Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[Steveo]

It’s been good to see who is and also who isn’t balanced. Good exercise this.

[teesred]

Also tees which goal are you talking about re west ham ? The one that went down as an Alisson own goal ?

The header from the corner where I think it's Ogbonna impedes Ali. Puts them 1-0 up quite early in the game.
I thought it was a foul.

[LEGS]

The header from the corner where I think it's Ogbonna impedes Ali. Puts them 1-0 up quite early in the game.
I thought it was a foul.

Yep his arm went into Alisson.

Cresswell wild challenge inside first ten mins was worst decision its ok though as its early in the game we dont want a red some BS like that was said by pundits.

Think Wilshere said he let him know he was there f*cking hate that saying in other words its a bad tackle.

[CCTV]

I see what CCTV / Steveo are saying I think Firmino should be offside as the Palace left back isnt to know he is offside so has to deal with him.

The rules might be correct in that it is not keeper going for it.

If that pen was given against us I wouldnt be happy id say its a 75-25 in favour of defending team.

Refs/VAR are never going to be 100% no system in any sport is and its impossible to do.

With defenders it's very unfair on them how the game has evolved.
In a 2-2 draw v spurs Kane benefited whilst offside because Lovren not knowing if Kane was offside tried to stop the ball in behind for kane. His contact was deemed an attempt to play the ball meaning kane being offside didn't count anymore. Prior to that game I believe an attempt to play had previously been defined as an intentional back pass.
That would have been Lovren trying to pass back to the keeper having intercepted the ball for Kane, and Kane intercepting the back pass.

Had lovren missed the ball kane would have been offside when he touched the ball, but had he left the ball for say moura or son to sprint towards goal with from an onside position, then he/kane would have not been offside I BELIEVE, even though lovren was on his arse hypothetically from trying to stop the ball to an offside Kane.

A defender can be holding an offside line and any contact from a fellow defender on the ball via making a movement towards the ball makes the offside attacker onside now.
You can be offside by a few yards and moments later be onside for a pullback too. New phase.

Keepers still get it a bit fairer.
But if a player is offside they have to have made the keeper make a movement that clearly shows they were interfering. This one is very context dependent.
Last night had Guaita come out to challenge Bobby's potential header and Ox benefited then Bobby would have been offside.
Bobby didn't touch it so not offside and Guaita hadn't been hindered in a material manner by Bobby so not interfering.
For their defender it was upto him to call Bobby offside and go to ox, that bar is higher. As it was upto lovren to know kane was offside.

An interesting case:
If jota is to the keepers right and clearly offside and virgil smashes a header in to the keepers left. Did Jota hinder the keepers ability to stop the goal ?
I believe it depends on the specific cases.
He is a distraction but it doesn't always count and the goal can stand or not.

Virgil heads it, it clatters off a defender is it offside when Jota slotters it home having being initially offside ?
I believe this one counts most of the time so long as any attempt is made by the defender to make contact with the ball.

For me Salah scored a goal this season that wouldn't have counted last season as the rules changed. People cried foul because they weren't aware of the rule changes which is fair enough really.

The games a mess imo because the rules change too often.
Fans myself included, even current players and managers don't seem to be too well informed.

[Taksin]

I've given you my honest answers. You can imagine how aggrieved I am all you like but these two decisions seem less egregious to me than many more we've been on the receiving end of.

Not if the rules are interpreted correctly.

'interpreted correctly' is what the debate is about. You can assert that you hold the correct interpretation, but I disagree.

Bobby is interfering with both keeper and defender both in terms of line of sight AND more importantly - positioning

I don't think he effects the keepers line of sight at all. Positioning is very debatable as he didn't dummy it to allow it through - it was too high for him so he could never interfere with the play if he wanted to.

I'm not saying the rule itself is correct, just that I think it could be said to be a faithful reading of it. Again, this seems ambiguous to me - whether it benefits us or hurts us.

Jota moves away from the ball which has gone - and into the keeper. The keeper cannot get to the ball because of the collision.

He moves away from the ball as his own contact is a dummy - his legs have to move to the right. He is allowed to do that. No one, the goal keeper included, is allowed to take his legs out. the goal keeper was no where near the ball so he has no right to obstruct the attacker.

As for the ball being out (or 'gone' as you assert with bias), it looks to me like the goal scoring opportunity is gone (although I've seen more amazing things happen), but that shouldn't affect the decision. If he could still touch the ball (and perhaps even if he couldn't - the referee doesn't need to be sure of that, I'd guess) he could still, theoretically have created a goal for the attacking side with a bit of good play. We can never know because the goalkeeper fouled him.

[Taksin]

I should also say that Jota moving to the right towards the keeper was a natural move, not contrived in order to draw out a foul. That is a new habit amongst attackers that I think is despicable. His movement was honest it appears to me.

[CCTV]

Spurs can feel aggrieved about the rule change which saw Mane awarded a penalty kick due to their boys hand being in an unnatural position when we beat them in a CL final.

Be interesting to see the citations against yesterday's 2 controversial goals. Particularly the offside one.
The Jota penalty one has been given for years. Guaita is out of control sliding, has to get the ball and fails.
Jota dinks it past him and its not his fault the keeper has committed to the challenge and is sliding around on the deck.

[Taksin]

Spurs can feel aggrieved about the rule change which saw Mane awarded a penalty kick due to their boys hand being in an unnatural position when we beat them in a CL final.

There was the recent precedent of the penalty that allowed Utd to get past PSG. So Tottenham can only have felt that it fell within the new law, or spirit of the law.

I didn't like it myself, but it seems to have become absorbed into the game now and defenders are changing their arm positions accordingly. There is also some leeway that has arrived, letting them off if they're too close to move their hands out of the way.

[CCTV]

I should also say that Jota moving to the right towards the keeper was a natural move, not contrived in order to draw out a foul. That is a new habit amongst attackers that I think is despicable. His movement was honest it appears to me.

In the modern game if you commit a sliding challenge you have to win the ball.

Sliding, you are by definition out of control. This is a dangerous tackle to commit as if you fail you are out of the game and you can injure players.

If someone has the ball and you are out of control and make contact with them and don't win the ball, you can have no complaints.

Would we have scored without the foul ? Perhaps not.
The actions which led to the foul, Guaitas pressing, closed down Jotas options. He dinked it pasted and Guaita had committed himself. Missed the ball couldn't control himself and fouled Jota, a risk associated with rushing out.

[Taksin]

Guaitas pressing, closed down Jotas options. He dinked it pasted and Guaita had committed himself. Missed the ball couldn't control himself and fouled Jota, a risk associated with rushing out.

yes and in fact he was nowhere near the ball as Jota had kept it away from him (I think that was accidental by Jota but it doesn't matter). So he was sliding into the player nowhere near the ball. the player was still trying to control the ball and was more likely to reach it than the defender. that's a foul

ask yourself if it would be acceptable anywhere else on the pitch. so many of these penalties with the tiniest brushing of someone's ankle actually would be acceptable elsewhere on the pitch