• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

Post Match West Ham 1 Liverpool 2

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,963
Anfield rd Dreamer said:
Exactly, not to mention that Carroll should have actually got a red card letter of the law. We'd have gone into second half 1-0 up against 10 men. No comparison to the second penalty most refs would give.
Definitely not a red.I don't think it was an intentional foul on Andys part,doubt he would have intended to give him a belt in the head.

Anfield rd Dreamer said:
His momentum didn't take him into Flanagan and Flanagan wasn't already going down that was a Fat Sam lie! He pulled Flanagan back with both hands on Flanagans ankle because Flanagan and the ball had got past him despite the minimal touch he got.
Agree,a clear peno.The ball was played by flanno and it hit the keeper but was still there to be played across by the lad,the keeper stopped him from doing so by taking him down.
 

LeoT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
2,386
I agree with almost all you say.
My problem with the yellow card for the 1st penalty incident is that if the defender doesn't handle the ball then Suarez is 9 years from the goal 1 v1 with the keeper, he would just need to pick a corner and its a goal.

If Suarez had been tripped on that same spot then it would have been a red card because the defender was the last man with no other defender covering.

By the laws of the game I think it should have been a red. He did it to prevent Suarez a clear opportunity to score a goal.

gr_sounder said:
As a long time referee and even an evaluator in my past... I can tell you exactly what it is. Incorrect.
As a ref, one of the most infuriating things I can hear is "but I got the ball!"
Who cares... there is nothing in the Laws of the Game that says a penalty is nullified because you "got the ball".
If you get the ball, but still trip the player, it's still a foul.
If you get the ball while kicking the player, it is still a foul.
If you get the ball and but jump into a player, it's still a foul.

What "getting the ball" can (and often does) offset is "intent". If you get the ball, that USUALLY (not always) shows that you were intending to play the ball and not the other player, which CAN (again not always) offset the contact that is made because one can often ignore non-significant contact if the contact no longer affects the run of play. That said "getting the ball" does not give someone free reign to do whatever they want without a foul being called (well it shouldn't at least).

So many players and coaches don't actually know the Laws of the Game and most definitely don't know the official advice to referees that is given out yearly or that interpretations of rules change yearly.

As for not "Preventing a goal-scoring opportunity", this was probably the right call in giving a yellow and not a sending off. This rule was intended to stop players from stopping a shot or a ball bound for goal with their hands (other than the goalkeeper of course). Suarez was trying to get around the player so that he could shoot. Since the shot never occured, and probably aided by the other West Ham player coming into the vicinity and who "could" have prevented a shot (not likely but could have), the penalty kick and a yellow was probably the right call. My estimation of course, but it's possible others will see it differently.
 

Walter Sobchak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
2,175
RedSeven said:
Definitely not a red.I don't think it was an intentional foul on Andys part,doubt he would have intended to give him a belt in the head.

Agree,a clear peno.The ball was played by flanno and it hit the keeper but was still there to be played across by the lad,the keeper stopped him from doing so by taking him down.
It is definitely intentional and clearly Carroll aims for the ball with his hand. It's a card no doubt, not 100% sure the color though (any refs here?). However, it happens fast and it's hard to see for the ref.

The really weird and upsetting thing was that the linesman clearly saw a fault. How the ref overruled him is baffling. If the linesman saw a fault, while the ref not, then the ref should of course trust his man on the line. The linesman doesn't wave his flag because he might have seen something. He waves when he's sure he saw something. Extremely weak decision from Taylor. With the replay on the big screen for all to see while they discussed it, it became a totally absurd situation.

The Flanno situation was a pen. Maybe soft, but still. All refs I've seen asked for their opinion on it called it as a pen.
 

megahorse

New Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
32
Keegans Perm said:
Gerrard said in his post match interview that West Ham didnt sprinkle the pitch deliberately, thus making it dry and harder for us to play with the ball on the deck. He also went on to say that theyre changing room was absolutely boiling too, and the team bus was made to park a mile away from the changing rooms. Disgusting if you ask me.
Here's the interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n6RtKkUwNw
 

RedSeven

On the one road
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
5,963
Walter Sobchak said:
It is definitely intentional and clearly Carroll aims for the ball with his hand. It's a card no doubt, not 100% sure the color though (any refs here?). However, it happens fast and it's hard to see for the ref.

The really weird and upsetting thing was that the linesman clearly saw a fault. How the ref overruled him is baffling. If the linesman saw a fault, while the ref not, then the ref should of course trust his man on the line. The linesman doesn't wave his flag because he might have seen something. He waves when he's sure he saw something. Extremely weak decision from Taylor. With the replay on the big screen for all to see while they discussed it, it became a totally absurd situation.

The Flanno situation was a pen. Maybe soft, but still. All refs I've seen asked for their opinion on it called it as a pen.
More talking about intentionally hitting mingolet in the head,i don't think that was meant.Not even sure he was trying to get the ball with his hand either as he doesn't get anywhere near it until after the foul when his arm knocks the keepers arm causing him to drop the ball.It was a foul though and the goal should have been disallowed.
 

LeoT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
2,386
Walter Sobchak said:
It is definitely intentional and clearly Carroll aims for the ball with his hand. It's a card no doubt, not 100% sure the color though (any refs here?). However, it happens fast and it's hard to see for the ref.

The really weird and upsetting thing was that the linesman clearly saw a fault. How the ref overruled him is baffling. If the linesman saw a fault, while the ref not, then the ref should of course trust his man on the line. The linesman doesn't wave his flag because he might have seen something. He waves when he's sure he saw something. Extremely weak decision from Taylor. With the replay on the big screen for all to see while they discussed it, it became a totally absurd situation.

The Flanno situation was a pen. Maybe soft, but still. All refs I've seen asked for their opinion on it called it as a pen.
The Flanno penalty was not soft, it was a stone wall penalty.
If a player holds an opposing player's trailing leg with both hands then its a foul, this is the case anywhere on a pitch.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
geebo said:
excellent read.

Maybe you should be our "resident ref" , Or our "go to" ref to clear up questionable decisions (or at least give your opinion).
Haha, thanks, but I think we have a ton of "resident refs" on here.

However, I already usually post my opinions if there is a divisive referee decision... and try to give the textbook answer which may or may not concur with conventional wisdom. Sadly, I also occasionally have to point out why the ref was correct when making a call against a Liverpool player, but hey... that's the business.

By the way, just to point out that almost all (if not all) refs are out there honestly trying their best, and it's truly impossible to get everything right. The best referee I have ever seen (without a doubt) was Pierluigi Collina - the man was great at reading a game, letting it go when possible, reigning it in when it was getting too loose, and commanding respect by calling a consistent game.

Now, that said, this match was officiated by Anthony Taylor, who will never be confused with Collina. Taylor messed up the West Ham goal in an egregious manner. It was acceptable that he did not see the foul on Mignolet by Carroll (it was a foul), but when the assistant ref (officially they are called that and not linesmen) DID flag something and they talked, he should have given the foul and disallowed the goal. There is no excuse I can think of to overrule an assistant in this situation.

Which brings me to another thing. The Assistant Ref (linesman to you who keep that term) was Stuart Burt, and he is blameless in the West Ham goal. He DID flag a foul and when asked by Taylor he DID tell what he saw. That was his job. That Taylor ignored his comments is not Burt's fault. An AR can not call a foul, he can only indicate to the center ref when he sees something that should be called and it's up to the center ref to give the call and trust in his assistants. So ... no one should blame the assistant on that one.
 

Billy Biskix

TIA Youth Team
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
3,102
It was the definition of a hard fought win. We were far superior, especially in the second half when we completely controlled the game. This was one game I was worried about, only because very few sides this season have really put us under any kind of aerial pressure and it was a weakness last season. Even though the threat of Carroll is often exaggerated, he did at least give us something different to think about and compete against and both Skrtel and Sakho coped well.

Sakho was very impressive given his lack of match practice and it was good to see BR praise Skrtel in the post-match. He has really come on this season. Looking as dominant in the air as he was two seasons ago and now being braver in possession and tackling further up the pitch rather than retreating to the 18 yard line. Like Skrtel, Lucas gets a lot of undeserved stick and his second half performance was a reminder of just how important it is to have players in your squad who you know will come in and do a good job for you.

Gerrard was just astonishing. He is looking better than ever right now. There's nothing 'Hollywood' about his long range passing. It's always incisive. Just an amazing ball to Suarez for the first penalty.

Slightly soft penalty for the winner. Taylor was looking to even things up there after his abysmal error for their goal. But any other result would have been a travesty. This was a more satisfying result than the Spurs victory. We really ground out a win here when not quite at our best and that's what champions do.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
Walter Sobchak said:
It is definitely intentional and clearly Carroll aims for the ball with his hand. It's a card no doubt, not 100% sure the color though (any refs here?). However, it happens fast and it's hard to see for the ref.

The really weird and upsetting thing was that the linesman clearly saw a fault. How the ref overruled him is baffling. If the linesman saw a fault, while the ref not, then the ref should of course trust his man on the line. The linesman doesn't wave his flag because he might have seen something. He waves when he's sure he saw something. Extremely weak decision from Taylor. With the replay on the big screen for all to see while they discussed it, it became a totally absurd situation.

The Flanno situation was a pen. Maybe soft, but still. All refs I've seen asked for their opinion on it called it as a pen.
Ref here.
Yes, Carroll should have been given a caution in this case, not a red, though I could see someone claiming it was a punch and tossing him. Personally I think he was trying to "clear space" and did not even "intend" to hit the ball with his hand but rather with his head. For that I would have given a caution ---- but such a strongly worded caution he knew that the next significant foul he committed or the next time he flung his arms wildly he would be tossed.

Again, the BIGGEST mistake Taylor made here was to ignore the advice of his assistant. This was not the AR's (linesman's) fault.

On the Flanno situation... in my best unbiased determination... I would say that it was a penalty though not a hard one. I would bet 75-80% of refs would give that call.
 

Mascot88

Bootroom Member
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
24,404
The more I see the second penalty, the more I'm of the opinion that it probably was a penalty.

But the point for me is that Taylor can't possibly see that, and he has obviously leant heavily our way to even up the Carroll foul. That produces the 'correct' result, but it's a piss take of professional refereeing
 

NastyD

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
80
artanisknarf said:
I hear some saying that Chelsea will play like west Ham. If we win our next two games we will be ahead of Chelsea. They will have to come out and play
And suffer the fate of Spurs and Arsenal at Anfield.
Not so - don't you remember how they won the Champion's League? 11 behind the ball and counter attack.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
We have been getting a lot of calls for pen lately, and coincide with where we are on the table too. When we were at the middle of the league table, someone could hacked off our players legs and still won't get a call. I am glad things are going our way this season and hope it continues. I hate it when Ashley Young were tripped by an ant and get penalty for United, hated it when Drogba who bullied defenders all game long, but with the slightest of touch he went down as if he was shot by a sniper. At least our calls were not as blatant as those I mentioned (bar Sturridge, but can't blame him though, schooled in Chelsea before us.. Haha).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RMP

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
LeoT said:
I agree with almost all you say.
My problem with the yellow card for the 1st penalty incident is that if the defender doesn't handle the ball then Suarez is 9 years from the goal 1 v1 with the keeper, he would just need to pick a corner and its a goal.

If Suarez had been tripped on that same spot then it would have been a red card because the defender was the last man with no other defender covering.

By the laws of the game I think it should have been a red. He did it to prevent Suarez a clear opportunity to score a goal.
And I completely understand that reading of the situation, but I don't agree with it - from what I saw.
If the ball had gotten the ball around the defender Tomkins it wouldn't be an obvious chance to shoot.

In my view, Tomkins was beat, but could have easily just turned and possibly gotten a leg in front of a shot. Also, there was another West Ham player tracking back into the penalty area that could have caused Suarez to pause for a shot or possibly change what he was doing. Neither of these was blatant, but just what I saw so that in my estimation, if the ball doens't hit the hand, it's not a definite undefended shot on the keeper from inside 10 yards.

The other reason, is that I think the ball played the arm almost as much as the arm played the ball. Tomkins didn't really reach his arm out to grab the ball, but neither did he try to move his arm to avoid the contact, but rather he left the arm out there to make contact. Again, "Handling the ball" is only punished if you intentionally use your arm-to-hand to hit the ball, or if you allow the ball to hit your arm when it's not in a "natural" position. Just because the ball touches an arm or hand does NOT mean it's a penalty.

Again, this is only my perception and it could be viewed your way which would have been a sending off.
 

LeoT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
2,386
gr_sounder said:
And I completely understand that reading of the situation, but I don't agree with it - from what I saw.
If the ball had gotten the ball around the defender Tomkins it wouldn't be an obvious chance to shoot.

In my view, Tomkins was beat, but could have easily just turned and possibly gotten a leg in front of a shot. Also, there was another West Ham player tracking back into the penalty area that could have caused Suarez to pause for a shot or possibly change what he was doing. Neither of these was blatant, but just what I saw so that in my estimation, if the ball doens't hit the hand, it's not a definite undefended shot on the keeper from inside 10 yards.

The other reason, is that I think the ball played the arm almost as much as the arm played the ball. Tomkins didn't really reach his arm out to grab the ball, but neither did he try to move his arm to avoid the contact, but rather he left the arm out there to make contact. Again, "Handling the ball" is only punished if you intentionally use your arm-to-hand to hit the ball, or if you allow the ball to hit your arm when it's not in a "natural" position. Just because the ball touches an arm or hand does NOT mean it's a penalty.

Again, this is only my perception and it could be viewed your way which would have been a sending off.
I just watched it again, I don't think the other defender would have got near Suarez, Suarez was putting the ball onto his right to shoot.
The incident too place about 9 yards from goal, near to the corner of the 6 yard box, the other defender was just about in the penalty area. The Keeper was almost on his line.

So much of this is subjective and its not really fair for us to see the incident from 10 angles, in slo motion and then blame a ref who sees it once at real time.
A Ref's job must be the worst job a human could have.

Thanks for your insight
 

shlohmoh

TIA Reserve Team
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
661
The best score of the day
Westham 4 liverpool 0.Yellow cards.people yellow cards . Be proud of this team.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
LeoT said:
I just watched it again, I don't think the other defender would have got near Suarez, Suarez was putting the ball onto his right to shoot.
The incident too place about 9 yards from goal, near to the corner of the 6 yard box, the other defender was just about in the penalty area. The Keeper was almost on his line.

So much of this is subjective and its not really fair for us to see the incident from 10 angles, in slo motion and then blame a ref who sees it once at real time.
A Ref's job must be the worst job a human could have.

Thanks for your insight
And I find your set of circumstances equally valid - I really do. However, from referee courses and instructions from various organizations, they reiterate, if you're going to send someone off for such a thing, you should be completely certain of the circumstances surrounding a send-off for denying an obvious goalscoring situation. I'm just not as certain as you on this.

As you mention, sooooooo much of this is subjective and can depend on angle and distance from the play, as well as the players involved- meaning that while it's conceivable that Suarez would have gotten a shot off immediately, someone like Henderson might have taken the extra half second that would have allowed a defender to get involved.

A ref's job isn't the worst job a human could have... but it might be close. It's weird though, the best you can really hope is that you're either non-existant (you don't notice the refs when they make proper calls) or hated by both (meaning you were at least consistent).
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
lfc.eddie said:
We have been getting a lot of calls for pen lately, and coincide with where we are on the table too. When we were at the middle of the league table, someone could hacked off our players legs and still won't get a call. I am glad things are going our way this season and hope it continues. I hate it when Ashley Young were tripped by an ant and get penalty for United, hated it when Drogba who bullied defenders all game long, but with the slightest of touch he went down as if he was shot by a sniper. At least our calls were not as blatant as those I mentioned (bar Sturridge, but can't blame him though, schooled in Chelsea before us.. Haha).
Personally, I don't think this has as much to do with position in the table as it does our playing style... though I am not naive enough to think that teams at the top of the table don't get more borderline calls - they do... and will continue to do so as long as their is a human element in the refereeing.

In the past, we were not nearly so dynamic around the goal. These days, we spend a ton of time in the penalty area and we have tricky and fast players that are always flying into the penalty area so there are many many many more times that a foul can occur inside the penalty area.
 

CJ_LFC

I am boss!
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
918
gr_sounder said:
And I find your set of circumstances equally valid - I really do. However, from referee courses and instructions from various organizations, they reiterate, if you're going to send someone off for such a thing, you should be completely certain of the circumstances surrounding a send-off for denying an obvious goalscoring situation. I'm just not as certain as you on this.

As you mention, sooooooo much of this is subjective and can depend on angle and distance from the play, as well as the players involved- meaning that while it's conceivable that Suarez would have gotten a shot off immediately, someone like Henderson might have taken the extra half second that would have allowed a defender to get involved.

A ref's job isn't the worst job a human could have... but it might be close. It's weird though, the best you can really hope is that you're either non-existant (you don't notice the refs when they make proper calls) or hated by both (meaning you were at least consistent).
Referee's make mistakes, ref had a poor game yesterday but didn't do it deliberately just a bad day at the office. All this the ref is from Manchester bollocks is true but doesn't mean fuck all. Does not even support United or City, sources say he supports non league Altrincham.

The abuse referees must go through for making a bad call must be horrible. Not his fault. England has the worst referees in Europe instead of abusing officials, just get rid of them, bring in a fresh set of officials or give them better training and make sure none are biased or allowed to referee a match in which one of those teams the ref supports.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
gr_sounder said:
Personally, I don't think this has as much to do with position in the table as it does our playing style... though I am not naive enough to think that teams at the top of the table don't get more borderline calls - they do... and will continue to do so as long as their is a human element in the refereeing.

In the past, we were not nearly so dynamic around the goal. These days, we spend a ton of time in the penalty area and we have tricky and fast players that are always flying into the penalty area so there are many many many more times that a foul can occur inside the penalty area.
It is hard not to take notice when we were given 3 penalties against a team that has not concede one in that particular ground. Then we got 2 against West Ham. Quite unprecedented.... Not something you see often in any top league.
 

LiverpoolRed

Come on Redmen!!
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
478
JoebloggsLFC said:
Strange post, firstly, what "terrible" Mignolet decision exactly...???

Secondly, you use three different terms re us.... i.e "Loved the Reds fighting spirit" then "they battled & battled" both terms come across like you are talking from a neutral's perspective...but then you finish with "lets light it up" :scratch:
You are overthinking a post that really isn't that difficult to understand, Bloggsy.
 

All Day

TIA Reserve Team
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
421
I have to say, I hate watching the way West Ham play now. I watch every single Liverpool game and most of the other big games but I haven't seen much of West Ham this year but they are absolutely awful to watch. I know it is how Fat Sam likes to play but this lot seem to be some of the worst. They play like thugs in the tackle and every single time they got the ball it was simply a huge HOOF up the field. It seemed like Suarez and Sturridge were very frusterated in the box because every time they tried to turn there were 8 guys in the box. Just terrible to watch.

I have to think that part of the reason that Coutinho was taken out at half time was that he was likely going to get injured if he stayed in there. I don't think he was having a particularly bad game but he just seemed like he was getting blown up every time he got possession in the middle of the pitch. I was really worried on a couple of those hits. He was doing his damndest to get in there and play physical but that is just not how he is made to play. Sterling is like a pit bull so he can put up with the physicality but Coutinho is more like a greyhound, fast and agile but not meant for a fight. I was very glad that Rodgers acknowledged the misfit and put in the right Brazilian for the way the game was going.

I have to say that I was really skeptical when I saw Lucas come in though. We have not looked our best when Stevie and Lucas have been on the field together. It seemed almost like the early days of trying to get Suarez and Sturridge on the field at the same time. Like we didn't really know how to make them both fit even though they are two very good players. Well I think we may have found the formation that works for the both of them. Lucas fit the right side of the diamond like a glove. He was getting into great defensive positions and he even was passing the ball forward well! That pass for the second penalty was a thing of beauty. Reminded me that Lucas IS a Brazilian after all.

The best part of the win is that we won without either of SAS scoring. Correct me if I am wrong but I dong think we have lost a game yet this year when one of the two of them scored but we have not done as well in games that they did not. Well we won without them getting on the score sheet. I think that Suarez would have scored if not for the hand ball but none the less he didn't score. Sturridge really was off his game and was frustrating to watch. I think that he will have a bounce back game though if he gets to line up against Demichelis. He should be licking his chops at that prospect.

One last mention. I love Suarez's little chop turn. It is really a thing of beauty to behold and I am really surprised that you don't see more forwards try it (maybe they can't as he is far better than most forwards). The beauty of that turn is that there are so many positive things that can come out of it.

Option 1 - The defender handles the ball and give away a penalty.
Option 2 - They stick their leg out to try to kick it, catch him across the thighs and give away a penalty.
Option 3 - They get their hand out of the way and he is by them running at goal for either a shot or a cross.

If I was a defender and I was chasing him to the end touch line I would be shitting myself. What options do I have? Let him take the touch line and run on goal? Try to close him down and likely give away a penalty? Or let him cut by me and hope he makes a mistake, which isn't bloody likely. It is just a pleasure to watch and every time he does it I have to stand up because I know something incredible is about to happen.
 

gr_sounder

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
2,596
lfc.eddie said:
It is hard not to take notice when we were given 3 penalties against a team that has not concede one in that particular ground. Then we got 2 against West Ham. Quite unprecedented.... Not something you see often in any top league.
It's rare to get so many - but not unprecendented.

We currently play a very high energy dynamic attacking game where we often have players flying into the penalty area, often in situations where it's 1v1 with a defender or occasionally in alone on a keeper. When that happens with such tricky and talented attackers that we have (Sturridge, Suarez, Sterling) it puts tremendous pressure on a defender and if a foul is committed, it's MUCH easier for a ref to call a penalty when there are fewer people in the area. Sturridge getting tripped going in alone on a breakaway is a much easier call to make (in the refs eyes) than Sturridge going down on similar contact if there are 7 others (attackers and defenders)

So while we may be getting more calls because of our position in the table... I still contend we get more of them because the style we play and the circumstances that style creates.
 

OhYaBeauty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
5,591
Nobody ever quotes me. This is a refreshing change.

Redsatomz said:
I certainly don't see it as unintentional. To me, it's clear as day it was intentional. He jumped up, with his hands fully stretched. Unless you are a keeper, you don't jump with your hands fully stretched.... it must mean that he saw that he can't reach the ball, so he raised his hand.
I think the big point is that he was pushed. Skrtel did get a heavy push on him from the rear. When that happens, you naturally use your limbs to sort of stabilize your flight (just as some people swing their arms wildly when they jump from a high place). Speaking as someone who's played basketball quite a bit, that looks about an easy a foul call as there can be. But it also doesn't look intentional whatsoever. He goes up (perhaps a bit wildly) looking at the ball on it's way in, and clatters into Mignolet who obstructs his path (but is allowed to do so since he has the ball).

Redsatomz said:
I actually see that Sturridge was marked out of the game. In this game when he's the front man, and he come deep to get the ball (with his back behind the goal), there will be a West ham defender who will stick very close to him. He eventually have to just dribble the ball towards our own half before finding a player to pass to.

I think he was getting frustrated with the lack of space and it shows in his movement and decisions (shooting when there's space, instead of looking at a pass). To be fair to him, he still tries to make some passes to Suarez, but the packed defence make it very difficult.
You may be right, but I can also think of several times where Suarez was on the ball, and for whatever reason Sturridge didn't make himself available. I'm not saying that makes him a poor player, but by his own high standards, his movement certainly wasn't up to par.
 

Walter Sobchak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
2,175
brightonpete said:
YES!fucking beered up but still no complaints from me.never thought we'd lose that but digging in and getting the win with a less than 100% efforrt was great. No probs with west ham fans from me,no probs with the pitch fuc me remember those games frpm the 70's and 80's, deal with it...3 points on we go..WE ARE LIVERPOOL.
brightonpete said:
I saw a guy wearing one of the old black and yellow track tops last evening,i started yelling about being top of the league and how cool gerrard was etc,guy looked confused and as i got closer i realized it wasn't a liverpool top!doh,just me yelling at some poor random american dude...i apologized and headed for the supermarket.
Haha, I have a feeling these 2 posts are somewhat connected Pete. You sober yet? :lol:
 

SirBillShankly

We live in a fallen world.
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
10,843
I love the fact that after getting our second we didn't sit back but we pushed on seeking the third, Sterling , Sturridge and Genius(twice) all made Adrian work and we never looked like conceding an equaliser.
 

OOTer

TIA New Signing
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
925
shlohmoh said:
The best score of the day
Westham 4 liverpool 0.Yellow cards.people yellow cards . Be proud of this team.
I think we're 2nd in the fairplay league atm
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
LeoT said:
I agree with almost all you say.
My problem with the yellow card for the 1st penalty incident is that if the defender doesn't handle the ball then Suarez is 9 years from the goal 1 v1 with the keeper, he would just need to pick a corner and its a goal.

If Suarez had been tripped on that same spot then it would have been a red card because the defender was the last man with no other defender covering.

By the laws of the game I think it should have been a red. He did it to prevent Suarez a clear opportunity to score a goal.
Even if Suarez had been fouled in that position (as with the hand ball) to be given a straight red the player has to be "moving towards the goal" and in the instance Suarez had cut the ball back. Yes he would have had a clear chance but the key fact was that he wasn't moving directly towards goal.

p.s I was a referee instructor when I lived in England
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
Walter Sobchak said:
It is definitely intentional and clearly Carroll aims for the ball with his hand. It's a card no doubt, not 100% sure the color though (any refs here?). However, it happens fast and it's hard to see for the ref.

The really weird and upsetting thing was that the linesman clearly saw a fault. How the ref overruled him is baffling. If the linesman saw a fault, while the ref not, then the ref should of course trust his man on the line. The linesman doesn't wave his flag because he might have seen something. He waves when he's sure he saw something. Extremely weak decision from Taylor. With the replay on the big screen for all to see while they discussed it, it became a totally absurd situation.
The Flanno situation was a pen. Maybe soft, but still. All refs I've seen asked for their opinion on it called it as a pen.
To determine whether a card is given referees have to decide whether the incident was "careless, reckless or was it using excessive force"

Careless = freekick
Reckless = caution, yellow
Excessive force = sending off, red.

My interpretation it was either careless or reckless definitely not using excessive force.
 

sportbilly1966

TIA New Signing
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
3,779
gr_sounder said:
And I find your set of circumstances equally valid - I really do. However, from referee courses and instructions from various organizations, they reiterate, if you're going to send someone off for such a thing, you should be completely certain of the circumstances surrounding a send-off for denying an obvious goalscoring situation. I'm just not as certain as you on this.

As you mention, sooooooo much of this is subjective and can depend on angle and distance from the play, as well as the players involved- meaning that while it's conceivable that Suarez would have gotten a shot off immediately, someone like Henderson might have taken the extra half second that would have allowed a defender to get involved.

A ref's job isn't the worst job a human could have... but it might be close. It's weird though, the best you can really hope is that you're either non-existant (you don't notice the refs when they make proper calls) or hated by both (meaning you were at least consistent).
I have been out of the refereeing circle for quite a bit (was a a referee instructor) but isn't the key wording "denies an obvious goal scoring opportunity by a player moving directly towards goal" unless this has changed then this answers the question that in this case Suarez cut back and wasn't moving towards goal therefore only a caution as you say
 

Bobbinho

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
1,700
LiverpoolRed said:
You are overthinking a post that really isn't that difficult to understand, Bloggsy.
Erm.....i don't think so, your post was sketchy at best.....you took it upon yourself to blame Mignolet for "that decision..." although i am yet to hear anyone else mention anything of the sort.....the talk was & still is about the Ref & Caroll's foul....

Go figure....