Liverpool v Newcastle Match Thread
- Thread starter FoxForceFive
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Its the bias panal that decides these decisions thats the problem so sterling does what Salah does and by a miracle the referee gives us a penalty, the whole media be in melt down they'll be a 24 hours calling out Sterling for being a cheat and a diver come the Panel decision they look at with a diffenent mind set thats the fault in the decision! Will Var next season change all this? Leta hope so!!
Maybe my memory is hazy. Didn’t remind me of that one at all apart from both being soft.
I love that rivals hate it. Makes it funnier
There's no such thing as a "soft" penalty. Did the defender commit a foul or not? If yes the peno should be given. If not it shouldn't. Period.
I disagree with you Judge. There are plenty of "soft" penalties the same way there are plenty soft free kicks given. It is hard to say sometimes if the Level of contact etc warrant a foul. In the Salah case it is no doubt as the defender clearly grabs his shoulder, but I think there are plenty situations were there are different type of contact. Karius had maybe a finger on Kane's boot last season and he fell to the ground. Soft as hell. Foul? Not sure if you can deem a foul there even if it might have been contact.
Also that Everton "forward" who felt an arm on his back and jumped to the ground. Is it a foul or not? Not in a million year in my eyes, but if the ref Calls it you can't say anything but "soft".
I respect your view but I don't agree with it, because I don't accept the concept of "different types of contact". Impeding an opponent is a foul, end of story. The rules of football don't make any distinction between "soft" and "hard" varieties of impeding another player, and AFAIC players who are impeded are as entitled to make the most of it (to ensure the ref sees what's happened) as defenders are to try and get away with it.
Yes. Lovren pushed him and that's a foul. The fact that Calvert-Lewin could have chosen to stay on his feet makes sod all difference under the rules. One could argue that the rules need looking at again, and it was a majorly annoying thing to happen, but there's zero justification for the idea that it "shouldn't have been a penalty" under the rules as they stand.
Objection Your honor. I strongly object to your verdict. Calvert chased a ball, changed direction and suddenly got in contact with Lovren who also barely raised his arm and hardly touched the fellow. As I have all respect in the world over the lack of physical training across the park, this was still unbelievable reaction from all of Calvert, the referee and Fat Sam. However I note that you choose side here.
It comes up time and time again. For all of the advances in the game over the past couple of decades, at heart it still seems to beat to the simple tune of the old bloke brain. If it's either a dive or a foul. You can't appoint a panel of judges to evaluate the 'hardness' or 'easiness' of how someone falls down. 'Yeah, he was fouled, but I felt he didn't fall down with the requisite hardness to make me give it as a foul'. Rubbish. I've said it many times, but we now have a generation who are so used to gazing at slo-mo they've lost all connection to the complexity of the physical here and now. They should be filmed being tripped up, then made to watch how they fall in super slo-mo - I bet they'd start accusing themselves of diving!
Insig: I didn't see it that way but I'd agree it was no foul if Calvert-Lewin deliberately ran into Lovren. However, sorry but that stuff about "barely" or "hardly" makes not one bit of difference. Those things are fouls and, once again, the degree of contact is simply not relevant under the rules.
Full video (not on Youtube yet):
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/331900-watch-video-inside-anfield-liverpool-newcastle
- Status
Similar threads
