descartes400:


at the embloden
Should a referee use his or her discretion in penalising infractions in a match or follow the letters of the law as prescribed by the governing body?

TheGoodJoe:


That was why the penalty was not given. If you read the article, the officials did not talk of the ball hitting Bernardo Silva's arm. The ball ricocheted to Silva's arm and was not a deliberate act.

Replay shows clearly that Trent Arnold Alexander on the other hand saw the ball and chose to use his hand to stop it. Which is clearly a deliberate act for a penalty.

The officials chose to deny it which shows a clear case of their corruption.

TheGoodJoe:


There are twi pictures that are sequential, showing a line of action.

Finito.

lexy2014:


How do u draw a conclusion on a deliberate hand ball by just looking at two still pictures?

izzou:


Lets reason as neutrals

For the first one, the ball hit a City's player hand first, and then a Liverpool's player hand, all in the box. If you were a referee, what foul would you call?

For the second one, Sterling was close to a defender, and deliberately played it on his hand. I quite agree that it could pass as a penalty, but then, if it was given, we would see 5 similar cases in one match. I feel the referee used his discretion and ignored it

So may I hear your views on both?

TemmyT002:
But Liverpool isn't as rich as ManCity, why would anybody favor Liverpool over ManCity (even if anyone accepted bribe)

Anyway, VAR is trash.

okuwehcris:


Football they say is play to the whistle and not depending on the referee to give a penalty to enable them score a goal.

Manchester city has been trashing their opponents, they saw their match in football and started depending on penalties.

They should have scored and see if the referee will cancel the goal....

TheGoodJoe:


Which you know is the height of the joke. If the ref is blowing advantage, it should not be to the next player committing another handball. That means he either goes back or calls a penalty.

Either way, the officials said it was because Arnold did not commit a deliberate act which is a lie.

SmartyPants:




1. The ball hit the city player's hand but it was not a handball. the rules are clear:

"Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.

It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player.

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby."

Ball clearly ricochets of Lovren onto Silva's arm. That is not a handball by the rules.

Then in the same passage of play, the ball is played onto Arnold's outstretched arm. here is what the rules have to say about that:

"If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded."

by having his hand outstretched, he certainly made his body bigger. the ref has defended this by saying he didn't think it was intentional, but the intention is not the appropriate test. unnatural positioning is, and going by that, that was a clear penalty.

2. I didn' t see the second one but by narration, it should have been a penalty.

TheGoodJoe:


English history.

SmartyPants:




1. The ball hit the city player's hand but it was not a handball. the rules are clear:

"Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.

It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player.

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby."

Ball clearly ricochets of Lovren onto Silva's arm. That is not a handball by the rules.

Then in the same passage of play, the ball is played onto Arnold's outstretched arm. here is what the rules have to say about that:

"If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded."

by having his hand outstretched, he certainly made his body bigger. the ref has defended this by saying he didn't think it was intentional, but the intention is not the appropriate test. unnatural positioning is, and going by that, that was a clear penalty.

2. I didn' t see the second one but by narration, it should have been a penalty.

izzou:


All I know is that if the referee had given City that penalty(the one between Sterling and Trent), then we will be getting ready to have 5 penalties in every EPL match

Unless we want defenders to start amputating their hands

kilisi:


I agree with you that Trent's hand was not in a natural position. Therefore, their explanation was wrong. However, the ball hits Bernardo's arm first so it could have been a penalty. Maybe a free kick against Man City, yes.

Again, what you need to understand is that the refs and assistant refs had been told not to whistle if they are not very sure as VAR is there to do the correction later on. That's why I said Man City players should have played to the whistle in the knowledge that the incidence will be reviews by VAR and the appropriate action taken.

To now say that there is a deliberate attempt by the Premier League to allow Liverpool win the league this season is a terrible conspiracy theory as almost all the clubs has been at the receiving end of wrong VAR calls this season. From Arsenals last minute disallowed goal to Firmino's offside call and Sheffield's goal against Tottenham.

The problems you are seeing with VAR in The Premier League is normal as I see it as a teething problem that will be corrected with time. Don't forget, the Bundesliga had the same problem last season at the onset of the use of VAR.

So let's keep our emotion in check and just enjoy the game rather looking for what's not there.

TheGoodJoe:


Because you can see Arnold's hand move towards the ball and stop it's flight.

majamajic:



don't bring Man Utd into this pls , am a man utd fan , and I have been defending Liverpool here from FTC , learn to reason football without sentiment , then u will enjoy football

TheGoodJoe:


Because you can see Arnold's hand move towards the ball and stop it's flight.

izzou:


So you would have ignored the fact that it hit Silva's hand and given a penalty for Trent's

Wonderful

Alright, have an awesome day

TheGoodJoe:


You are just evading the truth. The above article clearly highlights the corrupt decision and lies made by the EPL officials.

The VAR officials knew it was a penalty and clearly denied City it. This is why I like VAR, now we know the agenda is clear.

lexy2014:


And u came to that conclusion by looking at just two still pictures?

TheGoodJoe:


You can back down. SmartyPants absolutely nailed it in a smart way.

Finito.

D4Daymoo:


That's not a clear penalty. Do you know it hit Bernardo's hand first? What you say about that?

SmartyPants:




1. The ball hit the city player's hand but it was not a handball. the rules are clear:

"Premier League players will be allowed extra leeway when it comes to ricocheted handballs.

It is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball if it has deflected off the body of an opponent, team-mate, or even another part of the own player.

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby."

Ball clearly ricochets of Lovren onto Silva's arm. That is not a handball by the rules.

Then in the same passage of play, the ball is played onto Arnold's outstretched arm. here is what the rules have to say about that:

"If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded."

by having his hand outstretched, he certainly made his body bigger. the ref has defended this by saying he didn't think it was intentional, but the intention is not the appropriate test. unnatural positioning is, and going by that, that was a clear penalty.

2. I didn' t see the second one but by narration, it should have been a penalty.

TheGoodJoe:


You are just evading the truth. The above article clearly highlights the corrupt decision and lies made by the EPL officials.

The VAR officials knew it was a penalty and clearly denied City it. This is why I like VAR, now we know the agenda is clear.

izzou:


A very smart way.

But he didn't even watch it. Maybe if he will watch it again, he would probably nail it in a smarter way

TheGoodJoe:


Sorry. No smarter way than SmartyPants way.

Okay sir

Bash92:

Seems you have been visiting City Bluemoon forum a lot.
City fans always believe there is an agenda against them from UEFA having an agenda against them to PL also having an agenda against them.

TheGoodJoe:

Bash92:

Seems you have been visiting City Bluemoon forum a lot.
City fans always believe there is an agenda against them from UEFA having an agenda against them to PL also having an agenda against them.

majamajic:



I just watch it again now on YouTube , the ball first hit a man city player's hand during build up , go watch again , am not a Liverpool fan but the 2 penalties calls , none deserve to be a penalty , am a referee myself and a football coach , the second one , was ball to hand his hand was going into his body before the ball came from a short distance to hit him , Liverpool did a perfect job , especially the 2 flying wing backs .

TheGoodJoe:


You, look at the pictures and tell me you do not see Arnold move his arm to the ball.

Finito.