Dermot Gallagher explains the penos for the simpletons
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Lamela was offside as well.
Sorry @Rosco , Karius barely touches him ... He jumps over him quite clearly (i.e. he's not even a gifted diver - a gifted diver would have left his feet there to ensure there was definite contact).
As for the 2nd - the angle someone posted yesterday show Van Dyke makes contact with Lamela. Even though the above doesn't really show it (it does clearly show Lamela was just looking for contact in the way he jumped), it was a penalty. I doubt the linesman saw the contact that clearly - just like he didn't see the 50/50 offside call.
I didn't watch any football in the 80s - but I do wonder if this is how football always was, and if it wasn't, if this is just how football is nowadays (I know our players do it too - the one that stands out the most still is Ngog years ago) ... I'd rather see the honesty that has been shown many times where players tell Refs not to call penalties after diving or not getting touched (a few instances in Germany in the last year) ... Oh well, it's a lawyer's game after all!
As for the 2nd - the angle someone posted yesterday show Van Dyke makes contact with Lamela. Even though the above doesn't really show it (it does clearly show Lamela was just looking for contact in the way he jumped), it was a penalty. I doubt the linesman saw the contact that clearly - just like he didn't see the 50/50 offside call.
I didn't watch any football in the 80s - but I do wonder if this is how football always was, and if it wasn't, if this is just how football is nowadays (I know our players do it too - the one that stands out the most still is Ngog years ago) ... I'd rather see the honesty that has been shown many times where players tell Refs not to call penalties after diving or not getting touched (a few instances in Germany in the last year) ... Oh well, it's a lawyer's game after all!
[article]
It was a clear dive and the referee, Jon Moss, was right to caution him. Alli has been guilty in the past of exaggerating contact. Because he’s been caught he only gets a yellow card, whereas if it had been missed by Moss, it would have been spotted retrospectively and he’d have been banned for two games. I’ve argued before that the same offence should get the same punishment and everyone who gets caught diving should be banned for two games, whether or not it is spotted on the day.
FIRST PENALTY
1. Was it offside?
This should not have been a penalty because it was offside. At Anfield, because of the atmosphere, it can be difficult to hear each other on the headsets, which is why Moss went over to talk to his assistant Eddie Smart. The assistant had said that Harry Kane was in an offside position. The question then is whether Dejan Lovren deliberately played the ball and has Kane, by being in an offside position, impacted Lovren.
The issue is not whether it touched the defender, but whether he played it deliberately. A professional footballer would not have played it into Kane’s path on purpose. From the way he was facing, if it had been deliberate, the ball would have gone up the field. You can make an argument that Lovren would not have made this type of attempt for the ball if Kane was not close to him and, therefore, the impact of his presence plays a part in the decision-making of the referee.
2. Was it a dive?
It shouldn’t have been a penalty because it was offside, but Kane didn’t dive. Loris Karius just caught him — there wasn’t much contact but there was some — and the Liverpool goalkeeper’s reaction says it all. He immediately put his head to the turf. He knew he’d made a terrible error. If there had been no contact he’d have leapt up immediately and accused Kane of cheating.
SECOND PENALTY
This a tough decision. I believe that there is a suspicion of offside in the build up to the penalty. The ball is touched by Fernando Llorente and into Érik Lamela, who is fractionally offside in my opinion. As we have seen with VAR now, offside is a matter of fact and no benefit is given to the attacking team. Therefore, the penalty should not have been allowed. Once the offside is missed, It looks as though Virgil van Dijk goes to kick the ball and then tries to pull away his leg, but there is a still a bit of contact. It is a soft penalty, but not definitely a wrong call.
I can see why Moss didn’t originally give it and I was surprised Smart flagged it as a penalty. It is rare and very brave for an assistant referee to do that when it seemed like a 50-50 call. In that situation, I would have wanted some discussion and for the assistant to tell me what he had seen. I would then make a decision. Once the assistant’s flag has gone up, Moss is bound to give it as he has got to publicly support his colleague. To be fair to Moss, I thought he refereed the game very well, but the team work at the end could have been improved and he needed better support from his assistant referee
[/article]
It was a clear dive and the referee, Jon Moss, was right to caution him. Alli has been guilty in the past of exaggerating contact. Because he’s been caught he only gets a yellow card, whereas if it had been missed by Moss, it would have been spotted retrospectively and he’d have been banned for two games. I’ve argued before that the same offence should get the same punishment and everyone who gets caught diving should be banned for two games, whether or not it is spotted on the day.
FIRST PENALTY
1. Was it offside?
This should not have been a penalty because it was offside. At Anfield, because of the atmosphere, it can be difficult to hear each other on the headsets, which is why Moss went over to talk to his assistant Eddie Smart. The assistant had said that Harry Kane was in an offside position. The question then is whether Dejan Lovren deliberately played the ball and has Kane, by being in an offside position, impacted Lovren.
The issue is not whether it touched the defender, but whether he played it deliberately. A professional footballer would not have played it into Kane’s path on purpose. From the way he was facing, if it had been deliberate, the ball would have gone up the field. You can make an argument that Lovren would not have made this type of attempt for the ball if Kane was not close to him and, therefore, the impact of his presence plays a part in the decision-making of the referee.
2. Was it a dive?
It shouldn’t have been a penalty because it was offside, but Kane didn’t dive. Loris Karius just caught him — there wasn’t much contact but there was some — and the Liverpool goalkeeper’s reaction says it all. He immediately put his head to the turf. He knew he’d made a terrible error. If there had been no contact he’d have leapt up immediately and accused Kane of cheating.
SECOND PENALTY
This a tough decision. I believe that there is a suspicion of offside in the build up to the penalty. The ball is touched by Fernando Llorente and into Érik Lamela, who is fractionally offside in my opinion. As we have seen with VAR now, offside is a matter of fact and no benefit is given to the attacking team. Therefore, the penalty should not have been allowed. Once the offside is missed, It looks as though Virgil van Dijk goes to kick the ball and then tries to pull away his leg, but there is a still a bit of contact. It is a soft penalty, but not definitely a wrong call.
I can see why Moss didn’t originally give it and I was surprised Smart flagged it as a penalty. It is rare and very brave for an assistant referee to do that when it seemed like a 50-50 call. In that situation, I would have wanted some discussion and for the assistant to tell me what he had seen. I would then make a decision. Once the assistant’s flag has gone up, Moss is bound to give it as he has got to publicly support his colleague. To be fair to Moss, I thought he refereed the game very well, but the team work at the end could have been improved and he needed better support from his assistant referee
[/article]
I have sobred down. Had a think about and watched the replays again.
The first one is a soft penalty. Because Lovren has touched the ball...it did take a deflection. I refused to see that part last night. Kane did dive, but there was contact, and as Karius went down so he was within his rights to make a meal out of it. Can't blame Karius much as there was not much else to do...it's too easy to say must stay on his feet, but most keepers would have done this. Lovren was at fault having a brainfade, there was no reason to play...he should be made to look at that video to increase his awareness. But it's too late to teach them dog a new trick .
The second one is not a penalty in a million years. It was offside. Secondly, Lamela had no intention to play the ball. If the situation was reversed and VVD was trying to score and Lamela defending like that, I'd be asking for a penalty and a red card for obstructing play in penalty area with no intent to play the ball and clearly denying a shot at goal. Only a idiot would say VVD is in the wrong.
The first one is a soft penalty. Because Lovren has touched the ball...it did take a deflection. I refused to see that part last night. Kane did dive, but there was contact, and as Karius went down so he was within his rights to make a meal out of it. Can't blame Karius much as there was not much else to do...it's too easy to say must stay on his feet, but most keepers would have done this. Lovren was at fault having a brainfade, there was no reason to play...he should be made to look at that video to increase his awareness. But it's too late to teach them dog a new trick .
The second one is not a penalty in a million years. It was offside. Secondly, Lamela had no intention to play the ball. If the situation was reversed and VVD was trying to score and Lamela defending like that, I'd be asking for a penalty and a red card for obstructing play in penalty area with no intent to play the ball and clearly denying a shot at goal. Only a idiot would say VVD is in the wrong.
I don't understand how a defender trying to clear the ball which is being played forward to an offside player therefore grants him the pleasure of being onside... bizarre decision. The fact that Kane actually ensured he received minimal contact to get a penalty is obviously a shameful decision as if he had stayed on his feet then he could easily have scored.
To be honest I do not understand how either of those decisions can be justified.
What was said from the first Penalty from Moss and Smart
This highlights that VAR can't help until the officials are trained to interpret it correctly. How can two former professional refs come to different conclusions AND how can the match day ref and linesman seemingly misinterpret the rules surrounding whether Lovren played the ball? The rules state if the player is in the offside position when the ball is played, it doesn't matter if Lovren got a touch after it was?
Also the intention of this thread and the title is ridiculous
Also the intention of this thread and the title is ridiculous
What was said from the first Penalty from Moss and Smart
The thick fucking cunt had no fucking idea what the linesman was telling him. What the fuck is his educational background? Fat cocksucker. Hopefully his stupidity will see him walk into a busy dual carriageway and rid us of this dumb motherfucker.
Do we know what the 4th official said, is it possible he confirmed the touch?
I think the ref said "I'm giving it" before there was a chance for the 4th official to reply?
Either way, it's done now. We might as well move on.
Geoff Shreeves has categorically denied that Atkinson was watching his monitor.
VAR isn't going to do shit if the fucking lino doesn't know the laws. If he controls the ball or intentionally passes back, then its not offside.
If he touched/deflected the ball, as in this instance. Hes offside.
You can almost imagine the conversations now.
Moss: "Did Red 6 touch the ball, yes or no Martin?"
Atkinson: "Yes he did, but...."
Moss interupts.
Moss: "Thanks Martin, Penalty"
Would make a mockery of the whole VAR rules because Moss is a fucking gibbon.
If he touched/deflected the ball, as in this instance. Hes offside.
You can almost imagine the conversations now.
Moss: "Did Red 6 touch the ball, yes or no Martin?"
Atkinson: "Yes he did, but...."
Moss interupts.
Moss: "Thanks Martin, Penalty"
Would make a mockery of the whole VAR rules because Moss is a fucking gibbon.
Moss should have been struck off the list ages ago. He's clearly not fit, he makes some absolute howlers every few games, and he is consistently poor in the high profile games.
Wasn't he the 4th official that Klopp claimed told him there should have been 10 minutes injury time in first half of WBA match, but BT needed an ad break so it was cut to 4 minutes?
Yep.
Like as fucking if BT have any influence at all over how much fucking extra-time is played.
Utter bollocks and its is simply Klopp misunderstanding what they actually said and meant.
If most of your posts after a match could be read in the exact same way, were you a Spurs supporter, then perhaps you shouldn't be haughtily lecturing on missing the most simplistic facts.
Yeah, that makes sense.
So we suddenly rely on Dermot Fucking Gallagher to tell is right from wrong now.... we certainly didnt give him that respect when he was a ref.
Errr he asked if Moss was the 4th official during the game. I concurred. Is all.
I don't agree there is a media conspiracy. There have been plenty of games which have had 10 mins injury time.
Klopp heard them say "TV" (meaning VAR) had said there was 4 minutes of extra time. Klopp - adopting the full-on media conspiracy mode that some seem to favour in these parts - took this to mean BT Media had said there was 4 minutes of extra time, because, I dunno, they needed to show some ads or something.
Which is, as I said, hilarious bollocks.
And has fuck all to do with the referee, so is irrelevant
It's not irrelevant. The fat son of a bitch probably decided to get his own back on Klopp by refereeing the match like an utter son of a cunt. That's relevant.
I think., technically, we're all sons of cunts
- Status