Liverpool FC Team Talk, Gossip, Rumours 2019/2020

The Good Ole Boys

Ken Tucky wrote: »

It wasn't used for that purpose there. Yeah diving and all the other bolloxology that goes on yes. Bring it on... But for me, as much as I like to see City drop points, that was ridiculous.
Yes I guess that's the new rules. But...if it's not intentional leave it be

It was foul and the VAR rightly rescinded the goal. End of paragraph.

That's all I got to say about that.

~Rebel~

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Hit his hand didn't it? That's handball.

ebbsy wrote: »

Balls direction was changed by hand, and that is a foul in the laws of the game.

The confusing thing is that if there was no goal, it's not a foul.

The rules still aren't as clear cut as 'hits your hand, handball'. Intent still plays a part everywhere else on the pitch if the ball hits your hand without it being intentional, it's not a foul.

But there's an added caveat that even unintentional ball-to-hands are a foul if the ball goes into the goal afterwards.

Then for the other side of the pitch, for giving pens, it's anyone's guess. Seems like it differs competition by competition - some punish any touch of the hand, others only punish intentional movements of the hand to the ball.

sideswipe

martyos121 wrote: »

It’s in our hands now. 36 wins and we’ve done it, anything less and we’ve bottled it.

The sad thing is you joke but could actually be correct- that's what winning the league against this city team might take!!!

davidm20

So if there is a handball leading to a goal it's disallowed. Fair enough, but I'd it was a defender who mad the same contact would it be a penalty?

The Good Ole Boys

davidm20 wrote: »

So if there is a handball leading to a goal it's disallowed. Fair enough, but I'd it was a defender who mad the same contact would it be a penalty?

Yes. End of post.

ardinn

Its only 36 wins. Doable!

ArmaniJeanss

davidm20 wrote: »

So if there is a handball leading to a goal it's disallowed. Fair enough, but I'd it was a defender who mad the same contact would it be a penalty?

No. Defensive handballs are still 'in the opinion of the officials' decisions.

Osmosis Jones

Did Pep seriously just use his post-game interview to complain about Adrian coming off his line to save Abraham's penalty on Wednesday night?

The Good Ole Boys

If ball hits hand and deflects out of the reach of attacker. It is penalty.

BorneTobyWilde

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Did Pep seriously just use his post-game interview to complain about Adrian coming off his line to save Abraham's penalty on Wednesday night?

YES HE DID!!


He complained about us winning against Chelsea, the man is obsessed .

Agent Coulson

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Did Pep seriously just use his post-game interview to complain about Adrian coming off his line to save Abraham's penalty on Wednesday night?

He did.

He went full Tin Foil Hat.

livinginkorea

With his carry on, they'll be so fired up by the time they come to face us then so....

martyos121

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Did Pep seriously just use his post-game interview to complain about Adrian coming off his line to save Abraham's penalty on Wednesday night?

His obsession with us would put some on here to shame. I actually love the guy as a manager and often as a person, but something about Liverpool gets him so rattled.

Agent Coulson

Can I just say Bobby Firmino is the Fcuking Man!

SlickRic

It's in our hands.

36 more wins.

Owl.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Can I just say Bobby Firmino is the Fcuking Man!

Yes you can and you would be 100% correct.

SlickRic

Just saw the Pep interview.

Treble winner, best in the world, and he's losing his mind because of us.

I can only put it down to the fact the world took a lot more notice of our CL victory than his team's Treble, and he just can't handle it.

remember, he's used to being beloved, revered, and almost unquestioned.

sabat

SlickRic wrote: »

It's in our hands.

36 more wins.

34 plus 2 draws vs City...

~Rebel~

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Did Pep seriously just use his post-game interview to complain about Adrian coming off his line to save Abraham's penalty on Wednesday night?

yes, but in fairness I can understand it... I think he was just pointing out the inconsistency of the checks. He pointed out the keeper not being on the line which wasn't checked, but also pointed out the handball that could have been a penalty for us which was also not checked.

Agent Coulson

Love Klopp

"I said to Adrián, Well done . Ali did the same. It’s a goalie thing to do at Liverpool."

Muahahaha

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Did Pep seriously just use his post-game interview to complain about Adrian coming off his line to save Abraham's penalty on Wednesday night?

Klopp seems to be living rent free in Peps head for some reason

Turtyturd

In the past you’d be worried about Liverpool getting this slight advantage and then not doing the business against a smaller team next week so hopefully with this team and manager we’ve moved past that.

gimli2112

Week 2 and we're already in the chokezone

MD1990

Ox has shown in the last 2 games some very promising moments.

Great through ball to Salah vs Chelsea & today vs Southampton. Excellent tracking of Redmond in the 1st half today showing great mobility. Very good in the 2nd half as well clearly growing in confidence.

He is doing well considering he tore every ligament in his knee & even his hamstring too. Stays fit & he really will be like a new signing.

Osmosis Jones

Two nice goals:






Some really beautiful chances created today:



Adrian's great save (...call me critical but I still think he should be coming out to claim that with a catch or punch first time, it's well inside the 6 yard box ):



Andy's been spending some time with Firmino it seems:



van Dijk is way too cool:



Ox with the perfect defensive coverage:



Salah's two really nice back heels:

dmigsy

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Two nice goals:

Cheers. Love these gif summaries.

sabat

I only just remembered to have a gander at Blue moon-some extra tasty schadenfreude to be had from there tonight.

Talisman

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

Ox with the perfect defensive coverage:

Seeing that got me thinking that he could become the more attack minded stand-in for the fullback role in place of Henderson.

Osmosis Jones

Talisman wrote: »

Seeing that got me thinking that he could become the more attack minded stand-in for the fullback role in place of Henderson.

Yeah as long as he's playing in midfield and not on the wing he can be nice cover for Trent when he gets caught up the pitch.

martyos121

Talisman wrote: »

Seeing that got me thinking that he could become the more attack minded stand-in for the fullback role in place of Henderson.

Is it just my imagination or did he actually start a game there last season? Can’t remember which one, but I have a vague feeling he didn’t shine there.

SlickRic

Ox is a vital squad member.

His directness from central positions takes a pace, strength and bravery that few have. It scared and hurt City the season before last.

Osmosis Jones

martyos121 wrote: »

Is it just my imagination or did he actually start a game there last season? Can’t remember which one, but I have a vague feeling he didn’t shine there.

He definitely played games as a wingback for Arsenal, it was his post-game interview after a game at left back that he said he wants to move into midfield and be the next Stevie G.

Talisman

martyos121 wrote: »

Is it just my imagination or did he actually start a game there last season? Can’t remember which one, but I have a vague feeling he didn’t shine there.

Henderson played as the right back in the game against Leicester.

Ken Tucky

.G. wrote: »

Its impossible to judge intention so the rule as it is now is the most sensible option.

Yep but my point is it's nonsense.
We love the game, millions love the game. Stop introducing these new rules just to try appease the twitter fools.
We all have played/play the game, sometimes the ball hits you..not fair to call handball in every situation.
One day a major trophy will hinge on this...i hope it's not us on the receiving end

mikeym

Im delighted City dropped points today.

fullstop

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I was worried he'd try to put foot on it and miss and it would roll into empty net, but something as bad happened. But still if you play it wide of goal it's not likely to end up in net with a deflection .

What were you actually on about here? If he plays it wide of the goal and the keeper puts his foot on it, smashes it off the striker and into the net is different to what happened, how?

BorneTobyWilde

If Adrian received ball wide of goal then it's most likely that when Adrian played his clearance on to Ings foot that the ball would have went wide, not into the goal. Anyway we won, doesn't matter now.

fullstop

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Adrian received ball wide of goal then it's most likely that when Adrian played his clearance on to Ings foot that the ball would have went wide, not into the goal. Anyway we won, doesn't matter now.

It wouldn't though. The reason you play a backpass wide of the goal goes back to the old days of **** pitches and the chance of the ball bobbling when the keeper swung at it and dribbling into the net (think Gary Neville's OG for England a number of years back). There's no issue playing a backpass like VVD did on target. Adrian is (presumably) right-footed so playing it wide of the goal on the near side would have made it more difficult for him as he either has to play it left footed or take a touch to get it back on his right foot.

Charlie19

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If Adrian received ball wide of goal then it's most likely that when Adrian played his clearance on to Ings foot that the ball would have went wide, not into the goal. Anyway we won, doesn't matter now.

Its early in the season and thats all that counts.

BorneTobyWilde

fullstop wrote: »

It wouldn't though. The reason you play a backpass wide of the goal goes back to the old days of **** pitches and the chance of the ball bobbling when the keeper swung at it and dribbling into the net (think Gary Neville's OG for England a number of years back). There's no issue playing a backpass like VVD did on target. Adrian is (presumably) right-footed so playing it wide of the goal on the near side would have made it more difficult for him as he either has to play it left footed or take a touch to get it back on his right foot.

I hate pass the buck football, and VVD should have just dealt with it. Might as well clear it yourself. Klopp said as much after game, '' why are defenders playing it back to Adrain who has a swollen ankle and can't kick'' makes no sense. I get your point though.

Osmosis Jones

Absolutely nothing wrong with VVD's pass, Ings isn't even in the box when Adrian receives the ball he had all the time in the world.

ush

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I hate pass the buck football, and VVD should have just dealt with it. Might as well clear it yourself. Klopp said as much after game, '' why are defenders playing it back to Adrain who has a swollen ankle and can't kick'' makes no sense. I get your point though.

If his ankle is that bad why was he picked?

RugbyLover123

Adrian was being cocky, trying to play the more difficult pass. You can’t really blame him for how his last 2 weeks have gone.

joe_99

fullstop wrote: »

It wouldn't though. The reason you play a backpass wide of the goal goes back to the old days of **** pitches and the chance of the ball bobbling when the keeper swung at it and dribbling into the net (think Gary Neville's OG for England a number of years back). There's no issue playing a backpass like VVD did on target. Adrian is (presumably) right-footed so playing it wide of the goal on the near side would have made it more difficult for him as he either has to play it left footed or take a touch to get it back on his right foot.

Vvd backpass wasn't on target. He played to Adrian whose position was centre of the goal. If Adrian missed it it would have went wide. If Adrian was standing wide of the goal I'm sure VVD would have passed it there.

Turtyturd

The surprising thing here is people taking the VVD thing seriously.

MarkY91

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I hate pass the buck football, and VVD should have just dealt with it. Might as well clear it yourself. Klopp said as much after game, '' why are defenders playing it back to Adrain who has a swollen ankle and can't kick'' makes no sense. I get your point though.

So what was he doing on the pitch if he wasn't fit to kick a ball?

fullstop

joe_99 wrote: »

Vvd backpass wasn't on target. He played to Adrian whose position was centre of the goal. If Adrian missed it it would have went wide. If Adrian was standing wide of the goal I'm sure VVD would have passed it there.

I’m not the one arguing he should have played it wide of the goal. There was no issue with the pas either way.

gimli2112

Turtyturd wrote: »

The surprising thing here is people taking the VVD thing seriously.

He's no Harry Maguire

Turtyturd

gimli2112 wrote: »

He's no Harry Maguire

There’s only one Harry Maguire. And he wouldn’t even get in ahead of Nervol.

Negative_G

Turtyturd wrote: »

There’s only one Harry Maguire. And he wouldn’t even get in ahead of Nervol.

Hilarious. That spelling always gets me.

Spelling his name backwards, so creative. Bound to generate at least 1-2 likes.