Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The Premier League's Key Match Incidents panel believe Virgil van Dijk's chalked-off goal in Liverpool's 3-0 defeat to Manchester City SHOULD have been allowed to stand.
Liverpool manager Arne Slot was incensed following the loss to City. "I think it is obvious and clear the wrong decision has been made," he said. "He [Robertson] didn't interfere at all with what the goalkeeper can do."
Such was the Reds' frustration, they reached out to PGMOL chief Howard Webb to voice their concerns regarding the decision. Webb provided a justification for the ruling this week, acknowledging that Donnarumma saw 'the ball all the way' but that it was 'not unreasonable' for the officials to arrive at the conclusion they did.
Liverpool manager Arne Slot was incensed following the loss to City. "I think it is obvious and clear the wrong decision has been made," he said. "He [Robertson] didn't interfere at all with what the goalkeeper can do."
Such was the Reds' frustration, they reached out to PGMOL chief Howard Webb to voice their concerns regarding the decision. Webb provided a justification for the ruling this week, acknowledging that Donnarumma saw 'the ball all the way' but that it was 'not unreasonable' for the officials to arrive at the conclusion they did.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 21
|
By:
Would of made absolutely no difference to the result..
The best team won on the day... The dippers will be lucky to finish top 4... |
|
By:
Interesting decision.
Lurkas explanation on Liverpool thread is pretty much as good a summation of what happened and the decision making as I have seen. I don't think the press covered it very well. It's hugely subjective, and either decision is defensible. Tough one to take for Liverpool, |
|
By:
total rubbish ftg.. wd have made a world of difference to the match making it 1-1 at the time...more garbage from match officials var etc etc,,
|
|
By:
Man city were far superior on the day and would have won regardless imo of course!
In prem history has a team ever spent as much as Liverpool and gone backwards like they have ? |
|
By:
as dummying the ball isn't now considered effecting the play,should Slovakia goal 15 yds further from goal disaloowec tonight, HAVE STOOD ?
|
|
By:
Slovakia goal is great example of why Liverpool goal
was ruled out. |
|
By:
Let it go, let it go
Can't hold it back anymore Let it go, let it go Turn away and slam the door I don't care what they're going to say Let the storm rage on The cold never bothered me anyway |
|
By:
im surprised lpool fans are moaning so much, they were lucky city didn't get 6
|
|
By:
we now need Keith hackett and co telling us why the Slovakia player letting ball go 15 yds out in offside position was effecting play/goalkeeper, but ROBBO 5 yds out doing same wasn't ?
|
|
By:
It's subjective, everybody can have an opinion
on the Liverpool non goal as it's very close to being a 50/50. Slovakia non goal a lot more obvious. |
|
By:
Suggest you read offside law you are offside if you are seeking to gain an advantage Robertson was in an offside position and was seeking to gain an advantage if he wasn't what was doing in the six yard box
|
|
By:
If ball went in other corner it's a goal.
I suggest you read the laws. |
|
By:
Law says being in offside position is not an offence it self but player so positioned when the ball is played by teammate can be judged offside offence of they receive the ball or will become involved in active play or will interfere with an opponent or will gain advantage from being in that position thank you for suggestion to read the law Correct decision Robertson was seeking gain an advantage have a good evening
|
|
By:
Lol,
If ball went in other corner it's a goal. I suggest you read the laws. |
|
By:
current refs must absolutely despise Webb
|
|
By:
Does anyone still care...move on, there'll be another incident along next weekend.
|
|
By:
*Aspro agrees with duffy*
|
|
By:
It's a really interesting goal/non goal
So much to learn from it, and yes it doesn't set a precedent There will be more interfering with goals given And folk will come back to this one, which is why Lurkas explanation on Liverpool thread is worth a read. |
|
By:
It's a tricky one but in this case I thing it was right to be disallowed because it would have been a goal for Liverpool and the more situations where we can disallow Liverpool goals is obviously a good thing.
|
|
By:
Ha ha, yeah, would have preferred it myself had
Isak stuck it in, then do doubt whatsoever |
|
By:
Similar one today with Murillo's goal. No blocking of keeper's view again either. There was no sudden movement by the offside player but I don't think Alisson had any chance whatsoever of saving it, it was hammered into the corner. You can't impact a 0% chance of saving it. I think Donnarumma had a chance but the ball had moved halfway towards the goal before Robbo started moving. But they still need to change the wording to catch what Robbo did imo.
|