26 Dec 2023 20:25:53
Good result and overall performance today, glad to see Nunez score and have Jota back. Despite his doubters I think his importance to the team as someone who just gets the ball in the back of the net is evident.

My main gripe is the disallowed goal. Now I'm not complaining about conspiracy against LFC or anything silly like that but things like that really need to be put in the bin. LFc are trying really hard to transition to a passing, possession based game and whilst I find it boring as all hell they did quite well at it today, and Elliots goal was the perfect example of getting it right.

Now I get why is was given offside, Salah is obviously standing between Elliot and the GK, but he clearly was never going to save that. He was going the wrong way and you could argue Salah was pushed into an offside position plus the GK moving the other way out Salah in his line if sight, and again he was never saving that, I doubt many keepers would have.

I'm all for objectivity as I have stated with the recent threads regarding the Arsenal penalty decision. I guess I'm just a little frustrated when a niggly bylaw of the game rules out what was a perfectly executed goal where the supposed offence had no effect on the outcome.

1.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 20:54:33
Quite right, it really is time these VAR people had someone that has played football to advise them.

2.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 20:49:19
To be fair though @Westwood, a lot is made, these days, about referees needing to follow the rules. Niggly by-law or not, the ref was right.

3.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 21:02:06
I think the focus has to be on whether the offside player is interfering with the movement of the keeper. Like if he goes for the ball or it goes through his legs.

In this instance if Salah was the invisible man the keeper is still never saving that. Salah did not interfere with the keeper at all. But we are asking the most incompetent refs (Tierney and Hooper) to use common sense of which they have none.

The other disallowed goal was even worse. That was never a foul by Nunez he didn’t touch him. Surely the VAR should be showing that to the ref? Yet again Simon ‘Hotspur’ Hooper fails to do his job correctly.

How they still allow Tierney to ref our games is beyond me. He and Klopp hate each other so there is an obvious bias there. And it’s very evident.

4.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 21:12:05
It is hard to say he was never going to save that with any certainty. Salah was blocking his view and that may have led the keeper to move a bit more central. If Salah wasn't standing in front may be Elliot hits to the other side of the goal.

I have no qualms about this decision at all. I am more worried about how David Coote is influencing games with his interpretation of handball.

5.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 21:36:32
It’s all about opinion I guess, first disallowed goal tonight was never a foul, just look at the Burnley players reaction when the ball went in tells you everything, He had his hands on his head rather than look at the referee to bail him out. Second disallowed goal should have stood, Salah pushed into an offside position whilst blocking the keeper’s view, he didn’t choose to be there, he was pushed. VAR in its current state is ruining football for me over and over again. We won, but that tells half the story.

6.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 21:46:42
He interfered with the keepers sight, so Salah was active and the goal correctly ruled out. If it happened against us you guys would be going nuts.

7.) 26 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 22:08:25
Salah was pushed by the defender into an offside position, and by any interpretation a push is a foul. So Salah only ends up in the offside position because he was fouled. So if that incompetent slap head Tierney is so concerned with being absolutely right with the rules and application of them, why hasn’t he given a penalty for the push on Salah? That man has no business being a referee.

8.) 27 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 22:20:50
The issue I have is its subjective, does it warrant the ref checking it on the monitor? There is surely enough doubt whether he is in the eye line or not. So the question should be to the linesman but he doesn't flag. So in my opinion the goal should of stood.

Likewise, the first wasn't a foul in my opinion. However not clear enough evidence to overturn it. So I see why they stuck with it, even if it was frustrating.

VAR got too involved today and forgot its clear and obvious guideline for the second, but as soon as he is sent over there is only one outcome.

Fans frustration is the lack of consistency as I think Ake had a similar one but that was given earlier in the season.

9.) 27 Dec 2023
26 Dec 2023 23:38:11
Coote is the worst VAR official of the lot. Definitely a suspicious egg. If he is in the room in any capacity the strangest decisions happen.

10.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 01:10:48
Clattenburg has just said ref had a good game, but he also got the first disallowed goal wtong ( so don't know how he had a good game if he missed the first one) he then said he could see why elliot goal was mot allowed, I think they male it up as they go along. this subjective nonsense is just a free pass for them.

11.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 01:13:26
For me we can say something like we’re 80% sure he wouldn’t have saved it. But because Mo is there and offside we can’t say 100% and that gives doubt for the ref to make that call.
I’m ok with it for that reason.

12.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 09:24:19
Victor, if you’re going to give a foul for a push of that magnitude then football is going to be a long game with 10 penalties aside each game mate.

13.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 09:55:07
But faith, with that explanation the goal shouldn't be ruled out as its not clear and obvious. The goal was given on the pitch, and there wasn't definite proof he wasn't, especially when you factor in the push to put him there.

If the goal was ruled offside on the pitch id understand why it wasnt given. My gripe is that they got involved in a 50/ 50 decision that doesn't have a right or wrong answer as it can be argued both ways.

14.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 11:18:43
Great result for the team and really happy for Darwin and Jota that they scored and the clean sheet will definitely be helpful moving forward. Still a lot of work to be done with our clinical ability and approach play BUT in the end, I'll take it.

As for the ruled out goals, Im sorry BUT this is becoming really a complete nonsense and this Tierny fella and his VAR cronies are full ot it. Tell me they weren't trying to even thi
ngs out w/ o telling me they weren't trying to even things out by chalking off valid goals due to abject nonsense.

The fact that the VAR did not see/ nor consider that Salah was pushed into an offside position or that Charlie Taylor never got fouled cos Darwin pulled out of the challenge and that NO Burnley player appealed, is bordering on maatch-fixing at this point.

IMO, Tierney and his VAR cronies literally INVENTED those calls to get the goals disallowed.

15.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 12:58:38
Both calls very strange.

On the first, what is most interesting is that the Burnley player that was 'fouled' by Nunez did not even raise his hands or claim a foul. He just got up, there was barely contact and he didn't even think it was a foul so why did the ref? And why did VAR not say 'look there is barely any contact there, go and have another look at that'?

The second is even worse. Salah is quite blatantly shoved and this puts him offside and in the keeper's eyeline. Would this have mattered etc? Again the ref should have viewed the whole passage of play, not a still that shows Salah offside.

Since when do VAR simply show stills? They did it there and for the Jones tackle at Spurs - is this a thing now, or is it only to get the ref to make the call the VAR official wants him to make?

And, if VAR show the blatant shove - tell me, anywhere else on the pitch a blatant shove like that is a free kick. In the box is that not then a penalty? And then given a goal was scored, is it not right to forego the penalty and award the goal then? Honestly not sure.

Some week we've had with VAR calls, cannot get my head round the Arsenal handball and then they give us these 2 on top of that - crazy week lads.

16.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 12:59:42
@BP, How was Mo “the invisible man”. For a start I could see him from 12,000 miles away and I’m pretty sure Trafford had a better view of him from about 5 feet away standing directly between himself and Harvey.

17.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 13:01:56
If we have to score 4 legit goals just to have any chance of winning a game this season cos there is a possibility that two of them will be ruled out for dubious reasons (all while keeping a clean sheet) in every game then, buckle up cos things will not be pretty moving forward.

18.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 13:01:33
Faith, I disagree. There is a right and wrong answer here if you strip it down. Both goals should have stood. The first one, there is NO contact on the Burnley player and none of the Burnley players (including the alleged victim), complained. Tierney had no idea what he saw and since VAR won't challenge him, we got screwed.

Same as the second goal. How can Trafford be unsighted whereas the ball is going to his left and he was going to his right? It means even if Salah was in front of him or standing next to Allison in our own half, Trafford was never getting to it cos he was away from the shot so it doesn't matter.

It was the VAR who for some reason, does not play the whole clip showing Salah was pushed into being offside cos had Tierney been shown that, he would have just given the goal and moved on. We saw that on the replays after play resumed BUT Tierney didn't during the review so essentially, incompetence (bordering on bias) by both the ref and VAR here on both goals, IMO.

19.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 21:11:35
That was lost on you wasn’t it WDW3. Read it again.

20.) 27 Dec 2023
27 Dec 2023 21:23:38
It’s about knowing football. Refs are too keen to apply rules without knowing anything about playing the game.

Trafford is not getting to that whether Salah is there or not. If you know the game then you know that is a stone cold fact. Then you have to decide if you should apply the rule even though the player that is in an offside position has had zero impact on the end result.

Otherwise we could be looking at a situation where the keeper is out of his goal and someone taps it into an empty net. There is a player in an offside position in between the ball and the keeper so essentially blocking his view even though he’s not even in the goal. If we are applying this rule then it’s offside even though the keeper is never getting there.

You’ll say yes but we don’t know if the keeper would’ve saved Harvey’s if Salah wasn’t there and that’s where I’d say you don’t know football. If you did you’d know that the keeper was wrong footed and was never getting there.