Liverpool F.c.

[wilai]

2 hours ago, alfieconn said:

Farking trying to change the laws now  read the rule DELIBERATELY PLAYS THE BALL, where does the rule mention mis-kick or back pass !

Perfectly aware of the law (I even quoted it!) My comment was merely a viewpoint not an attempt to change anything. To spell it out so that even you understand....My opinion is that back passes and mis-kicks should not be treated as the same thing. The wording of the rule doesn't differentiate between them therefore Kane was not offside.....Now back under your bridge.

 

2 hours ago, BangrakBob said:

As soon as the ball is played through before Lovren even touches it Kane is offside that’s it. The game should stop there he is already off side what happens after the fact is irrelevant. 

Lovely day for a trolling Alfie. 

Problem is Bob at the time the ball was first played, Kane was not 'active' so not considered as offside by 'Eagle Eyes' on the line. After Lovren mis-kicks, the ball runs through to Kane and he then becomes 'active' and not offside. Had Lovren missed the ball completely Kane would have been off once he attempted to play the ball from the original pass. The decision was correct unfortunately. .....................although some would say that chin of his was offside for the full ninety!

[jellydog]

8 minutes ago, wilai said:

Perfectly aware of the law (I even quoted it!) My comment was merely a viewpoint not an attempt to change anything. To spell it out so that even you understand....My opinion is that back passes and mis-kicks should not be treated as the same thing. The wording of the rule doesn't differentiate between them therefore Kane was not offside.....Now back under your bridge.

 

Problem is Bob at the time the ball was first played, Kane was not 'active' so not considered as offside by 'Eagle Eyes' on the line. After Lovren mis-kicks, the ball runs through to Kane and he then becomes 'active' and not offside. Had Lovren missed the ball completely Kane would have been off once he attempted to play the ball from the original pass. The decision was correct unfortunately. .....................although some would say that chin of his was offside for the full ninety!

Thanks for that Wills !

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, jellydog said:

Thanks for that Wills !

You needed Wills to explain that jd, crikey it's not rocket science 

[alfieconn]

Matt Le Tissier‏Verified account @mattletiss7 11h11 hours ago

More

Gotta admire some lfc fans, point blank refusing to admit vvd kicked lamela by tweeting video of the worst angle of the incident to try and back up their opinion.

[StevieH]

3 hours ago, carmine said:

And don't see the need for discussion.  Both were penalties.  The timing was harsh but still penalties.  And i'm sure Bob would agree that Liverpool did not deserve the three points either.

 

don't think either was. kane was offside for the first, balls to the ridiculous rule, he was clearly offside when the ball was played towards him. then you have this preposterous situation of the linesman giving the decision then talking to the referee and saying "if lovren touched it". then the referee, that clown moss, refers to martin atkinson to ask if he saw anything on tv, doesn't wait for the answer, and states "i'm giving a penalty". what the <deleted> happened to being 100% sure about a call otherwise you don't give it?

 

and as for the second penalty, absolute nonsense call. van dijk is pulling his leg away, lamela throws himself into him and goes down like he's been shot. moss and his linesman were an utter disgrace.

 

[jellydog]

9 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

You needed Wills to explain that jd, crikey it's not rocket science 

I'm like Mr. Red about the offside rule.

[alfieconn]

2 minutes ago, jellydog said:

I'm like Mr. Red about the offside rule.

[Rc2702]

Lamela tried it on and they brought it.

He had no intention for the ball he threw himself in there for exactly what they got. Two cheats in the midfield. Dirty.

[sotsira]

1 hour ago, wilai said:

 

Problem is Bob at the time the ball was first played, Kane was not 'active' so not considered as offside by 'Eagle Eyes' on the line. After Lovren mis-kicks, the ball runs through to Kane and he then becomes 'active' and not offside. Had Lovren missed the ball completely Kane would have been off once he attempted to play the ball from the original pass. The decision was correct unfortunately. .....................although some would say that chin of his was offside for the full ninety!

Your 100% spot on.

It's also absolutely farcical that the so called experts who get paid thousands if not millions to work

as pundits on tv don't even understand the rules of the game, why, because they're living in the past

people like Andy gray, Graeme Souness Alan Shearer Tim Sherwood etc... They still interpret the rules from back in the days when they played which are totally different to modern day football.

They also keep referring to it as a grey area of the rules for some strange reason.

 

[champers]

1 hour ago, StevieH said:

 

don't think either was. kane was offside for the first, balls to the ridiculous rule, he was clearly offside when the ball was played towards him. then you have this preposterous situation of the linesman giving the decision then talking to the referee and saying "if lovren touched it". then the referee, that clown moss, refers to martin atkinson to ask if he saw anything on tv, doesn't wait for the answer, and states "i'm giving a penalty". what the <deleted> happened to being 100% sure about a call otherwise you don't give it?

 

and as for the second penalty, absolute nonsense call. van dijk is pulling his leg away, lamela throws himself into him and goes down like he's been shot. moss and his linesman were an utter disgrace.

 

Unfortunately, you have to put it down to an error from VVD. He touched a player in the penalty area and that is enough in today's game. Lamela was a disgrace and should be ashamed, but is probably proud to have won his team a pen.

Contrast with Saha's second where no defender dared to even touch him; never mind try to tackle him; for fear of giving a pen away. He scored anyway, so conceding a pen might have been a better option.

Refs need to start using their judgement. Was contact sufficient to cause a forward to drop like he has been shot? If not, no pen and a booking for simulation. It seems that if there is any contact now; however slight and the player goes down then a pen is given. It's a cheats charter and too many are at it. It is spoiling the sport.

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, sotsira said:

Your 100% spot on.

It's also absolutely farcical that the so called experts who get paid thousands if not millions to work

as pundits on tv don't even understand the rules of the game, why, because they're living in the past

people like Andy gray, Graeme Souness Alan Shearer Tim Sherwood etc... They still interpret the rules from back in the days when they played which are totally different to modern day football.

They also keep referring to it as a grey area of the rules for some strange reason.

 

As do some of the posters on here 

[alfieconn]

2 hours ago, StevieH said:

 

don't think either was. kane was offside for the first, balls to the ridiculous rule, he was clearly offside when the ball was played towards him. then you have this preposterous situation of the linesman giving the decision then talking to the referee and saying "if lovren touched it". then the referee, that clown moss, refers to martin atkinson to ask if he saw anything on tv, doesn't wait for the answer, and states "i'm giving a penalty". what the <deleted> happened to being 100% sure about a call otherwise you don't give it?

 

and as for the second penalty, absolute nonsense call. van dijk is pulling his leg away, lamela throws himself into him and goes down like he's been shot. moss and his linesman were an utter disgrace.

 

Gotta admire some lfc fans, point blank refusing to admit vvd kicked lamela by tweeting video of the worst angle of the incident to try and back up their opinion.

 

 

 

 

[Rc2702]

Just now, alfieconn said:

Gotta admire some lfc fans, point blank refusing to admit vvd kicked lamela by tweeting video of the worst angle of the incident to try and back up their opinion.

 

 

 

 

It looks completely different on that grainy image. So different from above it is difficult to believe they are the same. 

[Bredbury Blue]

No way was that a penalty. Spurs player throws himself anticipating a collision. Think we'd all be pissed off ifour respective team conceded that penalty.

[BangrakBob]

4 hours ago, wilai said:

Perfectly aware of the law (I even quoted it!) My comment was merely a viewpoint not an attempt to change anything. To spell it out so that even you understand....My opinion is that back passes and mis-kicks should not be treated as the same thing. The wording of the rule doesn't differentiate between them therefore Kane was not offside.....Now back under your bridge.

 

Problem is Bob at the time the ball was first played, Kane was not 'active' so not considered as offside by 'Eagle Eyes' on the line. After Lovren mis-kicks, the ball runs through to Kane and he then becomes 'active' and not offside. Had Lovren missed the ball completely Kane would have been off once he attempted to play the ball from the original pass. The decision was correct unfortunately. .....................although some would say that chin of his was offside for the full ninety!

However, Lovren would not have lunged for the ball had Kane not been where he was, Kane has therefore influenced play, therefore active. 

[wilai]

'When I was a player, it was part of training to try to cheat".

 

You'll never guess who said this!  Clue:...looks like he includes it in his own training

[BangrakBob]

16 minutes ago, wilai said:

'When I was a player, it was part of training to try to cheat".

 

You'll never guess who said this!  Clue:...looks like he includes it in his own training

Deli Ali, Harry Kane, Erik Lamela, looks like they all do it in training every week. 

[BangrakBob]

It was very difficult to accept a draw when you are 2-1 up off a masterful goal by The King well in to injury time, in saying that I'd have taken a draw when the Kane pen was given.

 In the first half we should have been 2-3 up, they were no threat. The second half we just dropped off massively and gave them too much of the ball, and the subs unfortunately compounded that fact. Still in no way I believe Spurs deserved 3 points.

 

[smokie36]

8 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

Deli Ali, Harry Kane, Erik Lamela, looks like they all do it in training every week. 

 

Frothy pounded sour grapes on this thread today gents.

 

T'was a fair result imho.

[smokie36]

2 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

It was very difficult to accept a draw when you are 2-1 up off a masterful goal by The King well in to injury time, in saying that I'd have taken a draw when the Kane pen was given.

 In the first half we should have been 2-3 up, they were no threat. The second half we just dropped off massively and gave them too much of the ball, and the subs unfortunately compounded that fact. Still in no way I believe Spurs deserved 3 points.

 

 

I would say the same on your second half performance.

 

Tepid at best.

[BangrakBob]

16 minutes ago, RonniePickering22 said:

 

Frothy pounded sour grapes on this thread today gents.

 

T'was a fair result imho.

Spurs are a top side and that was the best team we played at Anfield this season, better than City for me. 

Your boys do love a good dive though, if Ali is booked I don't see how the other 2 were much different, especially Lamela. 

My issue is with the officiating.

[jellydog]

One thing lost in all this is Salah's fabulous second goal. Messie-esque that was.

[BangrakBob]

8 minutes ago, jellydog said:

One thing lost in all this is Salah's fabulous second goal. Messie-esque that was.

The Egyptian King! it reminded me or Suarez against United but from the other side, Torres did it against someone too, in great company and only 24 years old!

220M in the summer if we don't make CL 

[BangrakBob]

[nev]

35 minutes ago, BangrakBob said:

The Egyptian King! it reminded me or Suarez against United but from the other side, Torres did it against someone too, in great company and only 24 years old!

220M in the summer if we don't make CL 

I am pretty sure Salah has a 57 mil buy out Claus, so Real Madrid it is in the summer.

[wilai]

1 minute ago, nev said:

I am pretty sure Salah has a 57 mil buy out Claus, so Real Madrid it is in the summer.

We don't do buy out clauses....hence the Can situation.

[Rc2702]

Just now, wilai said:

We don't do buy out clauses....hence the Can situation.

There have been clauses previously. Suarez was one.

[wilai]

Holgate accuses Firmino of racism.......................LFC fans dig up homophobic tweets

Alli dives against LFC.............................................Fans hack his i-Cloud and release sex video with prostitute

 

Jon Moss desperately tries to delete his on-line footprint

[wilai]

4 minutes ago, Rc2702 said:

There have been clauses previously. Suarez was one.

Is why we don't do them anymore.

[Rc2702]

Just now, wilai said:

Is why we don't do them anymore.

Firmino has one.