Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[CCTV]

The defender and keeper are drawn to defend Bobby who is offside so he is absolutely affecting play.

No way that goal can stand against us without a meltdown in here. The officials made a mistake, it’s quite clear.

The penalty is also clearly not a penalty.

The collision happens as Jota moves away from the ball and into the keeper. Reminds me of Arry Kane

How is the keeper drawn to Bobby ?
What do the official rules state ?

Eh there's a meltdown all the time on here ffs
Any goals conceded draw a fooking meltdown on here, occasionally goals conceded get a rare compliment of good goal/strike or fair play.
People being melts is a given.

When you commit a sliding tackle you are by definition out of control. You have to win the ball.
Guita was by definition out of control so its a foul.

It's like saying Salah took advantage of a player sliding in, by moving the ball away from the player and yet being in a position where the players sliding around on the grass hits him is cheating

[Taksin]

It's like saying Salah took advantage of a player sliding in, by moving the ball away from the player and yet being in a position where the players sliding around on the grass hits him is cheating

A lot of current penalties are exactly like that too.. deliberate positioning to make it become foul. This wasn't one of them

Robertson's sending off was a bit like that actually. He was completely sincerely trying to kick the ball into touch but the other player was just a bit quicker than him.

I thought that red card was very harsh, especially following the Kane let-off, which was far more avoidable. But people on here seemed to have little sympathy for him.

[CCTV]

A lot of current penalties are exactly like that too.. deliberate positioning to make it become foul. This wasn't one of them

Robertson's sending off was a bit like that actually. He was completely sincerely trying to kick the ball into touch but the other player was just a bit quicker than him.

I thought that red card was very harsh, especially following the Kane let-off, which was far more avoidable. But people on here seemed to have little sympathy for him.

The demands on defenders are astronomical.

I had a lot of sympathy for Virgil in that 2-2 vs spurs a few seasons back. Clearing a ball and Lamella flung himself into Virgil for a late penalty.

With Robbo he might have got away from it with a yellow but could have little complaints with the red. Kane arguably got away with a yellow earlier when it could have been red too.

[CCTV]

https://youtu.be/atMmuw7Txlk

[Steveo]

How is the keeper drawn to Bobby ?
What do the official rules state ?

Eh there's a meltdown all the time on here ffs
Any goals conceded draw a fooking meltdown on here, occasionally goals conceded get a rare compliment of good goal/strike or fair play.
People being melts is a given.

When you commit a sliding tackle you are by definition out of control. You have to win the ball.
Guita was by definition out of control so its a foul.

It's like saying Salah took advantage of a player sliding in, by moving the ball away from the player and yet being in a position where the players sliding around on the grass hits him is cheating

Seriously you have to ask how when you can see?

Anyone who has played the game knows that the keeper will be positioning himself to defend the player most advanced and going for the header. Watch the clip of the goal - he clearly slows and doesn't cover the far post as the ball nears Bobby - he can't because IF Bobby connects it would fall into an empty net.

[Taksin]

https://youtu.be/atMmuw7Txlk

yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Lamela was entirely cynical and the officials didn't protect the defender from doing an honest job of it

I maintain that Robbo's red card was similar, except the Tottenham player was also honest in his aims. Robertson was guilty of being a millisecond away from kicking the ball that appeared to be his to kick as far as he could see in a moment of rapid activity

[Steveo]

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.



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



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.



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.

How can you say it does not affect the keepers line of sight when he has to watch Bobby? He has to watch Bobby as Bobby is the immediate threat. He also has to hold in the centre of the goal to defend Bobby. The minute the ball; passes Bobby he then rushes out to Ox only too late. This is simple stuff

Not sure how anyone can claim he isn't interfering with the keeper - ditto the defender.

Bobby is either there, in the middle of the goal mouth or he isn't. we know he is though because he jumps to head the ball. That in itself tells us everything

The penalty is just obviously clever work by Diogo to force contact.

Let's not waste any more time on this. I think you and CC are wearing some very red tinted specs.. So this is pointless trying to get an honest answer without clear bias.

[Taksin]

Seriously you have to ask how when you can see?

Your phrasing is presumptive and therefore arrogant. Clearly we see it differently. The keeper is positioning himself for all possible outcomes, onside or offside. In this case the ball was too high for Firmino so it can be argued the goalie should have realised that the player could not be involved in what was going to happen next. As the player was not in fact involved in what came next, the official can assume he was not involved in what came next.

those are the rules, apparently

given that we have to wait until the play is over to judge offside (these days), the goalie has to act as if it's onside until decided otherwise. The flow of play, including the goalie's position did not appear to be affected by Firmino's presence. He did in fact ready himself for Oxlade's play

I don't like this rule as it happens but it was drawn up for exactly this kind of scenario. The fact that people want to argue until the cows come home about whether or not he is affecting play reveals the weakness of the rule but doesn't change the fact that CCTV and I are free to argue our view. We are, in the end, arguing about how the official may interpret the rule

[Taksin]

How can you say it does not affect the keepers line of sight when he has to watch Bobby?

here you are talking about 'line of sight'. Firmino is not between the keeper and the ball, nor between the keeper and Oxlade Chamberlain. Hence he clearly and obviously does not interfere with 'line of sight'

Not sure how anyone can claim he isn't interfering with the keeper

Here you are talking about 'interfering', which is very different. Notice the equivocation?

Every player on the pitch can be argued to be interfering in some way, so this is much more ambiguous and subjective. I've said I don't like this rule, but that it could reasonably be argued to be acceptable according to the interpretation of officials, who are consrtained by ambiguity and subjectivity.

I understand your view, I just don't accept it is the only view.

[Taksin]

The penalty is just obviously clever work by Diogo to force contact.

I don't think that's true. But if it was, it would still be a penalty by the new standards

I think Jota was trying to play football and was stopped