That’s such a dumb argument. It’s a given that a team should defend every scenario to the best of their ability. If they fail to do that it doesn’t change the fact that a refereeing error was (arguably) the reason they ended up needing to do that defending in the first place. Which is the issue here, not how well or badly they defended.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
That’s such a dumb argument. It’s a given that a team should defend every scenario to the best of their ability. If they fail to do that it doesn’t change the fact that a refereeing error was (arguably) the reason they ended up needing to do that defending in the first place. Which is the issue here, not how well or badly they defended.
Honestly that’s a massively stupid take. The fact you’re sharing the opinion of Garth Crooks to reinforce your own bias isn’t a red flag to you?
He’s essentially victim blaming. “Yeah there was a mistake and yeah Forest had Liverpool pinned back in their own half and defending the box with CHO in a great position to either cross or run down the clock, and yeah the referee stopped play and let Liverpool restart when they shouldn’t and yeah Forest had to all get back and defend deep into their own half when they were absolutely knackered after playing 99 minutes of football and yeah that’s all well and good but it’s Forest that made a mistake in these circumstances and that’s entirely on them”.
What a load of horse shit.
What an absolute load of bollox haha, that's like saying 'you should have saved it' to a keeper after an incorrectly awarded penalty.
"As for the controversy surrounding VAR and whether Luis Diaz was offside, VAR made a mistake. However, once the ball was back in play it was incumbent on Liverpool to not have another man sent off and to not score a 97th minute own goal regardless of the VAR decision. They had numerous other opportunities to score and failed."
No no, that's different.
Using Garth Crooks to back up your argument 
Crooks put Stephen Caulker in his team of the week once because he scored a goal. Despite the fact that Cardiff with Caulker in defence had shipped 5(I think) at the other end.
Crooks put Stephen Caulker in his team of the week once because he scored a goal. Despite the fact that Cardiff with Caulker in defence had shipped 5(I think) at the other end.
Using Garth Crooks to back up your argument
Crooks put Stephen Caulker in his team of the week once because he scored a goal. Despite the fact that Cardiff with Caulker in defence had shipped 5(I think) at the other end.
That could have been the week that genius Klopp played him as a target man.
Ah, the "it's their job" Keane defence.
It's ridiculously stupid - not particularly surprised you're the one bringing this bollocks onto here.
The argument is basically "shouldn't have lost if you didn't want to".
If Liverpool miss out on the title by a couple of points, we'll hear no end of shite about that Diaz disallowed goal, with no mention of Liverpool receiving a second red card afterwards, and the winning goal for Spurs being an own goal. We'll be right back to calls for replaying the game. It certainly won't have been "incumbent" on them to make sure they ended the game with more than nine men on the field.
This. I really don’t get the outcry over this. It wasn’t a huge call that the referee got wrong. It was a trivial error, and then incidentally Liverpool scored afterwards, though not even immediately afterwards. Get over it.
Which was a take I've seen numerous times on here when it happened, but now that we are on the receiving end of a referee error it doesn't seem to hold up anymore all of a sudden.
Strange, that.
It was an error that forced Forest to concede possession in the closing minutes of a game where they desperately needed to hold onto the ball. So definitely not “trivial”
Some common sense at long last!
But also not "instrumental". They literally regained possessions a few times after, and gave away possession at the edge of their own penalty area which directly led to the goal, when they could've easily just booted it away and it would've been full time. Just like you lot said "you wouldn't have known the outcome of the game either way" after the Spurs defeat and VAR feck up, it's the same thing right now. The mistake is quite inconsequential to the outcome.
It's a referee mistake like all others, and tons of them happen during a game. I haven't seen any outcry about a blatant penalty foul on Danns not given by Tierney either on here, I wonder why...
Of course it is trivial. You need to separate the two things. We’re only talking about this because Liverpool happened to score. But they didn’t score as a direct consequence of the decision, as you do with a soft penalty. They just got the ball five seconds before they probably would have anyway. Big fecking deal.
Five seconds is an arbitrary (and very small) number to chose but didn’t Liverpool score with less than 5 seconds left in the match?
I don't think you understand the actual point I'm making.
If you reduce a mistake that clearly affected a team to "shouldn't have lost though" then 99% of mistakes can be dismissed as "not actually that important."
The reality is that this mistake had more of an affect on your result against Forest than the offside call against Spurs, even if the Spurs call was objectively worse.
A wrongly disallowed goal about halfway through the first half, when your team was already down to 10 men affected the game, but you had over an hour on the clock and proceeded to get another man sent off, before turning the ball into your own net at the death.
Forest had the ball right outside your box when play was stopped, and the decision to give you the restart put them under immediate pressure, that lasted until you scored so late on that they had no real time to respond. You can call their attempts at clearing the ball them "regaining possession" as much as you want, but at no point did they have any meaningful control of the ball, and it all stemmed from Tierney, bizarrely, giving you the ball.
But then where does it end? A contested throw-in on the half-way line wrongly called then becomes a title-deciding mistake because one team scores 70 seconds later due to a defensive error? We must be able to distinguish between high-impact decisions like a soft penalty or a wrongly disallowed goal and then decisions that do not directly change the course of the match. There’s an enormous difference between giving a team a penalty they shouldn’t have had, and giving them the ball in their own penalty area. In this case, unfortunately, Forest just weren’t able to defend but they weren’t robbed of the chance to do so.
Like @Jev said above, if Tierney made the right decision we would've regained possession 5 or 10 seconds later given where they were on the pitch. Like you say yourself, they couldn't get meaningful control of the ball at all. It was a wrong decision but it was inconsequential to the goal.
They were robbed of the chance of not having to defend. They had the ball, they had good shape and they had Liverpool on the back foot. The referee reversed that position. It’s really not difficult.
With regards to your other points, there has long been discussion about this and how referees are able to have major impacts on the outcome of games via seemingly minor decisions.
For instance, giving a DM on one team a yellow in the third minute and not choosing to do the same for his opposite number a few minutes later. A seemingly minor decision yet one player has to then play the entire game being reserved in their play making decisions they otherwise wouldn’t.
Then you have a referee’s threshold for a foul, if it’s slightly high for one team than the other, over the course of the game the impact can be huge. The difference between having multiple counter attacks in dangerous positions if play can be waved on rather than having to defend multiple set pieces constantly retreating to a defensive shape.
This is my biggest gripe with referees at the moment, they’re able to micromanage teams out of the game while allowing other teams to use nefarious tactics like high volume tactical fouling with no fear of players getting yellows.
The idea that the guy in the middle that has the power to stop the match and give a beneficial scenario to one team rather than the other having no discernible impact on the game and it being entirely down to the 11 on each side is incredibly naive at best.
Firstly, this was objectively the wrong call. At least with throw-ins or goal-kicks/corners, there can be a degree of uncertainty in real time over who the ball touched last. This was just wrong.
Secondly, this is sort of the point I'm making. Bad decisions affect games whenever they are made, and to varying degrees, but you can't dismiss the obvious effects of Liverpool (incorrectly) being handed possession of the ball by going "should have defended better then" because that logic could extends to basically every bad decision that has ever and will ever be made, and you may as well just not bother discussing any aspect of officiating, or even do away with the officials altogether.
As for the insistence that you and @RobinLFC have of it only delaying Liverpool winning the ball back; you can't possibly know that. Diaz's goal being allowed to stand against Spurs could have ignited a fire under them and saw them run out 5-1 winners against Liverpool's 10 men. It could have been the start of an unlikely 4-0 routing in Liverpool's favour. Likewise, had play continued, Hudson-Odoi could have curled one into the top corner, dribbled into the box and won a penalty, or perhaps slipped on his arse and had his team caught out on the counter.
You've got a point with "how far do you extend it", but it's quite obvious that a team unjustly being given an opportunity to put their opponents under a period of sustained pressure, instead of defending their own box, and that same period of sustained pressure resulting in a goal, had a massive impact on the game. You can't just go "well, Liverpool probably would have won the ball back anyway."
Last edited:
Yes, that’s why no-one is saying that. Of course this error had an impact. What I’m arguing is that said impact is within the threshold of what we should deem acceptable and live with.
Because I don’t disagree with the rest of what you’re saying but the only thing you could do about it is to let VAR dissect the entire match. That doesn’t sound like much fun, which is also why we no longer, like initially, let VAR rewind for 60 seconds, because you could always find something, and picking and choosing between what is and isn’t consequential wouldn’t make the outcome any less random.
So on one hand, the Diaz thing does not matter because there was more than an hour left on the clock. On the other hand, the Forrest thing does matter and had a massive impact on the outcome because there were only two minutes left.
What's the cut-off timing then? Why don't we go back and allow the penalty on Danns that was not given because that decision also had a massive impact on the outcome I'd argue.
Massive mistake? Yes. Massive outcome on the game? Clearly not for me.
It's just so funny to see the outrage on here and people thinking we are being given the benefit because of "storylines", especially when you consider we were on the wrong end of a perfectly good goal being ruled out earlier in the season. It's the sort of thing you lot used to mock RAWK posters for when Utd was still winning the league back in my lurking days on here.
You're missing the point (again).
The Diaz decision is possibly the worst decision we've seen since the introduction of VAR.
Its impact on the game is obvious in that Liverpool should have been 1-0 up, but the impact on the final result is not, as there was still so long left to play and you were already down to 10 men.
Wrongly giving a team possession, as an individual incident, is obviously far less of a problem than wrongly disallowing a goal. However, this particular example had a huge impact on the final result, as it directly led to the period of sustained pressure that ended with the winning goal being scored with seconds left on the clock.
I've not even mentioned other decisions or "storylines". This is some bollocks that you've invented to try and dismiss any arguments against you. I highly doubt Tierney gave you the ball because he wanted you to win, it was just shit refereeing from which you hugely benefited. Him and VAR missing other "big" calls just proves officiating was shit. It doesn't lessen the obvious impact of other shit calls.
No I perfectly understand your point, I just disagree that it had a huge impact on the outcome of the game. It also didn't "directly lead to a period of sustained pressure", because that period of sustained pressure began ten minutes before Tierney's feck-up. Reading your post it looks like the game was hanging in the balance before that.
And for the record, I would say the same thing if it were to go against us, shit call to be on the wrong end of but the call didn't directly lead to the goal. I don't have the time to look at my posting history but I probably said the same thing after the Spurs game, suck it up and deal with it, we lost in the end.
Glad about your last paragraph, because clearly a lot of other posters do seem to think that.
With all due respect, what the feck are you on about with "began ten minutes before"?
Whatever pressure you had put on them before was ended when they went up the other end and won a corner.
You were literally back defending your own box, with one of their attackers in possession just outside of it. They were the ones putting pressure on in that moment.
Play was stopped, the ball given to you, and I don't think they touched it in your half again, or indeed at any significant distance from their own penalty area, and certainly not for any length of time I would consider "regaining posession".
The game was literally hanging in the balance. It was 0-0, and you were defending.
You make a lot of very good valid points here. So why is there not uproar in every game, as these "bad decisions" happen in every game, multiple times, wrong call on a foul, throw in, corner kick, carded and others. As others have pointed out, it wasn't a blatantly wrong penalty or direct free kick award. It wasn't a player incorrectly sent off, wrongly disallowed goal, it was a minor error like multiple other minor errors that happen in every game, shouldn't matter if in the 1st or 90th minute, if Forest hold out for a draw, there is not a word about this, just celebrations for the result, you lose a late goal and emotions overtake a lot of sense.
Why are people just ignoring the foul on konate?
Because the handing over of posession directly led to the period of pressure that Liverpool scored the winning goal in.
If Forest hold out for a draw, it's a different result and the decision had a far smaller impact on the game, so obviously no one would bat an eye.
The decision resulted in a goal. It's that simple.
What foul on Konate?
Mad reasoning and even crazier that you state it as if it's a fact that no one could or should possibly disagree with.
He literally got kicked in his face.
We tend to do that with things that don't exist.
That side angle doesn’t show anything, the Forest defender was in front of the play. Konate collier with your goalkeeper.
So this isn't a controversy at all then? Because most people can see that it was a high boot and a foul. Whether you see it isn't an issue, because if that was given as a foul, no one would've batted an eye.
He didn’t touch Konate. Show a scrap of evidence that he did. The video above shows him colliding with Kelleher
How is it mad reasoning?
Of course an incorrect decision that plays a part in a goal being scored or a player being sent off, especially if that then changes the result, is more of a talking point than something with little to no impact on the final score. No one gives a shit if the ref misses a second yellow for a player on a team that lost 5-0, but missing one for a player on a team that later scored the winner is obviously a talking point.
It literally is a fact. You didn't have the ball and were defending. The ref stopped play, gave you the ball and you scored before losing it for any meaningful period of time.
That is the sequence of events, and that is why the decision to give you the ball resulted in a goal.
I thought he collided with your keeper?
If he missed that, it just adds to shit reffing.
The fact is he didn't stop play for a foul so shouldn't have given you the ball.
We can play "well he didn't call this" all you want, but we aren’t discussing those decisions.
Not a penalty in Inter's game yesterday
Overall VAR is probably a plus but too many goals are cancelled
Overall VAR is probably a plus but too many goals are cancelled
I always felt that the reason why fans of other teams posted here was because they had a little more intelligence and wanted to escape the myopic tendencies of RAWK, blue moon, etc.
You have to be slightly more objective here. Do you honestly think that if United had benefitted from a similar situation in a derby, that you guys would be on here saying, 'fair play, we didn't defend the resultingly corner well enough. Well done, Mancs. Deserved.'
Most people on here (myself included) felt Liverpool were very hard done by against Spurs. Despite the rivalry, there were barely any United fans not supporting Liverpool's case. This decision, against Forest, has evened that out, because it was a simple mistake by Paul Tierney. Even Mike Dean admits he was totally wrong.
It's a huge stroke of luck, so be grateful for that instead of performing these embarrassing mental gymnastics on a forum where people generally have actually given you your due when you have been unfortunate.
You have to be slightly more objective here. Do you honestly think that if United had benefitted from a similar situation in a derby, that you guys would be on here saying, 'fair play, we didn't defend the resultingly corner well enough. Well done, Mancs. Deserved.'
Most people on here (myself included) felt Liverpool were very hard done by against Spurs. Despite the rivalry, there were barely any United fans not supporting Liverpool's case. This decision, against Forest, has evened that out, because it was a simple mistake by Paul Tierney. Even Mike Dean admits he was totally wrong.
It's a huge stroke of luck, so be grateful for that instead of performing these embarrassing mental gymnastics on a forum where people generally have actually given you your due when you have been unfortunate.
Last edited: