Guardiola being his usual gracious-in-defeat self, there.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
No More Sarri - Premier League 2019/20
Collapse
X
-
Chaokoh, the Official Coconut Water Partner of Liverpool Football Club
Comment
-
- Jan 2012
- 3291
- Worthing
- The Hammers, until Mark Noble goes.(he's still there, sort of)
- Garibaldi, dipped in tea.
Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View PostVAR ruined the game in the sense of creating an expectation of fairness that it can't, or won't be allowed to, deliver.
Comment
-
If you pause the footage at 5min 18secs Mane has possession of the ball and there are two other Liverpool attackers in the frame - 7 City players are defending (GK + 6). So, 7 v 3.
They half dealt with that attack (ball weakly cleared) but there was a second wave of Liverpool attackers arriving (one of which was Fabinho) and none of the other 4 City players had dropped far enough back to close them down. Aguero and Sterling and the two others had expended their energy protesting at the non award of the penalty and had only half heartedly jogged back.
The reason the goal was scored is that Man City did not defend Liverpools counter attack as a team - but as two seperate groups of 7 and 4 with a huge chasm in between which is why Fabinho had so much time and space on the ball.
You cant blame the goal on the refs non award of the penalty unless you think that players should argue with the ref when the ball is in open play rather than play to the whistle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cesar Rodriguez View PostIf you pause the footage at 5min 18secs Mane has possession of the ball and there are two other Liverpool attackers in the frame - 7 City players are defending (GK + 6). So, 7 v 3.
They half dealt with that attack (ball weakly cleared) but there was a second wave of Liverpool attackers arriving (one of which was Fabinho) and none of the other 4 City players had dropped far enough back to close them down. Aguero and Sterling and the two others had expended their energy protesting at the non award of the penalty and had only half heartedly jogged back.
The reason the goal was scored is that Man City did not defend Liverpools counter attack as a team - but as two seperate groups of 7 and 4 with a huge chasm in between which is why Fabinho had so much time and space on the ball.
You cant blame the goal on the refs non award of the penalty unless you think that players should argue with the ref when the ball is in open play rather than play to the whistle.
One thing that I would worry about if I were Guardiola, is the third goal, and what gundogan does. He needs to follow henderson, but he hands him over to the full back, and in the gap of time it takes for the defender to get across, henderson crosses the ball, unmolested. That little drop off by gundogan is all you need, and you'd never see that last season. That was the sort of thing you used to see in the season after man city used to win the league. The problem with playing the way that man city play is that if one or two of your players start to drop off then the whole thing can unravel very quickly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon View Post
Second one should have been saved too.
It's a real shame that it's all about the VAR once again. This was the first Premier League game that I'd seen this season so I can only imagine the weekly VA-faRce that the Premier League has become.
Comment
-
I watch so little Premier League that the defending champions Man City were able to field a player I've never heard of. Angeliño. Never come across him before.
Anyway, VAR is shit. I've thankfully not seen much of it before. So, the VAR at the World Cup, where the referee goes and looks again pitchside to confirm or overrule his own decision, that is dead and now decisions are imposed remotely? What a crock.
Manchester City had the better players, but Liverpool were the better team, and yes, were slightly favoured by VAR and Man City fielding an average goalkeeper.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Rogin the Armchair fan View Post
The City player handballed it on its way to the Liverpool lad. So it would have been ruled out in any case.
Do you not UNDERSTAND VAR?
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnr View PostI think a few people who supported VAR, in a game that is full of judgement calls, didn't think through the full implications of how it might play out.
* - but not never as those reading the (Field) Hockey thread or reading the Irish Sports media in recent days will know!
Comment
-
Originally posted by jwdd27 View Postthe VAR at the World Cup, where the referee goes and looks again pitchside to confirm or overrule his own decision, that is dead and now decisions are imposed remotely? What a crock.
The on-field ref still has the final say on any decision. It's just that they have all apparently chosen to go with their colleagues judgement instead. Or maybe they are scared to approach a touchline during a VAR delay?!?
Comment
-
There is no innate 'fairness' over the course of a game - somebody getting away with a handball ten minutes before a goal still influences the game; a throw-in given the wrong way, similarly, 'changes' the game. I think a few people who supported VAR, in a game that is full of judgement calls, didn't think through the full implications of how it might play out. I fear, though, we're lumbered with it. So I'm tilting at windmills here.
These days, the way it is, you don't just need to score a goal, it needs to be a goal... beyond any reasonable doubt.
Comment
-
You could say the same about taking a wicket in cricket, though. Particularly the bit about checking for the bowler over-stepping as well as stuff like did it pitch in line, was there an undetected tickle by the batsman, etc. They are looking for any reason not to give it out, just the same about the Football TV officials looking for any reason not to give a goal.
The key difference is the review isn't automatic - the batting or bowling team has to ask for it. And those reviews are reasonably precious; a player who 'wastes' a review casting around for a reason not to be out without decent grounds for thinking that might exist gets castigated for it. Particularly when a later teammate gets sawn off and can't do anything about it. Speculative reviews are therefore rare - the players are saving it for the time when they know the Umpire has dropped a clanger. But Football has a rod up it's arse about teams being seen to challenge a ref's decision and turning out to be right.
Consider how many overturned goals would likely have stood if a team had been asked "Do you want to review?" The Sheffield United one on Saturday for instance - there is no way the Spurs defence would have been sure there was an offside in real time. Where they even appealing for one? Or certain handball decisions, like the Leicester-Wolves one way back in the first game of the season. I was there for that match - the only complaints after Wolves 'scored' were internal disputes between the Leicester players about who had been at fault. No-one was suggesting to the ref that Wolves had handled the ball in the build up. If it had been up to Leicester to ask, they wouldn't have done so as none of their players thought there was any problem with the goal.
Keep the number of reviews low enough (I suggest one per side per match!) and the whole thing can work as people want it to with just egregious errors that only the ref thinks happened being checked and reversed.
Comment
Comment