Did you put your serious clothes on this morning or just misplace your humour undies?
Pre Match - Spurs (A) - Sat 17:30
- Thread starter Brizzle
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Did you put your serious clothes on this morning or just misplace your humour undies?
Arf. Fair question/comment. Long and busy day ahead for once on a Sunday - maybe I'm just shedding a bit of ballast to get ready for it. 
The protocols and processes are not broken. We didn't get that goal because Darren England is biased against us. Reread that as many times as it takes before it gets through your skull. PGMOL have pretended that the protocols are broken, and will change them. This will change nothing for us you complete fool. What we need to change is to make the VAR accountable for his bias, by holding him to a legal standard of negligence. How do you not understand this?
It's very simple. The current process is protected by:
[article]
In principle, a match is not invalidated because of:
So it doesn't matter what words they use, it doesn't matter if the VAR turns to the AVAR and gets the OK to confirm the decision, it doesn't matter if he says check complete goal given goal given. It's all fucking lip service. There in black and white above, they have a free pass to get decisions wrong, and there's nothing that we can do about it.
The legal process is an objective test:
[article]
What is the reasonable man test in the UK law?
In an action for negligence, the reasonable man test asks what the “reasonable person of ordinary prudence” would have done in the defendant's situation. Because this is an objective test, we do not care what was going through the defendant's mind when he committed his act or omission.
[/article]
The offside needs to be judged according to the above test. That's the only change that will be effective. And this is the only time anyone has any hope of making that change.
[article]
In principle, a match is not invalidated because of:
- wrong decision(s) involving the VAR (as the VAR is a match official)
So it doesn't matter what words they use, it doesn't matter if the VAR turns to the AVAR and gets the OK to confirm the decision, it doesn't matter if he says check complete goal given goal given. It's all fucking lip service. There in black and white above, they have a free pass to get decisions wrong, and there's nothing that we can do about it.
The legal process is an objective test:
[article]
What is the reasonable man test in the UK law?
In an action for negligence, the reasonable man test asks what the “reasonable person of ordinary prudence” would have done in the defendant's situation. Because this is an objective test, we do not care what was going through the defendant's mind when he committed his act or omission.
[/article]
The offside needs to be judged according to the above test. That's the only change that will be effective. And this is the only time anyone has any hope of making that change.
And finding Darren England accountable for negligence would mean that the loss, pain and damage amounted to nothing more that the scoring of a goal - and what bearing that would have thereafter to the game or Liverpool’s season would be purely speculative and of no consequence.
Whats’s the going rate for compensation for not scoring a goal? Is it zero?
No it is not zero. How you calculate the rate is for the court to determine. You could take the league tables over the last 30 years, tally up everyone's goals, correlate that to league position, and find out how much each goal contributes to the probability of improving your position, turn that into money, and that's your damages. Or you can wait until the end of the season, then point to the effect the goal had, turn it into money, or you can do it any other way you choose. Or you can just take nominal damages of £1, and tell PGMOL to sack referees after 3 negligent mistakes. It doesn't matter what the remedy is. The club don't care, they have plenty of money. What matters is our results. What matters is to have a threat hanging over the referee to keep them honest, to force them to act competently, and to ensure that beads of sweat roll down their heads whenever a decision goes to VAR.
What you fail to understand is that every other egregious mistake VAR make in the future will be protected by the "match not invalidated over a mistake" clause. Our situation is unique because it's not covered by that clause. Something like this will never happen again. If we let it go now, after kicking up a fuss and causing PGMOL to look like idiots, then in a few months when it's all blown over, how do you suppose PGMOL are going adjudicate offsides and red cards for us? If we back down we might as well paint some clown make up onto Klopp and hand the referee a strap on before every game.
No - absolutely not - the only damage caused by that decision was a goal chalked off for Liverpool - anything over and above that is pure speculation and cannot be accounted for.
Financial rewards are based on league position and goals are not the the determinant of league position - points are and you can only speculate as to the impact what giving the goal would have on the outcome.
Neither would a replay be fair - because the replay would not be played under the exact same conditions.
There is nothing that can change the result.
I agree that keeping tge referred Ho eat and more accountable is what the best we can achieve - but that requires more than just the threat of the sack after 3 mistakes or something similar.
I agree with Judge JUles
You also think the US elections were stolen. Darren England is incompetent, negligent, lazy, dumb but whatever else you want to say and may be he should be sacked but not for one moment do I think he is deliberately making decisions because he hates us. You're a lawyer, despite what people say, there's things you wouldn't do because it undermines the authority of the profession.
As I said prior, the PL clubs are just as much to blame, they decided to save on money rather than implement new tech. They could have forced the match officials to have Q&As and or have an independant body that audits games and referees to account. This will put pressure on match officials to get things right during the game
Well how about two moments? Three moments? Four? Five? How about the fact he's lied to us to cover up his decision in this case? Not quite there yet? Well feel free to let me know when you've change your thinking.
[article]
Firstly for an elite official, he sure seems to make a lot of honest mistakes.
Firstly away to United.
Rashford is clearly in an offside position.
Even when they drew the lines Rashford's foot was clearly ahead of Gomez's shoulder. England as VAR gave the goal though and then Mike Dean came out and backed him up stating that because he was only a little bit offside the advantage went to the attacker.
Even with England getting to choose which frame they used for the offside they still couldn't produce an image showing Rashford onside. No matter goal allowed. Dean then states that Rashford's goal was allowed because of a new rule.
Then we get to Arsenal v Liverpool a game from last season.
Firstly the Arsenal opener is allowed because apparently it was in a camera blindspot.
When it was pointed out that VAR had a camera angle that clearly showed Saka coming back from an offside position.
It then became oh yeah that camera isn't calibrated for offsides.
Not content with that we then get the Gabriel handball.
Not even Ref's mate Gallagher is prepared to defend that one.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Incorrect decision.
DERMOT SAYS: All I can think is that the referee and VAR felt it was too close a proximity. What we've seen this season is if the arm is out - in this case at shoulder height - then it's been penalised. When I saw it and saw the VAR being used, I expected it to be overturned.
They felt it was too close, that's why it wasn't given. I anticipated the VAR would recommend a review. All I can think is the VAR felt it was too close so wouldn't recommend it. If he doesn't do that then the referee can't look at the screen.
He then speaks about an incident in the Newcastle v Brentford game.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision
DERMOT SAYS: I was surprised the Gabriel one wasn't given. I wasn't surprised this was. The minute I saw it, I thought: 'His arm is up that high and I expect it to be given'. I think they're very similar and I was surprised they weren't treated the same.
The directive is if the arm is at shoulder height and above then it's going to be penalised. Dan Burn, I never thought for one second it wouldn't be penalised.
The directive is clear arm at shoulder height then it is a penalty.
Then we get to England doing a long freeze frame of the Jones challenge showing the impact point and then following up with a slow motion replay that everyone knows makes tackles look worse. Jones played the ball and then caught the Spurs player with his follow through. Fair enough if you play the ball and then catch someone above the ankle then if England is on VAR you get sent off. Right?
From the same game.
The big difference is that Trent actually went off injured after being caught. For me, neither is a Red Card. However, I am sure that if England had shown an extended freeze frame of the impact, followed by a slow mo and demanded a Red Card he would have got one.
Despite his best efforts Liverpool like in the Spurs game were still level and in the game. That changed though when Arsenal got a late penalty.
Again we will go to the referee's mate Gallagher.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Incorrect decision.
DERMOT SAYS: I think it raises two issues. Firstly, it's not in line with what has changed this season. The League has raised the threshold and there's more physical contact. Without doubt, Thiago doesn't get the ball and makes contact with Jesus. But is it enough to give a penalty? I think not.
For me neither player has control of the ball and if anything Jesus has just put his foot across Thiago and gone down like a sack of shit. At the very least England should highlight to Oli that there is absolutely minimal contact.
I think players' reactions say a lot.
I think if you look at the decisions that England has made against Liverpool, where he just basically throws the rule book and the protocols out of the window and gives what he wants. Then for me it is far more than incompetence.
[/article]
Great breakdown - there’s a clear bias against us - also look at the one we didn’t get v Chelsea against Jackson - pretty sure Darren England was VAR then too - he’s incompetent and has it out for us.Well how about two moments? Three moments? Four? Five? How about the fact he's lied to us to cover up his decision in this case? Not quite there yet? Well feel free to let me know when you've change your thinking.
[article]
Firstly for an elite official, he sure seems to make a lot of honest mistakes.
Firstly away to United.
Rashford is clearly in an offside position.
Even when they drew the lines Rashford's foot was clearly ahead of Gomez's shoulder. England as VAR gave the goal though and then Mike Dean came out and backed him up stating that because he was only a little bit offside the advantage went to the attacker.
Even with England getting to choose which frame they used for the offside they still couldn't produce an image showing Rashford onside. No matter goal allowed. Dean then states that Rashford's goal was allowed because of a new rule.
Then we get to Arsenal v Liverpool a game from last season.
Firstly the Arsenal opener is allowed because apparently it was in a camera blindspot.
When it was pointed out that VAR had a camera angle that clearly showed Saka coming back from an offside position.
It then became oh yeah that camera isn't calibrated for offsides.
Not content with that we then get the Gabriel handball.
Not even Ref's mate Gallagher is prepared to defend that one.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Incorrect decision.
DERMOT SAYS: All I can think is that the referee and VAR felt it was too close a proximity. What we've seen this season is if the arm is out - in this case at shoulder height - then it's been penalised. When I saw it and saw the VAR being used, I expected it to be overturned.
They felt it was too close, that's why it wasn't given. I anticipated the VAR would recommend a review. All I can think is the VAR felt it was too close so wouldn't recommend it. If he doesn't do that then the referee can't look at the screen.
He then speaks about an incident in the Newcastle v Brentford game.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision
DERMOT SAYS: I was surprised the Gabriel one wasn't given. I wasn't surprised this was. The minute I saw it, I thought: 'His arm is up that high and I expect it to be given'. I think they're very similar and I was surprised they weren't treated the same.
The directive is if the arm is at shoulder height and above then it's going to be penalised. Dan Burn, I never thought for one second it wouldn't be penalised.
The directive is clear arm at shoulder height then it is a penalty.
Then we get to England doing a long freeze frame of the Jones challenge showing the impact point and then following up with a slow motion replay that everyone knows makes tackles look worse. Jones played the ball and then caught the Spurs player with his follow through. Fair enough if you play the ball and then catch someone above the ankle then if England is on VAR you get sent off. Right?
From the same game.
The big difference is that Trent actually went off injured after being caught. For me, neither is a Red Card. However, I am sure that if England had shown an extended freeze frame of the impact, followed by a slow mo and demanded a Red Card he would have got one.
Despite his best efforts Liverpool like in the Spurs game were still level and in the game. That changed though when Arsenal got a late penalty.
Again we will go to the referee's mate Gallagher.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Incorrect decision.
DERMOT SAYS: I think it raises two issues. Firstly, it's not in line with what has changed this season. The League has raised the threshold and there's more physical contact. Without doubt, Thiago doesn't get the ball and makes contact with Jesus. But is it enough to give a penalty? I think not.
For me neither player has control of the ball and if anything Jesus has just put his foot across Thiago and gone down like a sack of shit. At the very least England should highlight to Oli that there is absolutely minimal contact.
I think players' reactions say a lot.
I think if you look at the decisions that England has made against Liverpool, where he just basically throws the rule book and the protocols out of the window and gives what he wants. Then for me it is far more than incompetence.
[/article]
I watch alot of fan TV, and VAR has been called out by fans of every big club. Some of the decisions that have gone against the Arse have been criminal. There was a perception VAR favoured us over the opposition and we're mockingly called LiVARpool. Its about perception, I now you're intelligent guy, a lawyer who is trained to be analytical... but when it comes to football, you're tribal and biased just like any other fanWell how about two moments? Three moments? Four? Five? How about the fact he's lied to us to cover up his decision in this case? Not quite there yet? Well feel free to let me know when you've change your thinking.
[article]
Firstly for an elite official, he sure seems to make a lot of honest mistakes.
Firstly away to United.
Rashford is clearly in an offside position.
Even when they drew the lines Rashford's foot was clearly ahead of Gomez's shoulder. England as VAR gave the goal though and then Mike Dean came out and backed him up stating that because he was only a little bit offside the advantage went to the attacker.
Even with England getting to choose which frame they used for the offside they still couldn't produce an image showing Rashford onside. No matter goal allowed. Dean then states that Rashford's goal was allowed because of a new rule.
Then we get to Arsenal v Liverpool a game from last season.
Firstly the Arsenal opener is allowed because apparently it was in a camera blindspot.
When it was pointed out that VAR had a camera angle that clearly showed Saka coming back from an offside position.
It then became oh yeah that camera isn't calibrated for offsides.
Not content with that we then get the Gabriel handball.
Not even Ref's mate Gallagher is prepared to defend that one.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Incorrect decision.
DERMOT SAYS: All I can think is that the referee and VAR felt it was too close a proximity. What we've seen this season is if the arm is out - in this case at shoulder height - then it's been penalised. When I saw it and saw the VAR being used, I expected it to be overturned.
They felt it was too close, that's why it wasn't given. I anticipated the VAR would recommend a review. All I can think is the VAR felt it was too close so wouldn't recommend it. If he doesn't do that then the referee can't look at the screen.
He then speaks about an incident in the Newcastle v Brentford game.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Correct decision
DERMOT SAYS: I was surprised the Gabriel one wasn't given. I wasn't surprised this was. The minute I saw it, I thought: 'His arm is up that high and I expect it to be given'. I think they're very similar and I was surprised they weren't treated the same.
The directive is if the arm is at shoulder height and above then it's going to be penalised. Dan Burn, I never thought for one second it wouldn't be penalised.
The directive is clear arm at shoulder height then it is a penalty.
Then we get to England doing a long freeze frame of the Jones challenge showing the impact point and then following up with a slow motion replay that everyone knows makes tackles look worse. Jones played the ball and then caught the Spurs player with his follow through. Fair enough if you play the ball and then catch someone above the ankle then if England is on VAR you get sent off. Right?
From the same game.
The big difference is that Trent actually went off injured after being caught. For me, neither is a Red Card. However, I am sure that if England had shown an extended freeze frame of the impact, followed by a slow mo and demanded a Red Card he would have got one.
Despite his best efforts Liverpool like in the Spurs game were still level and in the game. That changed though when Arsenal got a late penalty.
Again we will go to the referee's mate Gallagher.
DERMOT'S VERDICT: Incorrect decision.
DERMOT SAYS: I think it raises two issues. Firstly, it's not in line with what has changed this season. The League has raised the threshold and there's more physical contact. Without doubt, Thiago doesn't get the ball and makes contact with Jesus. But is it enough to give a penalty? I think not.
For me neither player has control of the ball and if anything Jesus has just put his foot across Thiago and gone down like a sack of shit. At the very least England should highlight to Oli that there is absolutely minimal contact.
I think players' reactions say a lot.
I think if you look at the decisions that England has made against Liverpool, where he just basically throws the rule book and the protocols out of the window and gives what he wants. Then for me it is far more than incompetence.
[/article]
We need better standards of refereeing and the PL clubs have been negligent in their part and wilfully so. They didn't install SAOT (semi-automated offside tech) due to cost. They didn't ask the FA to create am independent body to audit gaming decisions. They could have told the PGMOL to have live Q&As with the press.
What I am saying/suggesting isn't new or unheard of, its that PL, FA and PGMOL have decided for the reasons of costs and protecting referees that they won't do it.
Are you just following that meme someone posted the other day about nor arguing with fools? In which case should JJ & myself be taking offence at the intimation in this?
I agree with tombrown
haha i was hoping you’d reply with this
The idaa that people can judge a post on its own merits and not in conjunction with who posted it is crazy. Let’s just throw out all basic human behaviour eh?
I trust that we are now in agreement.
Ange on being asked his thoughts after Klopp said there should be a reply and many pundits agree. ‘Ya you can have a reply on FIFA mate’
Rubbish. Nobody would ever agree with you if it were.
You’re right, how foolish of me.
for me, the fact England has been banned from refereeing OUR games. not anyone's games, but OUR games for a season is a major tell that bias has been detected, and that this is their solution to said bias. Has this ever happened before in the VAR era (I'm not talking about being from Sunderland and not being able to do Sunderland games as a result).
Did anyone see this below.
============
Alpine driver Pierre Gasly admits the VAR farce surrounding Liverpool’s disallowed goal against Tottenham made him think of Abu Dhabi and the controversial end to the 2021 Formula 1 season. Luis Diaz’s goal was ruled out for offside in Liverpool’s 2-1 defeat at Tottenham on Saturday, despite replays showing the forward to be onside.
The audio of the conversation between the VAR which resulted in the mistake was released on Tuesday, with Reds boss Jurgen Klopp then calling for the match to be replayed.
Gasly, a PSG fan, could not resist having his own verdict on the matter and believed the situation is comparable to the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, when Lewis Hamilton was cruelly denied an eighth world title in his battle with Max Verstappen after a controversial – and ultimately wrong – ruling by then race director Michael Masi to swing the race in Verstappen’s favour. “The Liverpool [situation] was a bit of a surprise and definitely a talking point of the weekend,” Gasly said, ahead of this weekend’s Qatar Grand Prix.. “We had a conversation last night and there were comments made about Abu Dhabi 2021. “It’s sport – referees also make mistakes. It’s tough to swallow when you’re on the wrong side of it. But it’s sport, even though it shouldn’t happen sometimes, it does.”
Masi was later sacked as the race director following a review into the controversial ending to the 2021 season, when Verstappen overtook Hamilton on the final lap of the final race to win his first world title.
Did anyone see this below.
============
Alpine driver Pierre Gasly admits the VAR farce surrounding Liverpool’s disallowed goal against Tottenham made him think of Abu Dhabi and the controversial end to the 2021 Formula 1 season. Luis Diaz’s goal was ruled out for offside in Liverpool’s 2-1 defeat at Tottenham on Saturday, despite replays showing the forward to be onside.
The audio of the conversation between the VAR which resulted in the mistake was released on Tuesday, with Reds boss Jurgen Klopp then calling for the match to be replayed.
Gasly, a PSG fan, could not resist having his own verdict on the matter and believed the situation is comparable to the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, when Lewis Hamilton was cruelly denied an eighth world title in his battle with Max Verstappen after a controversial – and ultimately wrong – ruling by then race director Michael Masi to swing the race in Verstappen’s favour. “The Liverpool [situation] was a bit of a surprise and definitely a talking point of the weekend,” Gasly said, ahead of this weekend’s Qatar Grand Prix.. “We had a conversation last night and there were comments made about Abu Dhabi 2021. “It’s sport – referees also make mistakes. It’s tough to swallow when you’re on the wrong side of it. But it’s sport, even though it shouldn’t happen sometimes, it does.”
Masi was later sacked as the race director following a review into the controversial ending to the 2021 season, when Verstappen overtook Hamilton on the final lap of the final race to win his first world title.
The "law" since we are talking about "laws of the game" Mike Dean Style.
The "law" in F1 was to allow ALL cars that had been lapped - unlap themselves.
Then another lap before the safety car comes in once the last car has passed the safety car.
To allow for a buffer.
Masi broke 2 x "laws" which led to him being sacked
Law 1 - Only allowing cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to overtake the Safety car - not all cars.
Law 2 - Brought the Safety Car in the same lap as they'd overtaken the Safety Car, not another lap (which would have meant the race would have finished behind the safety car and Hamilton would have been World Champion).
Now Darren England could have good case for wrongful dismissal if he was fired using that precedent saying "my hands were tied by IFAB laws after my initial mistake" Masi vs F1 shows that I could have been fired for deviation from the "laws" as they are written once the error had been made. I.e. "I can't do anything, I can't do anything.... fuck"
He’s bang on.
What about when officials ignore the law to protect their colleagues? What we have here in the PL is incompetence we all knew about, but after the Spurs vs LFC game, the whole world has seen how bad they are... and someone just needs to tell them, that they're shit and need to improve. Don't give a red card in one game and ignore the same tackle in the next. So much inconsistencies yet no disclosure to their failings
Isn’t not giving a red card in one game and ignoring the same tackle in the next, somewhat consistent?
- Status
Similar threads
