Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[teesred]

Imagine it had happened just outside the box - the keeper came out and stopped Jota moving forward (Jota had cleverly dummied his contact with the ball by an act of incompetence - don't matter) and was no way near to catching the ball with his hands.

The goalie would have been sent off (stopping the last man on goal).
(I'm still fucked off about Hyypia been sent off at Old Trafford for last man on goal rule, additional to the penalty which was awarded, when he was trying to clear the ball more or less same distance from the goal line as Jota was).

When people say 'its not a penalty for me', I find they often overlook the fact that a foul has taken place.

That's all hypothetical and not what happened though, using a situation where the keeper comes out of his box changes it completely. The ball went out of play and Jota was never getting it, thats where the situation/positioning has to be taken into account. Surely the ref should look at think he wasn't getting to it, a scoring opportunity hasn't been denied therefore there's no penalty.

Jota moves towards the keeper, away from the direction ball is actually travelling so I'm puzzled as to how you're saying it's a natural movement and not trying to draw the foul which most forwards do in that situation.
As for Robertson being unlucky. Really? It's dangerous play, a red card all day. We haven't been done over by VAR more than anyone else has.

[Kev0909]

Jota ran away from the ball, think that's obvious... could and should of done better really.

(even tho he won a dodgy pen)

[Steveo]

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'



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.

Focusing on semantics a little here. Line of sight was not the right term (my mistake) - but Taksin, it's worse than that. As mentioned he can't even look at Ox because of Bobby. That's the whole point. He is 100% unequivocally interfering/affecting with play/move/attack, so much so the keeper can't even look to his left OR move to his left until the ball passes Firmino... and that is WHY Ox has the time and space to score.

Surely this doesn't need explanation. We can all see it.

Take the hit like a man. We got the goals we shouldn't have had within the rules. Enjoy the win. Arguing that the. goal or Penalty were legit is a little pathetic

And as far as I know the rule is about interfering. The goal is ruled on or off on the basis of whether the player is interfering/affecting the play directly as he defends the goal. That doesn't mean that Virgil picking his bum on the half way line is doing the same. Again you are using words to wriggle out of what we can all see

[Taksin]

Jota moves towards the keeper, away from the direction ball is actually travelling so I'm puzzled as to how you're saying it's a natural movement

as I keep saying, it was a dummy. If he had hooked the ball to come with him (which I think he actually tried to do), it would have gone towards the keeper. By leaving it, he allowed it to go around the keeper. He just couldn't get to it as he was brought down.

My hypothetical was straightforward. Are you allowed to stop someone in their tracks if they've cleverly fooled you by letting the ball run past you? the answer is no as far as I'm aware. It doesn't matter if it's the goalie or someone else. The scenario I described is helpful because he was also the last man in on goal. If its outside the box, that carries a red card - in the case of Hyypia, the red has also been shown inside the box in addition to the penalty, much to my chagrin.

I don't think he moved to his right to draw a foul (so we disagree). I think it was a natural movement based on the attacking play. I also don't think it is obvious that he could not have made further contact with the ball (so we disagree). But penalties can be given even if the attacker is running away from goal inside the box. The question is whether it was a foul, not whether he would have gone on to score or even reached the ball.

As I said during the game, 'never a pen', but I have thought about it and can see why it was given now. It's not like they didn't take their time over it

[shminkyred]

Some of us would be claiming a nonsensical conspiracy to ensure city win the league.

lololololol

I love VAR at least we know the ref has had every opportunity to interpret the situation properly.... ....we may not agree when it goes against .... but thats why it's a beautiful game.

[Taksin]

As mentioned he can't even look at Ox because of Bobby.

Not true. If Bobby was onside he would have to take into account Oxlade, especially as the ball was going to him and was not going to Firmino.

And I enjoyed the game as much as the next man, thanks very much. This is a purely theoretical exercise. It's called a disagreement. You seem a bit more anxious to claim victory than anyone else

[shminkyred]

Apart from on Talkshite - "controversial last minute penalty to win the game"

got me sooooooo farkin angry when all the regs on here were agreeing that wasnt a pen .......and the immediate reaction on talkshite was the pundits shouting....."typical Liverpool and their fans"....blah blah fuk offf

[CCTV]

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.

Talking about bias and seeing the balanced - who spoiler alert agree with you 😲

A player who is offside by their mere existence of being offside isn't always deemed to be offside.
A defender can make a play and that makes an offside person onside.
An offside player can be deemed to have not made a material impact on a play.

You can say your version of football rules are better and argue for your rules. But the actual rules are a different matter.

Last night Robbo passes to Ox who scores. Bobby in an offside position attempts to challenge for the ball, he doesn't make contact. It's deemed to be an immaterial influence and the goal stands.

[CCTV]

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

It doesn't matter as Guaita has gone to ground.

It looks in slow mo like Jota was trying to dink it past Guiata and scuffed it like his goal in midweek with his heel. Then reacts to that and collides with Guaita whose gone to ground.

[Steveo]

Not true. If Bobby was onside he would have to take into account Oxlade, especially as the ball was going to him and was not going to Firmino.

And I enjoyed the game as much as the next man, thanks very much. This is a purely theoretical exercise. It's called a disagreement. You seem a bit more anxious to claim victory than anyone else

I am simply pointing out what is clear and obvious without any bias and refusing to accept that black is in fact white just become it benefits us to do so