arseholes. 

[VladimirIlyich]

22 hours ago, CapeRed said:

He doesn’t and regardless of his nationality he was shite as a ref and no better at analysing .

None of them are. You aren't going to humiliate your friends in public as a referee so there's little point to them being there. 

[Trumo]

8 hours ago, gkmacca said:

The way forward, no matter how dispiriting it might seem, is to hold serious talks with the PGMOL. Because this simply can't fester any further for either side. There's some really dodgy stuff happening on their side, and, understandably, it's driving Klopp crazy. We need our top-rated video analysts to compile all the clips we need, and Tony B et al to compile a list of the occasions when they've briefed against us, and then we need Gordon and Klopp to sit down and talk it through with them, and the refs can say their things, but a discussion needs to be had, and it needs to be made clear that we want a line drawn. But something of the nature of 'we can sort this in private or else we can take it public' needs to made clear, crystal clear, to this bunch of fecking arseholes. 

 

Trouble is, they'll draw it in the wrong place and say we're in the wrong.

[Preston Red]

Brooks would've been selected the moment Klopp received the touchline ban. He knew he could act with full impunity as Klopp wouldn't be there to have a dig at him or the 4th moron.

 

Absolute fucking shithouse cowards that lot are. At least when the mafia dressed in black to fuck things up, everyone knew what the gig was and there were no excuses for their behaviour; these cunts will hide behind a number of rules and regulations to carry out the death of a thousand cuts.

[DaveT]

Everyone in football has an agenda. Everyone has an allegiance, that’s the nature of football. Pundits, officials, journalists, everyone, including the cunt who wrote this piece …. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/may/23/pgmol-set-to-reject-liverpools-complaints-and-back-officials

He’s siding with PGMOL, excusing the Mings decision with this logic:’High challenges can be the subject of more lenient refereeing, especially if the offending player is believed to have been unaware of the position of the player they make contact with.’

Even though the photo at the top of his article shows that Mings knows exactly where Gakpo is! 
This all shows how big a challenge  the clubs has in addressing the blatant bias we’re suffering 
 

[gkmacca]

Ginsoak would have put them on the defensive by now. We don't need to be as cynical as that scarlet-hootered scoundrel always was, but stuff needs to be put out there ready for next season to make them aware they're being monitored. At the moment they are so fecking cocky they think they can just make public private correspondence, have cosy chats with friendly hacks and even make astonishingly obvious gestures like last weekend's appointment. 

[LFC 6 Times]

That disallowed goal is a fucking disgrace.

[CapeRed]

7 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

None of them are. You aren't going to humiliate your friends in public as a referee so there's little point to them being there. 

Agreed

[Reacher]

Not often I comment anymore but its absolutely bonkers some reds on here can have watched the last few games and not seen the blatent biasm on show. Tell you what, if our own fanbase cant agree theres a problem. I'm not sure how this issue ever gets addressed.

 

What's even more gauling is the club asking the PGMOL to explain two of their decisions, they arent going to hold their hands up and admit they are fucking with us. The only way I see this ending is like one of the posters above suggested. The club needs to sit down with them closed season and have an adult conversation about our players being protected so Klopp doesnt lose his shit and end up screaming at officials again.

 

What i cant get my head around is they want the best players in the world playing in the Premier League, but then you look at the treatment of Mo and i cant square that circle. I suppose Liverpool just arent allowed to have world class players and if they do, they wont get fair treatment.

[sir roger]

It's all been very fishy since the Spurs game, and Mo's treatment / Tierney should definitely be raised with PGMOL, but overall I don't think we have been that badly dealt with by referees this season, and there was a period a month or so back when several 50/50's went our way in a short period ( the disallowed Bowen goal at West Ham comes to mind ). I know its a passionate game but Jurgens carry-on with Brooks was ridiculous and I'd be pissed off with him too.

[Colonel Bumcunt]

I haven't actually seen the disallowed goal in any detail yet, any links to it with replays all seem to get taken down very quickly.  I'm a bit baffled though, because I can't envisage a situation where someone can show me an offside decision that I can't clearly tell right from wrong.  Surely? 

 

As for the refs, I think we need to remind the PL that their income, and our income, may not always be connected and they should be very fucking careful not to push us back into the arms of the ESL cartel.  That ESL idea is not dead, and the recent Man City furore, and the Spanish racism, may see Madrid double-down on this. 

 

Don't forget how completely fucking OUT OF NOWHERE the top clubs in the world recently told us they were starting a new league. Done deal, all in secret, all agreed.  And to this day Madrid, Barca and a couple others still backed it.  All has been quiet until now, but Man City beating Madrid 4-0, with FFP charges hanging over them, will have lit this fuse again.  The worst thing City can do for itself is to win a CL.  Quite simply, City achieve nothing and the Doha Experiment ends if the best competitors don't turn up to play them.  

 

The refs aren't clever people, many are police, so they'll need this explaining to them but the PL should take the ESL very seriously.  And despite the backlash from some, not all, fans last time, LFC are not out of this.  If it's clear there's a domestic refereeing conspiracy against us, and our rivals have 120 FFP charges that'll be tied up by law firms for a decade, then more and more fans will come round to the idea of flexing our muscles against a corrupt system. 

[DaveT]

44 minutes ago, sir roger said:

It's all been very fishy since the Spurs game, and Mo's treatment / Tierney should definitely be raised with PGMOL, but overall I don't think we have been that badly dealt with by referees this season, and there was a period a month or so back when several 50/50's went our way in a short period ( the disallowed Bowen goal at West Ham comes to mind ). I know its a passionate game but Jurgens carry-on with Brooks was ridiculous and I'd be pissed off with him too.

Yeah, but the fishiness goes back a long way. Taylor arguably cost us the title in 2019 (Kompany/Salah incident), Tierney definitely did last year (Spurs away, Everton/City). Taylor’s performance in the City home game this season ….3 fouls he ignored in the build up to the Haaland goal, which was only disallowed by VAR, the judo throw on Mo. Don’t know why it recently came to mind, but the last home game before lockdown, we went 1 down against Bournemouth despite a blatant foul by Callum Wilson on Gomez. The referee? Tierney. Any 50/50s in our favour recently are offset by the shafting we got at Arsenal where all three match defining decisions went against us…. and which Oliver, months later, apologised for….. something that he had previous for.