Shrewsbury disallowed goal

[scouseclaret]

As anyone else seen it? On what interpretation of the offside law is that offside?

Scandalous decision.

[Bosscat]

As anyone else seen it? On what interpretation of the offside law is that offside?

Scandalous decision.

No VAR

[WazzaClaret]

As anyone else seen it? On what interpretation of the offside law is that offside?

Scandalous decision.

3 or 4 passes behind the goal, liverpool had enough time to get set back up. Horrible for shrewsbury. As an aside i usually like klopp but that was an absolute joke tonight. Complete disrespect for shrewsbury and for the FA cup. If i was a scouse fan id be embarassed.

[BigF]

a lot of respect for James Milner who was there supporting. (haven't seen the games as watching Ox Utd v Newcastle)

[HunterST_BFC]

As anyone else seen it? On what interpretation of the offside law is that offside?

Scandalous decision.

Agree
Surly the Liv' right back plays the scorer onside?

[BigF]

I thought there might be VAR tonight as Anfield is set up for it.

[HunterST_BFC]

I thought there might be VAR tonight as Anfield is set up for it.

There was.
VAR made the ruling.

[BigF]

Oh. Sorry.

[diamondpocket]

Have Liverpool been fined by the FA for disrespecting the cup?

Remember Blackppol under Holloway being fined for making 8/9 changes to a cup side once. And a few other instances recently but can't remember who exactly.

Gone down a little in my estimation Klopp after this. It may be a Winter break but I'm sure he could have played a few reserve team players mixed with a few youngsters, it would have been seen as taking it a little more serious instead of just crying it in publicly.

[scouseclaret]

No VAR

There was - it was a VAR decision. The only thing it could conceivably have been given for is that the scorer was in an offside position when the ball was first played through, but under the current rule, he was inactive because the ball went down the wing to another player. There’d been another two passes and he was well onside by the time he scored.

Another example of the big clubs playing by different rules.

[fidelcastro]

Have Liverpool been fined by the FA for disrespecting the cup?

Remember Blackppol under Holloway being fined for making 8/9 changes to a cup side once. And a few other instances recently but can't remember who exactly.

Gone down a little in my estimation Klopp after this. It may be a Winter break but I'm sure he could have played a few reserve team players mixed with a few youngsters, it would have been seen as taking it a little more serious instead of just crying it in publicly.

Yet they won anyway.

[fidelcastro]

There was - it was a VAR decision. The only thing it could conceivably have been given for is that the scorer was in an offside position when the ball was first played through, but under the current rule, he was inactive because the ball went down the wing to another player. There’d been another two passes and he was well onside by the time he scored.

Another example of the big clubs playing by different rules.

I thought VAR was meant to sort all these issues out?

[cricketfieldclarets]

Klopp not being there is shocking in so many ways. But doesn't surprise me yet many rave about what a loveable manager he is.

Even if he let the players have their break and he showed up would've been much better. Better for his youngsters. Better for the fans. And better for the opposition and the competition.

He wont care less. But the leagues won. The cup was an easy tie. I bet he will turn up if they get to the final stages...

[tim_noone]

Is ageyi gonna get the winner against the Fa at Geordie gobsh!tes

[Dyched]

I really don’t see what the fuss is about. The league informs teams way ahead of time explaining the winter break. For the FA to ignore that and use that time for replays is out of order. Should Klopp have been there tonight? Possibly. But then people would moan why he isn’t in the dugout if he’s there. If he was in charge tonight people would moan he’s took charge of another managers team team. All it is, is 2 fingers up at the FA, which is fully needed.

[tim_noone]

Nay....

[scouseclaret]

I thought VAR was meant to sort all these issues out?

It depends on the VAR officials knowing the rules and not being redshite!

[IanMcL]

Var is there to ensure the status quo.

[Bosscat]

There was - it was a VAR decision. The only thing it could conceivably have been given for is that the scorer was in an offside position when the ball was first played through, but under the current rule, he was inactive because the ball went down the wing to another player. There’d been another two passes and he was well onside by the time he scored.

Another example of the big clubs playing by different rules.

I was asking was there no VAR ... actually.

I didn't know as was watching midsomer murders

[FCBurnley]

It was a LiVARpool decision. Var operates at all fac games played on pl grounds

[dsr]

https://lfcglobe.co.uk/liverpool-1-0-sh ... hts-video/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/co ... _decision/

Highlights video three quarters of the way down the page, and the Shrewsbury goal starts at 2.07. The first pass is to a player level with the defensive line, so this gives VAR under the new "there is no such thing as level" rule the chance to disallow the goal.

This is what VAR is about. The people who implement the system are no doubt cheering and patting themselves on the back because once again they have affected the game. There is no doubt that last year the goal would have been allowed; there is also no doubt that last year the goal would have been legally allowed, because the player was level. It is only because they have a new rule that means "level" does not exist, that the VAR men have their way and the goal is disallowed.

The VAR officials have three aims this year.

1. To disallow goals. The change in the offside law thirty years ago was with the specific, stated intent of giving forwards the chance to score more goals. The VAR people disagree with this and want to reverse it so we have less goals.

2. To delay the game and reduce the excitement. Under the old rule, goals were scored and the crowd and players celebrated. This is seen as a bad thing and the VAR want to build in a lengthy delay so that no-one can get excited any more.

3. To take power away from the linemen and give it to the VAR men. No linesman can judge in real time whether one man's toenail is ahead of another man's armpit. (Technology can't judge that either, but the VAR men like to pretend they can.) The old rule gave the lineman a chance of getting it right; this rule does not.

4. As a side issue, it means that the rules Shrewsbury play in week on week are different from the rules Liverpool play in week on week.

All this is deliberate policy by the VAR people, They could easily, very easily, decree that the offside rule has not changed and level is level, as judged by the naked eye, as it has been for many years. Then Shrewsbury's goal could have been reviewed in 10 seconds. The fact that they have not made this change is because this is how they want it.

The VAR people are a cancer on the game. They need sacking, instantly, as of now. Perhaps next year someone either honest or competent (possibly even both) can be found to do the job.

[tiger76]

Klopp not being there is shocking in so many ways. But doesn't surprise me yet many rave about what a loveable manager he is.

Even if he let the players have their break and he showed up would've been much better. Better for his youngsters. Better for the fans. And better for the opposition and the competition.

He wont care less. But the leagues won. The cup was an easy tie. I bet he will turn up if they get to the final stages...

The PL is won in all but name,so it'll be interesting which XI line up for Liverpool at the Bridge in March,they do have the small matter of a CL last 16 tie against Atletico after the winter break as well,but their PL fixtures in February are Norwich,West Ham and Watford hardly the toughest run imaginable.

[dsr]

And as an aside, the Shrewsbury player was heading back up the field so his (allegedly offside) back foot would have been travelling at speeds up to 6 inches per hundredth of a second. The act of kicking a ball takes about a hundredth of a second as well - so has the FA established whether offside is to be judged at the moment the ball is first kicked, or when it leaves the boot? And in either case, why does that photo show a moment when the kicker's foot is not in contact with the ball?

[Goobs]

Just looked at the still on the reddit link above and I am assuming the ball was played out to the left winger whose back foot is showing to be offside?

Haven't seen it so only going off that photo but my assumption is correct then it's the right decision so what is the fuss about? If not then can someone explain please?

[dsr]

Just looked at the still on the reddit link above and I am assuming the ball was played out to the left winger whose back foot is showing to be offside?

Haven't seen it so only going off that photo but my assumption is correct then it's the right decision so what is the fuss about? If not then can someone explain please?

The fuss is about why the powers that be think that it is a good thing to reduce the number of goals and to delay goal decisions by a couple of minutes.

Last year that was a legal goal. This year they have changed the law so that is is not a legal goal. Why?

[Goobs]

Because he was offside?

Last year we didn't have VAR and it would likely have stood. Does that make it right? The whole point of VAR is to reduce errors by officials drastically affecting results which surely is a good thing.

I'm not saying VAR is close to perfection but at least with offsides it is consistent and fair and there can be no or at least very little arguments about whether the decision was correct.

It would appear that those saying the decision was wrong are part of the anti-liverpool, jealous faction that has been building all season the longer they continue winning.

[dsr]

Because he was offside?

Last year we didn't have VAR and it would likely have stood. Does that make it right? The whole point of VAR is to reduce errors by officials drastically affecting results which surely is a good thing.

I'm not saying VAR is close to perfection but at least with offsides it is consistent and fair and there can be no or at least very little arguments about whether the decision was correct.

It would appear that those saying the decision was wrong are part of the anti-liverpool, jealous faction that has been building all season the longer they continue winning.

That last sentence is pure invention. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the new offside rule, or "the new offside interpretation in Premier League grounds" if you prefer.

Thrity years ago, the law was changed so that "level" went from being offside as it had been for years, to onside. This was done, as specifically stated in the laws, to encourage more goals. It was also specifically stated in the guidance to English referees that "level" was to be judged by the normal human eye, not by estimating to the inch; that if a player looks level to the normal human eye, then he is level.

The powers that be have decided that what the lawmakers meant was that "level" means to the nearest millionth of an inch and that because of the limited powers of TV pictures, one of the players must always be ahead of the other - there is no "level" any more. They could have left the lawa as it was written, as it was intended, and as it has been applied for thirty years, simply by re-emphasising that "level" means to the normal human eye. Instead, they have decided that thirty years ago the lawmakers were idiots who didn't know what they were talking about and so their views can be safely ignored; and they have also decided that the lawmakers of thirty years ago had the wrong idea and this is a good way of correcting their error and reversing a trend that leads to excitement and goals.

[Tricky Trevor]

No finger to point at Klopp, they won. End of.
His non-appearance is debatable but he is as entitled to a break as his players. They have played far more games than anybody, except possibly Wolves, and at a seriously stressful level.

[Jakubclaret]

The fuss is about why the powers that be think that it is a good thing to reduce the number of goals and to delay goal decisions by a couple of minutes.

Last year that was a legal goal. This year they have changed the law so that is is not a legal goal. Why?

Because the rules have been updated as rules sometimes do, we all used to complain before Var about all the incorrect calls & called for change & hey presto Var appeared, I’m no lover of Var if anything it’s made the game more confusing & controversial, it’s what some of us wanted though to reduce the officiating errors previously, I reckon if you asked people now conducted a poll they’d love to see the back of Var & revert to the old system despite the mistakes that brought.

[dsr]

Because the rules have been updated as rules sometimes do, we all used to complain before Var about all the incorrect calls & called for change & hey presto Var appeared, I’m no lover of Var if anything it’s made the game more confusing & controversial, it’s what some of us wanted though to reduce the officiating errors previously, I reckon if you asked people now conducted a poll they’d love to see the back of Var & revert to the old system despite the mistakes that brought.

That's the point. The rules have been updated so that we have fewer goals, long delays before goals can be celebrated or disallowed, and different rules across the divisions. Why have the rules been updated? Why on earth do the powers that be think this update is a good thing?

[Jakubclaret]

That's the point. The rules have been updated so that we have fewer goals, long delays before goals can be celebrated or disallowed, and different rules across the divisions. Why have the rules been updated? Why on earth do the powers that be think this update is a good thing?

To make it run smoother perhaps? I honestly don’t know I’d be guessing, doesn’t appear to be any logic why you’d want less goals I’ll go with that. Vars a pain in the arse bluntly put.

[Goobs]

That last sentence is pure invention. There are plenty of reasons to dislike the new offside rule, or "the new offside interpretation in Premier League grounds" if you prefer.

Thrity years ago, the law was changed so that "level" went from being offside as it had been for years, to onside. This was done, as specifically stated in the laws, to encourage more goals. It was also specifically stated in the guidance to English referees that "level" was to be judged by the normal human eye, not by estimating to the inch; that if a player looks level to the normal human eye, then he is level.

The powers that be have decided that what the lawmakers meant was that "level" means to the nearest millionth of an inch and that because of the limited powers of TV pictures, one of the players must always be ahead of the other - there is no "level" any more. They could have left the lawa as it was written, as it was intended, and as it has been applied for thirty years, simply by re-emphasising that "level" means to the normal human eye. Instead, they have decided that thirty years ago the lawmakers were idiots who didn't know what they were talking about and so their views can be safely ignored; and they have also decided that the lawmakers of thirty years ago had the wrong idea and this is a good way of correcting their error and reversing a trend that leads to excitement and goals.

But the Shrewsbury player is not level his foot is offside? If you have it as you put it "simply by re-emphasising that "level" means to the normal human eye". Then it leaves it open to interpretation and scrutiny as to whether it is right and comparison against other similar decisions that went the other way.

Here there was no discussion as to whether the player was onside or offside as he is shown to be clearly offside and those saying the goal should have stood are saying the rules should have been ignored.... Why?

Agree or disagree with how the rules are is fair enough and is a completely different debate to that I was having, but to say it was a clear goal given only because it was a "big team" or "liVARpool" is just "pure invention".

[dsr]

But the Shrewsbury player is not level his foot is offside? If you have it as you put it "simply by re-emphasising that "level" means to the normal human eye". Then it leaves it open to interpretation and scrutiny as to whether it is right and comparison against other similar decisions that went the other way.

Here there was no discussion as to whether the player was onside or offside as he is shown to be clearly offside and those saying the goal should have stood are saying the rules should have been ignored.... Why?

Agree or disagree with how the rules are is fair enough and is a completely different debate to that I was having, but to say it was a clear goal given only because it was a "big team" or "liVARpool" is just "pure invention".

But not my invention. I didn't say that. All I said is that the new rule, introduced without consultation, is wrong and the old rule is better.

I don't say the rule should be ignored. I say the rule should not have been changed.

[Goobs]

But not my invention. I didn't say that. All I said is that the new rule, introduced without consultation, is wrong and the old rule is better.

I don't say the rule should be ignored. I say the rule should not have been changed.

I never said you said that. I was talking about those that have said the goal was a clear goal like scouseclaret.

Like I said before what you are talking about is a completely different conversation to what I was saying and that is open to opinion. I personally like the offside rule now as there is no room for argument as to whether someone is on or offside as it can be clearly shown either way.

That being said I understand those that don't like it, the fact that decisions can be fractional and the delays it causes, but I would rather that than something like we lose a game / get relegated, lose a local derby etc on an offside goal (no I still haven't got over the David Dunn incident).

[dougcollins]

The lines that 'prove' that level isn't level weren't displayed at the time on the VAR screen- seems it was so close they don't want anyone to see it.
Well done VAR.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I really don’t see what the fuss is about. The league informs teams way ahead of time explaining the winter break. For the FA to ignore that and use that time for replays is out of order. Should Klopp have been there tonight? Possibly. But then people would moan why he isn’t in the dugout if he’s there. If he was in charge tonight people would moan he’s took charge of another managers team team. All it is, is 2 fingers up at the FA, which is fully needed.

It’s not another mans team. Every one of those kids would kill to play for Klopp. And to have played a proper match under his guidance and watchful eye with him n the dressing room before, half time and after the game would have been brilliant. For some of them once in a career.