The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread - #DankeJürgen

[Armamike]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

[J70]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

Yep.

How many times have you heard a commentator say "if he'd gone down there instead of staying on his feet, he'd have got a penalty"?

[Cavan19]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

He could have just kicked the ball into the net instead of diving though.

[marty34]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

He could have just kicked the ball into the net instead of diving though.

I think as he rounded the keeper, his touch was a bit too heavy and sent the ball away from goal a bit more than he'd have liked.

Then his thought process kicked in.
Keeper has made an attempt to get the ball but pulled arm away at the last second and his arm might have brushed him ever so slightly.  Ball going away from goal...I'll go to ground.

That's it in a nutshell.

[RedHand88]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

He could have just kicked the ball into the net instead of diving though.

Could have but he didn't and Liverpool won handily enough.

[trueblue1234]

It doesn't make you a weaker person or Liverpool a weaker club, to be able to occasionally admit when a Liverpool player is in the wrong.

It also doesn't make you a weak person to realise making hyperbole comments about the incident is a load of bo!!ix as well. And trying to make it into something monumental when these sort of dives are dime a dozen.

[Armamike]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

He could have just kicked the ball into the net instead of diving though.

Agreed. 

[trailer]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

He could have just kicked the ball into the net instead of diving though.

Agreed. 

Good job LiVARpool have McSpitty on Sky to make the stupid argument that it wasn't a dive.

[RedHand88]

The reality is if a player doesn't go down he won't get a penalty even if it is a blatant foul

He could have just kicked the ball into the net instead of diving though.

Agreed. 

Good job LiVARpool have McSpitty on Sky to make the stupid argument that it wasn't a dive.

This has really really annoyed you hasn't it? Was your Christmas break ruined by Liverpools surge?

[Look-Up!]

I thought it was a clear penalty. Didn't agree with commentary either saying it was delayed, he took too many steps or went on for 3 or 4 yards. He had his foot clipped. When running at speed this generally results in falling. He never regains stride after getting his foot clipped. He falls as the foot first touches the ground after being clipped.

Maybe he could have regained balance if he had really tried but had he not been clipped it's a tap in goal. If he had managed to stay on his feet there's a good chance the loss of momentum significantly reduced the chances of scoring and if he missed, the referee in all probability would not have brought play back and correctly awarded a penalty.

I find it very funny that it's so widely accepted by everyone that it's a blatant penalty where a player dives, leaves a trailing leg and essentially kicks the goalie but there's such outrage over an incident where a player makes an honest effort to pass a goalie cleanly, gets genuinely impeded and doesn't bust himself to stay on his feet.

[Milltown Row2]

Was there a penalty call last night at the start of the West Ham game when there was contact in the box and nothing awarded, the commentators used the Liverpool penalty incident saying there is no consistency on the calls..

Didn't see it but on the radio the pundits said the difference was the ref didn't call it so VAR didn't it intervene . But had the Ref called it the VAR would have stood by the Ref's call!

Its getting harder to work out

[north_antrim_hound]

Was there a penalty call last night at the start of the West Ham game when there was contact in the box and nothing awarded, the commentators used the Liverpool penalty incident saying there is no consistency on the calls..

Didn't see it but on the radio the pundits said the difference was the ref didn't call it so VAR didn't it intervene . But had the Ref called it the VAR would have stood by the Ref's call!

Its getting harder to work out

It this stage VAR can be considered a failed catastrophe, any one moaning about Liverpool being on the right side this time seems two forget they have been robbed of 6 points this season plus the arsenal hand ball incident. The biggest winners so far this year on bad decisions is Man City, everyone else top 4 can have a grievance for sure.

[J70]

I thought it was a clear penalty. Didn't agree with commentary either saying it was delayed, he took too many steps or went on for 3 or 4 yards. He had his foot clipped. When running at speed this generally results in falling. He never regains stride after getting his foot clipped. He falls as the foot first touches the ground after being clipped.

Maybe he could have regained balance if he had really tried but had he not been clipped it's a tap in goal. If he had managed to stay on his feet there's a good chance the loss of momentum significantly reduced the chances of scoring and if he missed, the referee in all probability would not have brought play back and correctly awarded a penalty.

I find it very funny that it's so widely accepted by everyone that it's a blatant penalty where a player dives, leaves a trailing leg and essentially kicks the goalie but there's such outrage over an incident where a player makes an honest effort to pass a goalie cleanly, gets genuinely impeded and doesn't bust himself to stay on his feet.

I thought it was the correct call too. I'm not saying he couldn't have stayed on his feet and recovered, as you say, but then the foul would not have been given and the chance would have been lost as  by the time he recovered his stride, he would have far too wide of the goal to score.

We were debating the "he could have stayed on his feet/it was a foul AND a dive" thing on this board 10-15 years ago.

I don't get why everyone is so "shocked I tell ya!" over this particular incident.

[J70]

Was there a penalty call last night at the start of the West Ham game when there was contact in the box and nothing awarded, the commentators used the Liverpool penalty incident saying there is no consistency on the calls..

Didn't see it but on the radio the pundits said the difference was the ref didn't call it so VAR didn't it intervene . But had the Ref called it the VAR would have stood by the Ref's call!

Its getting harder to work out

"Clear and obvious error" is the key.

Some calls (as YOU well know!) are subjective. If the ref calls it one way, and the VAR review finds that it was somewhat justifiable and not clearly wrong, then that's it.

Or like the West Ham goal v Arsenal where you literally cannot tell if the ref was right or wrong (the one where the ball might have been out before the cut-back), VAR has to let the on-field decision, whatever it was, stand.

[trailer]

Was there a penalty call last night at the start of the West Ham game when there was contact in the box and nothing awarded, the commentators used the Liverpool penalty incident saying there is no consistency on the calls..

Didn't see it but on the radio the pundits said the difference was the ref didn't call it so VAR didn't it intervene . But had the Ref called it the VAR would have stood by the Ref's call!

Its getting harder to work out

"Clear and obvious error" is the key.

Some calls (as YOU well know!) are subjective. If the ref calls it one way, and the VAR review finds that it was somewhat justifiable and not clearly wrong, then that's it.

Or like the West Ham goal v Arsenal where you literally cannot tell if the ref was right or wrong (the one where the ball might have been out before the cut-back), VAR has to let the on-field decision, whatever it was, stand.

Yes but sometimes it isn't clear and obvious and they get involved rerunning the footage over and over in slow mo. Then sometimes they give a penalty but for another similar foul they don't.
The human factor still exists. All VAR does is allow another bunch of refs who all see it differently anyway have a look.
It has made on field refs cop out of decisions knowing it will be checked "upstairs".
The game is worse for it.