₦airaland Forum

TheGoodJoe:
What you showed here has no relation in anyway to what you are claiming.

In what you posted here, where does it say the team with the advantage is allowed to commit a foul?

If Bernardo committed a foul (which he did not), and the referee gave advantage, Trent then committed a foul (which he did) what part of the thing you posted there, says the referee should overlook Trent's foul?

It was a penalty. Very simple.

Wait, Silva did not first commit a foul after changing the direction of the ball with is arms in an unnatural position, but it's Trent own that should stand? lol
If a referee gave an advantage, it's what happens after the first foul that will determine if play should continue or stop. Advantage is decided after the the first action immediately after the foul. ref gave an advantage to after the ball hit Trent and Liverpool cleared their lines, not after Silva committed a foul. Go and read this thing, you are misconstruing this "advantage"

Liverpool won hands down, defeated most teams home and away including the team you support, I feel your pain

TheGoodJoe:
What you showed here has no relation in anyway to what you are claiming.

In what you posted here, where does it say the team with the advantage is allowed to commit a foul?

If Bernardo committed a foul (which he did not), and the referee gave advantage, Trent then committed a foul (which he did) what part of the thing you posted there, says the referee should overlook Trent's foul? th

It was a penalty. Very simple.

you can twist it as much as you like, it's there. if the ref had stopped the play after ball it Trent, what will happen to the first foul by Silva. the first foul is the main foul
(the Referee has the responsibility to NOT call an obvious foul if, by stopping play at that moment, the effect would be to cause greater harm to the team that was fouled) read again

TheGoodJoe:
The fact is that it was a penalty.

Simple.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWAqElHvuo

TheGoodJoe:
The fact is that it was a penalty.

Simple.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfWAqElHvuo

lol, hahahahahahaa!!!!
the ball touched Silva's chest or head right? go and read the football rules again.

Var is here to stay, it will improve overtime just like the goal line technology too.

TheGoodJoe:
Nothing like advantage rule clause. Keith Hatchett hit the nail on the head. It was a clear penalty. That was why the EPL officials lied about Trent's hand being in a natural position.

Even if they overlooked it, they should have chalked off the goal.

Bent officials.

I asked you earlier, if it had been chalked off, what will preceed it? a penalty to City or Free kick to Liverpool

TheGoodJoe:
Nothing like advantage rule clause. Keith Hatchett hit the nail on the head. It was a clear penalty. That was why the EPL officials lied about Trent's hand being in a natural position.

Even if they overlooked it, they should have chalked off the goal.

Bent officials.

you are showing me what this man said, what that man said...
I showed you the rule, you are supposed to counter it with rules not what this man said or that man said. like I said earlier, when it comes to issues like this everybody have their own views, even the ref and VAR officials in that game have their own views too.

TheGoodJoe:
Listen to an unbiased review. The officials were bent. No need for the stories you are tdhing to twist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTreCQCmBx0

there are thousands of reviews out there, I can give you their link.

this is what the rule states, tell me the wrong thing the ref did.

The “Advantage Rule” or “Advantage Clause” is originally unique to soccer, whereby the Referee has the responsibility to NOT call an obvious foul if, by stopping play at that moment, the effect would be to cause greater harm to the team that was fouled.  This requirement is contained within Law 5 of the Laws of the Game, “The Referee.”


Under the Powers and Duties section of Law 5, it is stated that “The referee: …allows play to continue when an infringement or offense occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage and penalizes the infringement or offense if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds.”

TheGoodJoe:
The referee should have ruled out a goal because the handball led to a goal.

Very simple.

would it be a penalty for City or Free kick for Liverpool, cos the ref already played advantage

TheGoodJoe:
The referee should have ruled out a goal because the handball led to a goal.

Very simple.

judging by this, then that will be penalty to City. cos the ref must have a reason not to award the goal and go back to the foul that led to the goal

TheGoodJoe:
Why is tbe second arm not considered when there was ample time for trent to get his arm off but he chose to his arm to stop the trajectory of the ball.

If yoh review and you judge Bernardo a foul, you blow advantage and the Liverpool plaher fouls, the advantage does not nullify the second foul. It has never happened in football.

Your point unfortunately is devoid of facts.

your views are clouded, I'm still telling you that if Trent had injured any City player after Silva's armball, it will not be considered. the ref will stop play and blow foul in favour of Liverpool. you need to know that the first situation will always be considered.
The ref played advantage after it hit Trent's arm, nobody saw the goal coming

TheGoodJoe:
Let us dash the ref the bias handball you want to claim.

He gave an advantage, then, Liverpool committed a foul with the advantage. That is Trent's handball.

Why allow the goal stand or are you saying a team is free to foul after given an advantage?

There is no video, article or even forum gist that can support what yoj are typing.

It is totally devoid of facts.

Silva committed the first foul, then Trent's arm ball followed and Liverpool cleared their lines, What would the ref had blown after this situation? a penalty or go back to Silva's foul.
he allowed play to continue after it hit Trent, Liverpool turning this to goal is entirely down to their ability.

TheGoodJoe:
You are forgetting var officials reviewed the situation and awarded no handball by trent despite accepting it touched his arm and led to the goal.

Corrupt officials anyway you bend it.

"no handball by Trent" cos the first armball is the only foul that will be considered

TheGoodJoe:
Advantage how? When the ball hit Trent's arm that led to a goal. If he blew advantage for Bernardo Silva, we can understand but how do you blow advantage for a handball for Trent's?

just like I said earlier, the first foul is the only one that will be considered, no matter how bad the second foul is.
he played advantage when the outcome of the first foul did not hurt Liverpool. he allowed play to continue, this happened in Liverpool's box. Liverpool used their speed to score after ref allowed football advantage. read my first sentence again

TheGoodJoe:
You are forgetting var officials reviewed the situation and awarded no handball by trent despite accepting it touched his arm and led to the goal.

Corrupt officials anyway you bend it.

the ref played football advantage, Liverpool countered with lightening speed. City cleared the ball though, but nobody expected the rocket for followed. lol
Liverpool changed the football advantage to a goal. there is nothing corrupt about this

BabaIbo:
Don't mind that guy, there has been some decisions VAR made that favored City and so on, but these ones are hear complaining that the match cost City the league, as if that is the only match City lost.

Exactly, City had 37 other games, but it's the one they played at Anfield that made them loose the title. why not discuss Wolves beating City home and away.
Liverpool did what they had to do, Liverpool had 97pts Las season yet still didn't win. they played with all hearts out, yet some are trying to down play their efforts this season with silly excuses

TheGoodJoe:
There was no vaf in the Swansea game. If not City would not get the advantage.

In Liverpool's case, there was far and used unfairly to favour Liverpool.

there was no VAR and Swansea was denied what would have been a glorious win in their history, this led to VAR introduction and it has been doing a nice job.
How was VAR unfairly used to favour Liverpool?
the first foul is the most important, if the first Silva's foul outcome does not favour the other team(Liverpool), the ref will interfere and stop play, but if it favours the other team(Liverpool) it allows play called football advantage.
just like if player of team was brought down at the edge of the box, but his last touch has created goal scoring chance, the ref will allow it continue

TheGoodJoe:
So why allow fabinho's goal stand?

he played advantage to Liverpool, after they cleared the ball. he could have stopped the ball immediately after Silva's armball, but waited to see the outcome, it's what they call football advantage. browse what they call football advantage.

TheGoodJoe:
No one is justifying anything. The referee missed the city case against Swansea. If there was far he would have acted. In the case for Liverpool, there was var, they saw it and chode to favor Liverpool due to bias.

Bias, I don't get you, the ball hit Silva's arm first, the referee waited to see the outcome whether it will favor Liverpool and it did after Liverpool cleared their lines. The first foul is considered, no matter how bad the second foul is...

TheGoodJoe:
Educate yourself on the debate. No one missed the ball bouncing off Bernardo's arm.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRyBGuJHzjs

You admit the ball hit Silva's arm before arnold, in situation like this the first foul will change the outcome. Even if arnold had brought someone down in the box, It will be disregarded and the armball that changed the direction of the ball will be considered

Tamel:
That is exactly what baffles me with them analyst... So let's assume the ball didn't hit Trent's arm , and instead got to aguero right and he ends up sticking it in the back of the goalpost, would the goal have stood? Knowing clearly the ball hit Silva's arm and changed the direction of the ball.

I think the referee allowed the match to go on since he didn't see anything wrong and besides city had a good chance to clear their lines before the Fabinho goal.

the first armball changed the direction of the ball, if City had scored it will be ruled out, the ball hit Arnold's arms and Liverpool cleared the ball. The referee jugded the situation and played on.

the first armball changed the direction of the ball and that is the point

paulolee:
have said it countless times...we enjoy football the more without VAR than now that its introducced because the regular stops and the search for perfection do make football boring to watch especially for the non fans...
we all know that LiVARpool and man.u were assited by var but am surprised seeing that wolves are one of the biggest losers to VAR..
am not surprised at city because i do tink that VAR maybe cursed by pep ex girlfriend because it never seems to favor city..
the biggest hit was that city vs Tottenham ucl knockout clash that pep was left heartbroken after his crazy celebration for that badly needed sterling goal, only for var to notice that aguero was a bit offside and the same var didnt see llorente handball goal....that's life...
***modified**
for liVARpool fans calling me a hater and saying VAR didnt assist them to win the league with such a wide margin..
here is my point, that wide margin is as a result of the nov fixture dt city lost to Anfield after VAR denied them a penalty in the 5th minute on a clear handball on Arnold and 5sec leta fabinho scored dt cracker..
city were broken and didnt see themselves catching up with that 8 points lead because of the that bias VAR in anfield..
Livarpool may still endup winning the league because they were more determined than city but i dont think it would be this easy with such a wide margin.. my opinion

trash, Liverpool won the league on merit...
Lovren blocked the ball which deflected of City players arms, before meeting Arnold's arm in a natural position.
did you watch the match?
Var is Justice, City would not have won the FA cup couple of seasons ago, when they robbed Swansea with a clear offside goal and an unworthy penalty.
it's now VAR is biased

yet we have Lcda, Local government and state government. no road should be this bad in lagos considering the state revenue, but all the do is embezzle funds.
I won't be surprised if that street has been tarred on paper, but not physically

yet we have Lcda, Local government and state government. no road should be this bad in lagos considering the state revenue, but all they do is embezzle funds.
I won't be surprised if that street has been tarred on paper, but not physically

KingSatan:
As a man, a father and a grandfather. I have lived life to an extent and this is my view on this subject.

The previous thread was simple and concise, "Never marry a woman who has no means of income".

But that is the truth!

Gone are the days when people marry "Obiageri's" according to the Igbos.
Back then, things weren't this bad. Considering the family setting in those days, women had no other role than to cook, birth, raise children and clean the house.

So their parents prepare them for marriage, teach them how to cook, satisfy a man and raise children. They also spend alot of time grooming their hairs, taking care of their skin (Some parents send their children to fattening rooms) and waiting to get married.

When we got married, we married to keep them at home and show off to our friends. Only a few of us married because of love. Some of our partners were not our choice but our parents.

So when you marry, your wife and children should always reflect your wealth and networth. Most especially, YOUR WIFE.

I repeat, back then things were not this bad and everyone knew their roles.

But in today's world, so many things have changed.

Women should bring to the table as much as they expect from the man.

Raising children costs alot of money and shouldn't be the responsibility of the man alone.

So many marriages have crashed on the alter of poverty or "One stream of income".

We must learn to tell ourselves the truth always.

Back then, you don't spend so much to raise a child. If he or she wants to go to the community school or follow the white man's way of life, you send them as a punishment. But those humble and loyal sons, follow you to the farm and when they come of age, you give them farmlands and wives if possible. But that's not the case anymore.

Apart from formal education abroad, I also encouraged my children to learn sellable skills. One of my son is a fashion designer and that is what puts food on his table in the UK. His college degree only reflects on his call cards.

I told this to my children (Daughters inclusive) never to marry a man or woman who has no verifiable means of income.

Money is needed to run a home in the 21st century. Alot of money!

We no longer live in mud houses or drink from pots.

As for "Entitlement", I think every couple should have that mentality depending on the context.

The man is entitled to his wife's emotional commitment. She is his wife and this also applies to the man.

I am tired of typing.

To be truthful, i warned my son's against mingling with an average African woman. They simply don't want to know the truth. They hate the truth with Passion and that is why true feminism failed woefully here.

In the Diaspora, most men who want peace of mind avoid African women because of their "Entitlement Mentality" and how exploitative they are.

Many of these women don't work but enjoy proceeds of child support from numerous partners. You think it's a coincidence? No it not. It was deliberate.

They just want to seat at home, get fat, enlarge their butts and walk up and down the street like a pussy cat that resides in Buckingham Palace.

Should I talk about Nigeria, where you meet an average Nigerian lady and realise that;

1. She is a college graduate because a "Man" sponsored her in school (Both of them are no longer together as a couple).

2. She has a roof over her head because a "Man" made that available (She has no intention of marrying him).

3. She uses the best smartphone because a "Man" bought it for her (Just another random man).

4. She has clothes on her body because a "Man" gave her money for shopping (Obviously he is "One of those mugus".

5. She has food on her table because so many men send her money.

This same woman has no other skill but sexual skills. The only thing she can offer is "Sexual Intercourse", "Birthing Children" and "Companionship" but she expects the man to "Mark her birthdays with a brand new Escalade", "Buy her parents a new house and train her younger ones in school". Is that not exploitation?

This same woman hates her mother inlaw because she sees her as her rival. Anyway, women have always hated themselves from time immemorial, don't get moved when you see them shout in solidarity, it's just for a few seconds.

When asked about their contribution in the relationship or Marriage, some will say "I birthed children for him". But that's your natural default woman!

Even if you sleep with a sexually active mad man, you will get pregnant and birth for him.

Some will even say, "I satisfy him sexually. I gave him my body and soul". But that is same thing you did with your numerous ex lovers.

According to Pastor Sam Adeyemi, he said "If a woman does not help her husband financially, then how else does she want to help him".

In this age and time, it takes two adults who have a verifiable means of income to build a healthy family.


Cheers!

You've spoken well sir. bitter truth for our ladies to swallow.

she was haunted by her past.
we should be careful of what we post online.
All those ladies twerking butttnaked on IG should take note

ok

gidgiddy:
You cant blame Lugard but you can blame Ojukwu? Which clause did Lugard use in creating Nigeria?

Blame Lugard for if he had not created Nigeria, there would be nothing to fight about. Since when he created Nigeria in 1914, the people have been fighting each other to this day

And they will keep fighting until we restructure or Go separate ways... the people can't stand themselves

this alongside the CAN leaders execution is enough to trigger nationwide protest and strike by all Christians in the country, but look at what we have, nobody cares. One day it may be you, your family, friends, neighbours...

Esseite:
We must populate to win election...... the chicken has finally come home and everyone is running.

not only that, we abide to rules here in the South while North ignores it. There are many underaged voters in the North, we the southerners can try to do that to pad up numbers.
Restructure or Divide Nigeria

Randy100:
We are blues. We paint everywhere blue. My blood is blue.

lol! how can your blood be blue? you can say the sky is blue or deep blue sea to famz your team... Blood is red and we know the real reds...
Chelsea want to be like Liverpool but can't have the patience like Liverpool. Klopps team was not built in one season.

Kulas:
Exactly! Nothing wrong with City. You can't win forever. Was there any club that win forever in football, ofcourse none. Its Liverpool time, let them win and carry the league but can never win or carry league for ever.

Epistle. Everyone knows a team can't win forever, but why remind us when Liverpool are well positioned to win. Liverpool are in top form and rightly deserve to hold the no1 spot cos of their hard work...
Many people are saying, Liverpool can't win it cos they've attempted to win it like 3times before, but won nothing, so they will loose it again
Before we won the UCL final we've lost 3finals under klopp and Klopp as never won a final prior to that match, but they all all know the story now "World champion"...

Now its "win the league this season, you won't win again for the next10 season… lol!!! enemies

Audio Governor indeed, you had to write a Thesis to denigrate one of the best Governor in the country...

Expert17:
If u TRULY watch football u wont mention Ozil and Di maria................................

dey were pushed out of Madrid, d same tin dats happening to BALE................................

Go and research more

All I know is that Ozil and Di'maria were in their prime when they moved to EPL. No need to research if they were in their peak
That league is so boring,