Liverpool penalty
Liverpool penalty
Why the feck didn’t VAR pick out that it was an obvious dive?
Cheating bustard
Cheating bustard
Re: Liverpool penalty
Because VAR is never going to change a penalty decision where there’s contact and is a bit of a waste of time!
Re: Liverpool penalty
It quite clearly wasn’t a dive
-
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
- Been Liked: 436 times
- Has Liked: 370 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Hope the Liverpool player is ok, rolled forward and backwards from what look like the small tap on the ankle...
-
- Posts: 2544
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 610 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
In my book a dive is where the body reacts in an abnormal way to the contact made. Fair enough? It was definitely a dive.
Re: Liverpool penalty
Are you having a laugh?Dyched wrote:It quite clearly wasn’t a dive
-
- Posts: 8141
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3080 times
- Has Liked: 5056 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Liverpool penalty
Not bothered really, I haven't seen it yet. I just find it funny that Leicester fans complain about it when they have Jamie 'the swan' Vardy in their side.
This user liked this post: frankinwales
Re: Liverpool penalty
No. The Leicester player kicked him. He went down. Penalty.Claret wrote:Are you having a laugh?
-
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:53 pm
- Been Liked: 237 times
- Has Liked: 1283 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Dive all day long.Dyched wrote:No. The Leicester player kicked him. He went down. Penalty.
-
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:37 pm
- Been Liked: 657 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
No pen. You can bet your bottom dollar had that been on Vardy at the other end; no pen and yellow for Vardy. 100%
Re: Liverpool penalty
Are you a VAR referee?Dyched wrote:No. The Leicester player kicked him. He went down. Penalty.
-
- Posts: 2653
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
- Been Liked: 505 times
- Has Liked: 245 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
I don’t understand why more isn’t made of this. That was blatant cheating that changed the final result. I’d hate to have that diving cheat on my side in a fight.
Re: Liverpool penalty
The Leicester kicked him instead of the football. That’s a foul. It doesn’t matter how hard he’s kicked. He went down to get the attention of the referee. Why would he stay on his feet? He was going away from goal.Claret wrote:Are you a VAR referee?
-
- Posts: 2544
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 610 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
No it’s not. It’s a contact game you fanny.
This user liked this post: elwaclaret
Re: Liverpool penalty
It’s not 1974 anymore WinstonWinstonswhite wrote:No it’s not. It’s a contact game you fanny.
-
- Posts: 2544
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 610 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
It’s Winstons to you pal!
Re: Liverpool penalty
I f@ckin give upDyched wrote:The Leicester kicked him instead of the football. That’s a foul. It doesn’t matter how hard he’s kicked. He went down to get the attention of the referee. Why would he stay on his feet? He was going away from goal.
-
- Posts: 1170
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:59 am
- Been Liked: 265 times
- Has Liked: 3610 times
- Location: North Yorkshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
He was touched lightly and even kicked the ball before deciding to fall over. Another VAR fail.
These 2 users liked this post: Claret elwaclaret
Re: Liverpool penalty
He didn't go down initially. It was a split second later once his brain had decided to go down. It was contrived and unnatural. Also, had it been us and say, Ashley Barnes in that situation we wouldn't have been given a penalty. VAR is indeed, in this case an absolute waste of time.
This user liked this post: Claret
-
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:03 pm
- Been Liked: 1159 times
- Has Liked: 787 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Blatant cheating. VAR was supposed to prevent this but never will whilst officials still think that contact equals a penalty
These 4 users liked this post: scouseclaret IanMcL simonclaret elwaclaret
-
- Posts: 4474
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1160 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
He wasn’t kicked at all , there was however the most minimal contact to Mane’s boot,he felt it ( of course he waited for it but that’s no crime ) then waited a second then threw himself to the floor theatrically rolling to the left then the right clutching his leg. It was an uber soft penalty .Thoughts go out to his friends and family at this difficult timeDyched wrote:No. The Leicester player kicked him. He went down. Penalty.
Re: Liverpool penalty
After 8 games of this season it must now be clear to all and sundry that VAR is NOT righting the important wrongs of refs when it comes to penalties and is calling offsides that in reality do not affect the result. Yesterday VAR helped Liverpool cheat IMO but did correct a wrong for Palace's winner. It should have had Coleman walking for the challenge on Pieters
This user liked this post: simonclaret
-
- Posts: 3957
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:18 pm
- Been Liked: 1770 times
- Has Liked: 470 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Other than decisions that are absolute fact,offside and line decisions, has there been one single case of VAR disagreeing with the refs original decision?
Re: Liverpool penalty
No penalty for me. The slightest contact these days and it's an opportunity to fall over. Against Norwich we had a clear penalty turned down against Barnes right infront of the ref. I think the penalty yesterday was a lot to do with it being Liverpool at home.
-
- Posts: 3957
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:18 pm
- Been Liked: 1770 times
- Has Liked: 470 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Other than decisions that are absolute fact,offside and line decisions, has there been one single case of VAR disagreeing with the refs original decision?
Re: Liverpool penalty
You need to watch it again - he felt contact on the back of his leg and dived. There is absolutely no way in a million years that was a natural movement or momentum. He dived 100% - but unfortunately the referee gave the same decision most referees would give.Dyched wrote:The Leicester kicked him instead of the football. That’s a foul. It doesn’t matter how hard he’s kicked. He went down to get the attention of the referee. Why would he stay on his feet? He was going away from goal.
Contact does not automatically equal a foul.
Simulation / exaggeration - all the same - it’s cheating.
This user liked this post: HiroshimaClaret
-
- Posts: 1411
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:51 pm
- Been Liked: 267 times
- Has Liked: 660 times
- Location: Starbug
Re: Liverpool penalty
Because its liverpoolClaret wrote:I don’t understand why more isn’t made of this. That was blatant cheating that changed the final result. I’d hate to have that diving cheat on my side in a fight.
-
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:55 pm
- Been Liked: 177 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
- Location: Ribble Valley
- Contact:
Re: Liverpool penalty
That level of contact would not make any fit person crash to the ground outside of a game of football.
-
- Posts: 693
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:08 am
- Been Liked: 295 times
- Has Liked: 60 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
This very discussion is the reason why I would never ever ever want to be involved in football officiating.
All very subjective.
All very subjective.
-
- Posts: 3962
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 1240 times
- Has Liked: 491 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Yet again it’s the ‘clear and obvious error’ rubbish that is the issue. If that’s us we likely don’t get the decision so VAR can’t overturn it. The way VAR is implemented leaves it more open to big club bias because they will always get the onfield iffy decision....
-
- Posts: 9600
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3148 times
- Has Liked: 10254 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
Agree with the poster re Vardy : if we'd have had VAR in the season they won the Prem, most of his penalties - or other goals that were a result of his incessant diving - would have been overturned and they'd have been second or third.
Serves the media dahlings right.
Serves the media dahlings right.
Re: Liverpool penalty
But we didn't and they won fair and square.evensteadiereddie wrote:Agree with the poster re Vardy : if we'd have had VAR in the season they won the Prem, most of his penalties - or other goals that were a result of his incessant diving - would have been overturned and they'd have been second or third.
Serves the media dahlings right.
Re: Liverpool penalty
I agree with that statement.Croydon Claret wrote:Blatant cheating. VAR was supposed to prevent this but never will whilst officials still think that contact equals a penalty
However, they only apply it to some teams.
Ashley Barnes getting a clear whack across his shin, as he is about to go past the defender and shoot, does not count, for example.
There table of penalties awarded and scored in the last 5 seasons had numbers lin the high 40s for several teams. Burnley? Probably about 4!
No one likes us.
-
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Said this yesterday it’s basically just an offside checker.mdd2 wrote:After 8 games of this season it must now be clear to all and sundry that VAR is NOT righting the important wrongs of refs when it comes to penalties and is calling offsides that in reality do not affect the result. Yesterday VAR helped Liverpool cheat IMO but did correct a wrong for Palace's winner. It should have had Coleman walking for the challenge on Pieters
Re: Liverpool penalty
Here we go again. Same old discussion and same opinions.
It was100% a dive and should never have been a penalty. If we give a penalty every time there is the slightest contact from a defender then forwards will dive and cheat even more, if that's possible.
VAR is great for offsides but a waste of time for penalty decisions because the laws of the game are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
The only way to stop this cheating is to do away with penalties and that will never happen. Penalties and diving is a scourge of the game and something we are stuck with. All I can say is, if that penalty had been given against us then I'd be fuming.
It was100% a dive and should never have been a penalty. If we give a penalty every time there is the slightest contact from a defender then forwards will dive and cheat even more, if that's possible.
VAR is great for offsides but a waste of time for penalty decisions because the laws of the game are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
The only way to stop this cheating is to do away with penalties and that will never happen. Penalties and diving is a scourge of the game and something we are stuck with. All I can say is, if that penalty had been given against us then I'd be fuming.
This user liked this post: HiroshimaClaret
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:23 pm
- Been Liked: 76 times
- Has Liked: 224 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
I'm just glad mane is ok
I thought hed been shot
I thought hed been shot
These 2 users liked this post: HiroshimaClaret elwaclaret
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Yet another reason to despise Liverpool and Klopp, for me.
Re: Liverpool penalty
It's one of the worst things about the modern game. Get a touch, throw yourself down, pretend you're hurt, get a penalty. It means that goals are being scored without the attacking team getting the better of the defence or properly creating the opportunity. It goes right against the proper spirit of the game. The one Wolves got against us was just as ridiculous. In the rule book, I think, the offence is tripping or kicking. Referees and officials should read the rule book more carefully.
Handballs the same. The one Palace got against West Ham yesterday was just as bad. Palace didn't get the better of the West Ham defence, it was just that the ball happened to hit a player's arm. The game is about one side getting the better of the other; these penalties have nothing to do with that.
Handballs the same. The one Palace got against West Ham yesterday was just as bad. Palace didn't get the better of the West Ham defence, it was just that the ball happened to hit a player's arm. The game is about one side getting the better of the other; these penalties have nothing to do with that.
-
- Posts: 2502
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:34 am
- Been Liked: 519 times
- Has Liked: 266 times
- Location: Malaga Spain
Re: Liverpool penalty
This is what Dyche flags up every week all this cheating at all costs.
If your sitting pretty at the top of the league 9 times out of ten soft decisions go for you.
But what grieved me was at the end when Klopp was hugging and kissing Mane like a well done for that beautiful bit of con work.He should have been red carded in my book stamp it out
If your sitting pretty at the top of the league 9 times out of ten soft decisions go for you.
But what grieved me was at the end when Klopp was hugging and kissing Mane like a well done for that beautiful bit of con work.He should have been red carded in my book stamp it out
-
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
- Been Liked: 1131 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
- Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Re: Liverpool penalty
It was never a penalty. Yes he was touched, but it wasn’t enough to impede him. He choose to fall on the floor, and no he did not have the right to go down. Blatant cheating and the ref bought it hook line and sinker. VAR should’ve corrected the decision. Var is a waste of time.. literally!
This user liked this post: Dark Cloud
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Leicester did win fair and square taio.taio wrote:But we didn't and they won fair and square.
Eddie is a Remoaner, he struggles accepting results.......
-
- Posts: 16891
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6962 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Liverpool penalty
The law;
’ 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:
....
kicks or attempts to 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.’
Was Mane kicked? Yes. Was the kick careless, reckless or using excessive force? Clearly not.
The law is clear, there is some room for interpretation in terms of what is considered careless, reckless or excessive but in this case those terms cannot be applied to the challenge on Mane.
VAR should have overruled the referee and Mane should have been booked for diving (I presume the ref can do this once VAR has proven simulation?).
The use of VAR to ‘help’ the referees in these instances is shocking. There would be anger had the ref given the penalty in any case but it would have been more understandable had he not had the assistance of a video referee. Appalling decision.
’ 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:
....
kicks or attempts to 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.’
Was Mane kicked? Yes. Was the kick careless, reckless or using excessive force? Clearly not.
The law is clear, there is some room for interpretation in terms of what is considered careless, reckless or excessive but in this case those terms cannot be applied to the challenge on Mane.
VAR should have overruled the referee and Mane should have been booked for diving (I presume the ref can do this once VAR has proven simulation?).
The use of VAR to ‘help’ the referees in these instances is shocking. There would be anger had the ref given the penalty in any case but it would have been more understandable had he not had the assistance of a video referee. Appalling decision.
These 2 users liked this post: vinrogue Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 6647
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2005 times
- Has Liked: 3346 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
There might have been a bit of contact and if he'd actually gone down then, immediately, maybe there would be less "debate", but he goes down well after and thus it looks like a dive to me.
-
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am
- Been Liked: 261 times
- Has Liked: 21 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
Having backed liverpool for the title I was delighted to see the pen given. This rule that if anyone is touched in the box and they fall over then its a pen is just sucking the life out of our game. Yes there was contact, Yes he made the most of it. NO WAY THAT SHOULD BE A PEN. Ludicrous the way the game is going.
This user liked this post: LeadBelly
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Liverpool penalty
A blind man on a galloping horse could see it was a dive.
Should have got an oscar.
Should have got an oscar.
Re: Liverpool penalty
That's well explained, Rileybobs. It therefore hinges on the referee's interpretation of 'careless'. He presumably thought it was careless but I would guess that if Mane hadn't dived (I've no doubt he did) then he wouldn't have given it. That seems to be one of the big issues in today's refereeing - the influence of the behaviour of players. The trouble is Mane is a known felon in this area - I (and many others I'm sure) guessed it was a dive when I heard it reported on tv.Rileybobs wrote:The law;
’ 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:
....
kicks or attempts to 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.’
Was Mane kicked? Yes. Was the kick careless, reckless or using excessive force? Clearly not.
The law is clear, there is some room for interpretation in terms of what is considered careless, reckless or excessive but in this case those terms cannot be applied to the challenge on Mane.
VAR should have overruled the referee and Mane should have been booked for diving (I presume the ref can do this once VAR has proven simulation?).
The use of VAR to ‘help’ the referees in these instances is shocking. There would be anger had the ref given the penalty in any case but it would have been more understandable had he not had the assistance of a video referee. Appalling decision.
The problem with penalties these days is that they usually have more value (an almost certain goal) then the chance of a goal prevented by the incident. Penalties were originally introduced as a punishment for a defender handling the ball on the goal line so preventing a certain goal. That seems perfectly reasonable. These days penalties are mostly given for innocuous events like Mane's, the West Ham handball and the like. In many cases they seem to offer the possibility of creating a scoring opportunity where there wasn't one. Penalties are 'earned'. This can't be right.
It's surely (way over) time to look at the whole concept of penalties to make the punishment fit the crime.
Re: Liverpool penalty
You've missed a bit out, which is why most penalties are given and contact is cited:Rileybobs wrote:The law;
’ 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:
....
kicks or attempts to 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.’
Was Mane kicked? Yes. Was the kick careless, reckless or using excessive force? Clearly not.
The law is clear, there is some room for interpretation in terms of what is considered careless, reckless or excessive but in this case those terms cannot be applied to the challenge on Mane.
VAR should have overruled the referee and Mane should have been booked for diving (I presume the ref can do this once VAR has proven simulation?).
The use of VAR to ‘help’ the referees in these instances is shocking. There would be anger had the ref given the penalty in any case but it would have been more understandable had he not had the assistance of a video referee. Appalling decision.
The argument for the Mane penalty is that he was impeded with contact in the penalty area, not that he was kicked carelessly, recklessly or with excessive force.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
throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object
-
- Posts: 4197
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:07 am
- Been Liked: 1007 times
- Has Liked: 2048 times
- Location: North Hampshire
Re: Liverpool penalty
This rule that if anyone is touched in the box and they fall over then its a pen is just sucking the life out of our game.
Agreed, there generally seems to be a view that, if an attacker goes down, he's either been fouled or dived. As if there cant just be a completely legal/innocent coming together of opposing players competing for the ball.
Re: Liverpool penalty
So are you saying that an attacker would never dive if they could help it, and always try and stay on their feet and score?LeadBelly wrote:Agreed, there generally seems to be a view that, if an attacker goes down, he's either been fouled or dived. As if there cant just be a completely legal/innocent coming together of opposing players competing for the ball.