What the pundits are saying about us

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
Soft signal was penalty though. Ref saw Kane get his legs taken without the offside flag going up. Therefore he awarded the penalty. He can only reverse that decision if there is clear evidence that Kane is offside. The linesman indicates he is not sure if Lovren has touched it or not, so the ref has no reason to reverse the decision
Doesn't really help either of them though does it?
If Smart isn't sure it's touched anyone, why hasn't he flagged for Kane to be offside when he clearly says himself that Kane was?

Let's be clear, I am not debating the outcome, just the process. I get what you are saying though, Moss clearly felt he should keep his original decision, it's just unfortunate that the conversation paints both of them in a poor light.
 

Luka Van der Bale

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
5,119
Doesn't really help either of them though does it?
If Smart isn't sure it's touched anyone, why hasn't he flagged for Kane to be offside when he clearly says himself that Kane was?

Let's be clear, I am not debating the outcome, just the process. I get what you are saying though, Moss clearly felt he should keep his original decision, it's just unfortunate that the conversation paints both of them in a poor light.
But he doesn’t say he knows Kane was off. He clearly says Kane isn’t offside if Lovren played the ball, and he doesn’t know if Lovren touched the ball. Thus he doesn’t know whether Kane is offside or not, so he doesn’t flag.
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
He missed the fucking thing, it galvanised Liverpool, they benefitted from it.

They benefitted from it, OK?

I don't care if the ref made a mistake or not, they all do. The point is, Liverpool benefitted from it. Soppy ****s.

The one we scored from was a 100% penalty. So, no problem, all's fair, justice done all round.

Except we were the better team and deserved to win, but that's life. We're big enough to take it without whinging like a bunch of delusional Scousers.
uhhhh.... I really think you are missing the point!! It's not about justice, who benefited etc... it's about highlighting the state of refereeing and a discussion about ensuring we use VAR going forward. Of course Liverpool ultimately got momentum after Kane's poor kick, but if he scores and we win, then we would have benefited from what appears to be a poor decision, even if it was the right one. Can one not discuss that separately from the teams involved?
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
But he doesn’t say he knows Kane was off. He clearly says Kane isn’t offside if Lovren played the ball, and he doesn’t know if Lovren touched the ball. Thus he doesn’t know whether Kane is offside or not, so he doesn’t flag.
Um no...
Smart: ‘If he’s not touched the ball, it is offside, so you’re chalking off the penalty. It has to be offside if Lovren has not touched the ball.’

So, if Smart is unsure if any Liverpool player has touched the ball, he should have his flag up for offside, WHICH Moss can then ignore and state that Lovren played him on. Neither of them knew for sure though, and thus no penalty should ever be awarded on a guess.

If Moss doesn't know, nor the linesman, Moss should take the advice of his linesman and retrospectively claim that Kane was offside. Obviously the result would have been we would have been denied a legitimate penalty, which would have sucked at that moment. ironically, we might have gone on to win as momentum was still with us, but that's a side issue for me, I am only debating the logic behind the decision.
 

Luka Van der Bale

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
5,119
Um no...
Smart: ‘If he’s not touched the ball, it is offside, so you’re chalking off the penalty. It has to be offside if Lovren has not touched the ball.’

So, if Smart is unsure if any Liverpool player has touched the ball, he should have his flag up for offside, WHICH Moss can then ignore and state that Lovren played him on. Neither of them knew for sure though, and thus no penalty should ever be awarded on a guess.

If Moss doesn't know, nor the linesman, Moss should take the advice of his linesman and retrospectively claim that Kane was offside. Obviously the result would have been we would have been denied a legitimate penalty, which would have sucked at that moment. ironically, we might have gone on to win as momentum was still with us, but that's a side issue for me, I am only debating the logic behind the decision.
This is stupid. You’re selectively picking part of his quote. Smart clearly had an idea that Lovren may have touched the ball, but can’t be sure. The sensible thing to do is to keep his flag down, let play continue, and discuss with the referee after. If he puts up his flag and Moss blows, they can’t reverse that decision and give the penalty. They can always decide later it was actually offside. You’re honestly the only person I’ve seen way the linesman was in the wrong - everyone to a man agrees he did a fantastic job in this instance, bitter Liverpool fans on Twitter notwithstanding.
 

yiddopaul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
1,841
We got two pens. Legitimately. No-one dived or cheated. If the lino made a mistake (which he didn't), that's not our fault. Even IF it was not a pen (which it was), so what, who cares. It went our way, which never used to happen. I don't care. Can we all move on from this.

The real travesty, is that we didn't get what we deserved. All three points.
 

easley91

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
6,446
uhhhh.... I really think you are missing the point!! It's not about justice, who benefited etc... it's about highlighting the state of refereeing and a discussion about ensuring we use VAR going forward. Of course Liverpool ultimately got momentum after Kane's poor kick, but if he scores and we win, then we would have benefited from what appears to be a poor decision, even if it was the right one. Can one not discuss that separately from the teams involved?
Sorry, but how was it a ‘poor’ decision when it was the correct one? Sure, it took time to get there but one way or another the officials got there. I’m not bothered by lengthy discussions, or linesmen overruling refs IF in the end the CORRECT decision is made regardless of the result.
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
Sorry, but how was it a ‘poor’ decision when it was the correct one? Sure, it took time to get there but one way or another the officials got there. I’m not bothered by lengthy discussions, or linesmen overruling refs IF in the end the CORRECT decision is made regardless of the result.
That's what I am debating, a broken clock tells the right time twice a day... it's fine, people are clearly too riled up by bitter Liverpudlians to discuss so I will drop it, I was just stating my opinion that from what i witnessed, I had very little confidence that an informed decision was made, even if it was the right one and I care because the next time, we could be on the receiving end of a stupid one.
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
This is stupid. You’re selectively picking part of his quote. Smart clearly had an idea that Lovren may have touched the ball, but can’t be sure. The sensible thing to do is to keep his flag down, let play continue, and discuss with the referee after. If he puts up his flag and Moss blows, they can’t reverse that decision and give the penalty. They can always decide later it was actually offside. You’re honestly the only person I’ve seen way the linesman was in the wrong - everyone to a man agrees he did a fantastic job in this instance, bitter Liverpool fans on Twitter notwithstanding.
Absolutely not... however, I do agree that a linesman who is not 100% sure, should not raise his flag and that in general I actually agree that the linesman did a good job. I applaud also the fact they discussed the issue. I actually only really question Moss's decision because if his linesman clearly states Kane IS offside unless Moss is sure a Liverpool player (namely Lovren) touched the ball. The fact is that Moss clearly did not think either could prove either way what happened and kept his original decision. I am not sure I agree with that approach, but there we go, let's move on.
 

$hoguN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
21,330
Doesn't really help either of them though does it?
If Smart isn't sure it's touched anyone, why hasn't he flagged for Kane to be offside when he clearly says himself that Kane was?

Let's be clear, I am not debating the outcome, just the process. I get what you are saying though, Moss clearly felt he should keep his original decision, it's just unfortunate that the conversation paints both of them in a poor light.
There is nothing wrong with the conversation. The linesman clearly articulates the rule, the ref says he is not sure that Lovren has touched it, but as neither can conclusively overturn the decision, it stands and the penalty is awarded. It’s not inept, it’s not bad refereeing. If it is anything it is a clear application of the rules.

It’s exactly like an umpires call decision in cricket or a “is there any reason I cannot award the try” decision in rugby union. The soft signal stands unless it can be conclusively overruled, like the linesman did for the second penalty decision.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,522
uhhhh.... I really think you are missing the point!! It's not about justice, who benefited etc... it's about highlighting the state of refereeing and a discussion about ensuring we use VAR going forward. Of course Liverpool ultimately got momentum after Kane's poor kick, but if he scores and we win, then we would have benefited from what appears to be a poor decision, even if it was the right one. Can one not discuss that separately from the teams involved?
Of course you can.

But in the context of the howls of indignant outrage still coming from Liverpool supporters and some pundits, it might be helpful if more people first acknowledged that no one was cheated, no one lost out.

That, after all, is the framework in which the protests exist because let’s not kid ourselves, they are protests fuelled by a misplaced sense of injustice, not a pure, dispassionate and balanced interest in the way in which referees settle difficult decisions.
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
There is nothing wrong with the conversation. The linesman clearly articulates the rule, the ref says he is not sure that Lovren has touched it, but as neither can conclusively overturn the decision, it stands and the penalty is awarded. It’s not inept, it’s not bad refereeing. If it is anything it is a clear application of the rules.

It’s exactly like an umpires call decision in cricket or a “is there any reason I cannot award the try” decision in rugby union. The soft signal stands unless it can be conclusively overruled, like the linesman did for the second penalty decision.
Yeah it's all cool, I find the debate on it interesting.
 

mil1lion

Bad Banter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
30,311
Not sure I agree.

If the Ref is not sure a Liverpool player played a backpass/touched the ball, then surely he has to go with what the Linesman says, i.e. that Kane is offside. We hate mistakes, but at least the ref would have made the right call as he saw it and not "guessed and fluked a right call."

He made a decision, was then unsure and stuck with it, because, who likes to admit they made a mistake. I am afraid the video/mic evidence does him no favours in this regard, even if the decision was deemed to be the correct one in the end.

If Kane goes on to win the match and I am a Liverpool supporter, I think I would rightly be livid. If that happens against us, that a ref essentially tosses a coin to make a decision (even if video evidence proved the call correct), I would hate it, because we would be condoning poor refereeing. The technologies coming into the game are supposed to assist competent refs, but at this rate, we are going to be calling for the tech to replace them.
So you dont think the ref should consult with the 4th official if he isn't sure? Then what is the 4th official there for?
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
So you dont think the ref should consult with the 4th official if he isn't sure? Then what is the 4th official there for?
It's the asking for TV evidence that I think has riled up the journos. Certainly as yet no TV evidence should be used to make decisions,so it was an odd request for Moss to make, irrespective of what I think.
 

mil1lion

Bad Banter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
30,311
It's the asking for TV evidence that I think has riled up the journos. Certainly as yet no TV evidence should be used to make decisions,so it was an odd request for Moss to make, irrespective of what I think.
But the 4th official didn't see it on the tv monitors it was confirmed so there was no TV evidence used. So in this case the ref asked the 4th official and then said he was giving it. I just dont know what the 4th official said but he must have thought it was a penalty given the decision by the ref.
 

Riandor

COB Founder
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,842
But the 4th official didn't see it on the tv monitors it was confirmed so there was no TV evidence used. So in this case the ref asked the 4th official and then said he was giving it. I just dont know what the 4th official said but he must have thought it was a penalty given the decision by the ref.
I honestly think it's just the words used ("did you see anything on the TV"), I think if Moss just radios the 4th official and asks for an opinion, less would have been made out of it.
 

mil1lion

Bad Banter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
30,311
I honestly think it's just the words used ("did you see anything on the TV"), I think if Moss just radios the 4th official and asks for an opinion, less would have been made out of it.
Actually I just saw a report which says the 4th official didn't give any decision but the ref gave it anyway. In which case the ref was wrong to 'guess' that Lovren touched the ball but got 'lucky' in that it was the correct decision. He probably shouldn't make that decision given he wasn't sure as you say. If he didn't give the penalty we would have continued to dominate and likely to go on and win the game. The decision probably cost us in the end. We were robbed!
 
Top