Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
2019/20 Champions League
Comments
-
It was a serious answer. How is a side with a 100% league record showing signs of fatigue?Lincsaddick said:
I'll take your answer seriously when they beat a team in form and of substance .. Newcastle, Southampton and Burnley, flimsy Arsenal and Norwich in their first game back in the Prem .. I'd call that 5 outta 5 bankersChris_from_Sidcup said:
They've won 5 out of 5 in the league!Lincsaddick said:17/9/19 .. south Europeans show up two of our top teams, including the present trophy holders .. Liverpool are showing signs of fatigue and general team wear and tear, as are Man City in the Prem .. Chelsea after Hazard look toothless and must learn to nominate a regular penalty taker
They also lost to Napoli last year but they'll be fine as they will almost certainly win all 3 home games and away at Genk.
Also the fact they were 5 'bankers' means nothing when you have City losing at Norwich, Spurs losing at home to Newcastle and United losing at home to Palace.
I hate Liverpool anyway but they certainly don't look tired.1 -
Is it just me that is bored with the competition and it's tired format? Only interested when gets to the knock out stage.3
-
You’re underestimating Salzburg. Not a bad team at all. And are Liverpool guaranteed to beat Napoli in the home leg? I don’t think so - only if napoli have already qualified will it be an easy game for Liverpool.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They've won 5 out of 5 in the league!Lincsaddick said:17/9/19 .. south Europeans show up two of our top teams, including the present trophy holders .. Liverpool are showing signs of fatigue and general team wear and tear, as are Man City in the Prem .. Chelsea after Hazard look toothless and must learn to nominate a regular penalty taker
They also lost to Napoli last year but they'll be fine as they will almost certainly win all 3 home games and away at Genk.1 -
Perhaps i am underestimating them but Liverpool away is a huge step up from walking the Austrian league and beating Genk.dizzee said:
You’re underestimating Salzburg. Not a bad team at all. And are Liverpool guaranteed to beat Napoli in the home leg? I don’t think so - only if napoli have already qualified will it be an easy game for Liverpool.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They've won 5 out of 5 in the league!Lincsaddick said:17/9/19 .. south Europeans show up two of our top teams, including the present trophy holders .. Liverpool are showing signs of fatigue and general team wear and tear, as are Man City in the Prem .. Chelsea after Hazard look toothless and must learn to nominate a regular penalty taker
They also lost to Napoli last year but they'll be fine as they will almost certainly win all 3 home games and away at Genk.
And no they're not guaranteed to beat Napoli but i'm sure they will. They haven't lost at home in the league or CL since April 2017.
I hate Liverpool and would like nothing more than to see them go out, but i'm pretty confident they will qualify. Last year they lost all 3 away group games but still went through.0 -
just seen pictures and replays of Coquelin's 'tackle' on Mount .. absolute filth and he should have been red not yellow carded and put in the stocks for a week
0 -
This pic is even worse
0 -
The worst thing is, it wasn't even a tackle... he was passing the ball, saw Mount was there and decided to follow through.
1 -
I watched Salzburg against Napoli in the Europa earlier in the year and they really are a good side. Not saying Liverpool won’t qualify, I’m just not a fan of writing off teams because they don’t play in the Premier League. It’s a result of lazy journalism brainwashing us.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Perhaps i am underestimating them but Liverpool away is a huge step up from walking the Austrian league and beating Genk.dizzee said:
You’re underestimating Salzburg. Not a bad team at all. And are Liverpool guaranteed to beat Napoli in the home leg? I don’t think so - only if napoli have already qualified will it be an easy game for Liverpool.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They've won 5 out of 5 in the league!Lincsaddick said:17/9/19 .. south Europeans show up two of our top teams, including the present trophy holders .. Liverpool are showing signs of fatigue and general team wear and tear, as are Man City in the Prem .. Chelsea after Hazard look toothless and must learn to nominate a regular penalty taker
They also lost to Napoli last year but they'll be fine as they will almost certainly win all 3 home games and away at Genk.
And no they're not guaranteed to beat Napoli but i'm sure they will. They haven't lost at home in the league or CL since April 2017.
I hate Liverpool and would like nothing more than to see them go out, but i'm pretty confident they will qualify. Last year they lost all 3 away group games but still went through.1 -
And no one working with VAR deemed it worthy of red. Shambles.paulie8290 said:This pic is even worse0 -
Liverpool fans moaning about a penalty?
FFS, seriously? The audacity of it after the one they got in the 1st 20 seconds of the CL final.
I heard to TalkSport this morning that it was explained by that Peter Walton fella, the ex PL ref on BT Sport last night, that as the referee had seen the challenge and deemed no card necessary, VAR doesnt get involved. Doesn't make sense does it? because I thought that was the exact point of VAR to correct refereeing errors. Jeez, looks a nasty that one for the kid, hopefully he isn't out for too long.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
And no one working with VAR deemed it worthy of red. Shambles.paulie8290 said:This pic is even worse0 - Sponsored links:
-
Don't get me wrong, i'm not writing Salzburg off completely as i know they're a decent side and they may well qualify. I just don't think it will be at Liverpool's expense.dizzee said:
I watched Salzburg against Napoli in the Europa earlier in the year and they really are a good side. Not saying Liverpool won’t qualify, I’m just not a fan of writing off teams because they don’t play in the Premier League. It’s a result of lazy journalism brainwashing us.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Perhaps i am underestimating them but Liverpool away is a huge step up from walking the Austrian league and beating Genk.dizzee said:
You’re underestimating Salzburg. Not a bad team at all. And are Liverpool guaranteed to beat Napoli in the home leg? I don’t think so - only if napoli have already qualified will it be an easy game for Liverpool.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
They've won 5 out of 5 in the league!Lincsaddick said:17/9/19 .. south Europeans show up two of our top teams, including the present trophy holders .. Liverpool are showing signs of fatigue and general team wear and tear, as are Man City in the Prem .. Chelsea after Hazard look toothless and must learn to nominate a regular penalty taker
They also lost to Napoli last year but they'll be fine as they will almost certainly win all 3 home games and away at Genk.
And no they're not guaranteed to beat Napoli but i'm sure they will. They haven't lost at home in the league or CL since April 2017.
I hate Liverpool and would like nothing more than to see them go out, but i'm pretty confident they will qualify. Last year they lost all 3 away group games but still went through.
And this isn't based on being some kind of premier league devotee. It's based on Liverpool being very good, hence why they've reached 2 consecutive finals.
2 -
The refs that BT add absolutely no value. I've never seen one disagree with the ref on the pitch, so you may as well just get a nodding dog in place of them.stackitsteve said:
I agree, he was half over before any contact was made and left his leg trailing deliberately.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
But 'there was contact' is now acceptable to go over and win a penalty.
Regarding VAR as explained by the ref working for BT (Peter Walton) the video referee will only be deciding if the error is clear and obvious. Which as 'there was contact' it wasn't.0 -
Winger takes the ball past Robertson, Robertson swings a lazy leg out and impedes the winger. Clear penalty.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
There are instances of strikers trying to buy penalties, Jamie Vardy is the obvious one but I don’t think that was the case here.
Could the winger have taken evasive action to ensure that he was out of the way of Robertson? Probably. Would that have allowed him to continue his run? Definitely not. He had every right to continue his run and take the contact in the way that he did.2 -
That’s because the refs are generally making the right decision 95% of the time.Croydon said:
The refs that BT add absolutely no value. I've never seen one disagree with the ref on the pitch, so you may as well just get a nodding dog in place of them.stackitsteve said:
I agree, he was half over before any contact was made and left his leg trailing deliberately.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
But 'there was contact' is now acceptable to go over and win a penalty.
Regarding VAR as explained by the ref working for BT (Peter Walton) the video referee will only be deciding if the error is clear and obvious. Which as 'there was contact' it wasn't.1 -
Absolute nonsense. If you slow it down and watch it frame by frame, it's clear there's no way Robertson's leg impedes him. His leg is planted on the ground, before the guy even starts his dive.Callumcafc said:
Winger takes the ball past Robertson, Robertson swings a lazy leg out and impedes the winger. Clear penalty.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
There are instances of strikers trying to buy penalties, Jamie Vardy is the obvious one but I don’t think that was the case here.
Could the winger have taken evasive action to ensure that he was out of the way of Robertson? Probably. Would that have allowed him to continue his run? Definitely not. He had every right to continue his run and take the contact in the way that he did.
This screenshot is taken just as he starts his dive. Robertson's leg is not even close to impeding him.
Then he starts his dive and ends up like this.
Clear as day, he jumps into Robertson and then goes over. Awful decision.3 -
What about the other 5% though? Ref’s union seems to make them incapable of making criticism even if the mistake is blatant.Callumcafc said:
That’s because the refs are generally making the right decision 95% of the time.Croydon said:
The refs that BT add absolutely no value. I've never seen one disagree with the ref on the pitch, so you may as well just get a nodding dog in place of them.stackitsteve said:
I agree, he was half over before any contact was made and left his leg trailing deliberately.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
But 'there was contact' is now acceptable to go over and win a penalty.
Regarding VAR as explained by the ref working for BT (Peter Walton) the video referee will only be deciding if the error is clear and obvious. Which as 'there was contact' it wasn't.0 -
I understood that as the referee had seen the incident AND yellow carded Coquelin, then VAR could not overrule/intervene .. presumably if the ref hadn't 'booked' Cockie, then VAR could/would/at least should have intervened .. (starting to talk as if VAR were a person and not a procedure lol)JohnBoyUK said:Liverpool fans moaning about a penalty?
FFS, seriously? The audacity of it after the one they got in the 1st 20 seconds of the CL final.
I heard to TalkSport this morning that it was explained by that Peter Walton fella, the ex PL ref on BT Sport last night, that as the referee had seen the challenge and deemed no card necessary, VAR doesnt get involved. Doesn't make sense does it? because I thought that was the exact point of VAR to correct refereeing errors. Jeez, looks a nasty that one for the kid, hopefully he isn't out for too long.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
And no one working with VAR deemed it worthy of red. Shambles.paulie8290 said:This pic is even worseJohnBoyUK said:Liverpool fans moaning about a penalty?
FFS, seriously? The audacity of it after the one they got in the 1st 20 seconds of the CL final.
I heard to TalkSport this morning that it was explained by that Peter Walton fella, the ex PL ref on BT Sport last night, that as the referee had seen the challenge and deemed no card necessary, VAR doesnt get involved. Doesn't make sense does it? because I thought that was the exact point of VAR to correct refereeing errors. Jeez, looks a nasty that one for the kid, hopefully he isn't out for too long.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
And no one working with VAR deemed it worthy of red. Shambles.paulie8290 said:This pic is even worse
2 -
Olympiakos 2 v Spurs 20
-
Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Absolute nonsense. If you slow it down and watch it frame by frame, it's clear there's no way Robertson's leg impedes him. His leg is planted on the ground, before the guy even starts his dive.Callumcafc said:
Winger takes the ball past Robertson, Robertson swings a lazy leg out and impedes the winger. Clear penalty.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
There are instances of strikers trying to buy penalties, Jamie Vardy is the obvious one but I don’t think that was the case here.
Could the winger have taken evasive action to ensure that he was out of the way of Robertson? Probably. Would that have allowed him to continue his run? Definitely not. He had every right to continue his run and take the contact in the way that he did.
This screenshot is taken just as he starts his dive. Robertson's leg is not even close to impeding him.
Then he starts his dive and ends up like this.
Clear as day, he jumps into Robertson and then goes over. Awful decision.
This guy sums up my thoughts on it better than I could...1 -
I guess this is consistent with the "retrospective punishments" that can only happen if the player was unpunished by the referee. You could decapitate an opponent, but if the referee booked you, no further punishment can then be given!Lincsaddick said:
I understood that as the referee had seen the incident AND yellow carded Coquelin, then VAR could not overrule/intervene .. presumably if the ref hadn't 'booked' Cockie, then VAR could/would/at least should have intervened .. (starting to talk as if VAR were a person and not a procedure lol)JohnBoyUK said:Liverpool fans moaning about a penalty?
FFS, seriously? The audacity of it after the one they got in the 1st 20 seconds of the CL final.
I heard to TalkSport this morning that it was explained by that Peter Walton fella, the ex PL ref on BT Sport last night, that as the referee had seen the challenge and deemed no card necessary, VAR doesnt get involved. Doesn't make sense does it? because I thought that was the exact point of VAR to correct refereeing errors. Jeez, looks a nasty that one for the kid, hopefully he isn't out for too long.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
And no one working with VAR deemed it worthy of red. Shambles.paulie8290 said:This pic is even worseJohnBoyUK said:Liverpool fans moaning about a penalty?
FFS, seriously? The audacity of it after the one they got in the 1st 20 seconds of the CL final.
I heard to TalkSport this morning that it was explained by that Peter Walton fella, the ex PL ref on BT Sport last night, that as the referee had seen the challenge and deemed no card necessary, VAR doesnt get involved. Doesn't make sense does it? because I thought that was the exact point of VAR to correct refereeing errors. Jeez, looks a nasty that one for the kid, hopefully he isn't out for too long.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
And no one working with VAR deemed it worthy of red. Shambles.paulie8290 said:This pic is even worse0 - Sponsored links:
-
Shocking week for the English sides.Lincsaddick said:Olympiakos 2 v Spurs 20 -
What games we watching next?
Juventus on the tele for me, with Atalanta on the iPad.0 -
Callumcafc said:Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Absolute nonsense. If you slow it down and watch it frame by frame, it's clear there's no way Robertson's leg impedes him. His leg is planted on the ground, before the guy even starts his dive.Callumcafc said:
Winger takes the ball past Robertson, Robertson swings a lazy leg out and impedes the winger. Clear penalty.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
There are instances of strikers trying to buy penalties, Jamie Vardy is the obvious one but I don’t think that was the case here.
Could the winger have taken evasive action to ensure that he was out of the way of Robertson? Probably. Would that have allowed him to continue his run? Definitely not. He had every right to continue his run and take the contact in the way that he did.
This screenshot is taken just as he starts his dive. Robertson's leg is not even close to impeding him.
Then he starts his dive and ends up like this.
Clear as day, he jumps into Robertson and then goes over. Awful decision.
This guy sums up my thoughts on it better than I could...
0 -
Real Madrid 2 down at PSG0
-
2-1 and its Bale againpaulie8290 said:Real Madrid 2 down at PSG
For someone Zidane wanted gone he is now needing him to score haha0 -
Nope..paulie8290 said:
2-1 and its Bale againpaulie8290 said:Real Madrid 2 down at PSG
For someone Zidane wanted gone he is now needing him to score haha0 -
Dani Olmo so dangerous for Zagreb. Not seen much of him barring highlights here and there. Very impressive performance so far.0
-
Haha was handball i guesForeverAddickted said:
Nope..paulie8290 said:
2-1 and its Bale againpaulie8290 said:Real Madrid 2 down at PSG
For someone Zidane wanted gone he is now needing him to score haha1 -
This is irrelevant as it's taken after Callejon throws himseif into him. So yes of course there was contact.Callumcafc said:Callumcafc said:Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Absolute nonsense. If you slow it down and watch it frame by frame, it's clear there's no way Robertson's leg impedes him. His leg is planted on the ground, before the guy even starts his dive.Callumcafc said:
Winger takes the ball past Robertson, Robertson swings a lazy leg out and impedes the winger. Clear penalty.Chris_from_Sidcup said:Am i missing something? That angle also shows it was a blatant dive.
He throws himself into Robertson's leg and then goes over.
There are instances of strikers trying to buy penalties, Jamie Vardy is the obvious one but I don’t think that was the case here.
Could the winger have taken evasive action to ensure that he was out of the way of Robertson? Probably. Would that have allowed him to continue his run? Definitely not. He had every right to continue his run and take the contact in the way that he did.
This screenshot is taken just as he starts his dive. Robertson's leg is not even close to impeding him.
Then he starts his dive and ends up like this.
Clear as day, he jumps into Robertson and then goes over. Awful decision.
This guy sums up my thoughts on it better than I could...
As i showed in my previous post, stop the frame as Callejon starts his dive. Robertson's leg is nowhere near him.
Or just watch this. https://twitter.com/georgeskarakii/status/11742212441133342740 -
How long before Zidane's job comes under threat?
Madrid getting an absolute thrashing at a PSG side without Mbappe, Neymar, Cavani and Draxler.
Not looking good.0
