Liverpool vs Burnley - Premier League (19/20 - Game 35)

[Fredo]

Liverpool vs Burnley - Premier League (19/20 - Game 35)

I haven’t seen it mentioned here but seems there’s an issue with the Anfield pitch at the moment. Apparently they’ve been watering it a lot before and at half time recently apparently due to some drainage issues in parts of the pitch. I heard Klopp complaining about it after the Aston Villa game as well.

[labourRed]

Fungus problem but isn't affecting the play apparently.

[Buzzo]

[ame]https://twitter.com/LFC/status/1282057074504019969[/ame]

[Exiled_red]

Tim Sherwood said (yes, I know) that he would have kicked the ball out of play and made a song and dance about it so that the VAR decision could be made straight away and more likely to be given. I'm not sure I entirely agree with him but he has a point. The longer the game goes on, the less likely it is to be pulled back, especially if its against the refs judgement.

I don't think the time comes into it, even if the ball had gone out straight after, it wouldn't have been given. The reason the pen isn't given is that there is a touch on the ball. As you need clear and obvious evidence to overturn the on field referee's decision in this case that would have to be the defender not having got a touch on the ball. For me it's in the grey area of where there isn't enough evidence to over turn it either way (I suspect if the ref had given it VAR wouldn't have been able to overturn it that way either) so you are stuck with the decision as called. IMO in these situations the VAR official should tell the ref that he needs to look at the monitor and explain what he has seen and let the ref make his own decision. I'd say that probably half of all penalty decisions fall into the subjective category so there needs to be some level of consistency as it really messes with the game. The clear and obvious thing needs reviewing.

[Maxiedge]

I don't think the time comes into it, even if the ball had gone out straight after, it wouldn't have been given. The reason the pen isn't given is that there is a touch on the ball. As you need clear and obvious evidence to overturn the on field referee's decision in this case that would have to be the defender not having got a touch on the ball. For me it's in the grey area of where there isn't enough evidence to over turn it either way (I suspect if the ref had given it VAR wouldn't have been able to overturn it that way either) so you are stuck with the decision as called. IMO in these situations the VAR official should tell the ref that he needs to look at the monitor and explain what he has seen and let the ref make his own decision. I'd say that probably half of all penalty decisions fall into the subjective category so there needs to be some level of consistency as it really messes with the game. The clear and obvious thing needs reviewing.

You say its subjective but I've watch post match analysis from different channels and every pundit/ex-player agrees it was a foul/pen, bar none.

So personally I think if the ball had gone off straight away, the players would have surrounded the ref, put the pressure on, VAR would be more inclined to overrule the referee. That's the failing of VAR for me.

That and sometimes how the refs/linesman let the game carry on even though there is a clear infringement thinking VAR will chalk it off but it ends up being a corner or an advantage to the opposing team. When Burnley hit the bar yesterday, a foul on the keeper should have been given for the corner previous. If they had scored, then all hell would have let loose, imo.

[Exiled_red]

You say its subjective but I've watch post match analysis from different channels and every pundit/ex-player agrees it was a foul/pen, bar none.

So personally I think if the ball had gone off straight away, the players would have surrounded the ref, put the pressure on, VAR would be more inclined to overrule the referee. That's the failing of VAR for me.

That and sometimes how the refs/linesman let the game carry on even though there is a clear infringement thinking VAR will chalk it off but it ends up being a corner or an advantage to the opposing team. When Burnley hit the bar yesterday, a foul on the keeper should have been given for the corner previous. If they had scored, then all hell would have let loose, imo.

It is subjective in that it is at the mercy of the referee, the call is made by the referee on the pitch on a single viewing. Once that decision is made it is very difficult to change the decision because it has to be 'clearly and obviously wrong'. The fact that every pundit and a large number of fans and perhaps even the VAR official thought it was a penalty means nothing, because VAR is only there to correct the horrendously wrong decisions. That could only have been overturned if VAR could have shown that the Burnley player didn't get the ball, which of course he did, under the VAR rules the correct decision was made. The VAR rules here are the problem.

If the ball had gone dead and the players surrounded the referee they could have put the on field official under pressure but that isn't going to influence the VAR official, and as I say he did his job correctly within the rules. If the decision had been wrong within the VAR rules they would have told the referee and he would have stopped play to give the penalty. The only different outcome if the ball had gone out would be a load of our players would have got booked.

I agree about the other decisions, I thought the referee was awful on alot of things yesterday.

[Maxiedge]

It is subjective in that it is at the mercy of the referee, the call is made by the referee on the pitch on a single viewing. Once that decision is made it is very difficult to change the decision because it has to be 'clearly and obviously wrong'. The fact that every pundit and a large number of fans and perhaps even the VAR official thought it was a penalty means nothing, because VAR is only there to correct the horrendously wrong decisions. That could only have been overturned if VAR could have shown that the Burnley player didn't get the ball, which of course he did, under the VAR rules the correct decision was made. The VAR rules here are the problem.

If the ball had gone dead and the players surrounded the referee they could have put the on field official under pressure but that isn't going to influence the VAR official, and as I say he did his job correctly within the rules. If the decision had been wrong within the VAR rules they would have told the referee and he would have stopped play to give the penalty. The only different outcome if the ball had gone out would be a load of our players would have got booked.

I agree about the other decisions, I thought the referee was awful on alot of things yesterday.

Yes he did touch the ball but there wasn't enough contact for the ball to get away from Robertson and so he makes sure to take out the man after. It's one of those that needed a break in play for whoever doing the VAR to really gather their thoughts and come to the right decision. That's how I feel anyway.

Strange thing about it is that it looked a clear foul in real time (or at least a clumsy challenge) and the fact the ref didn't give it, as well as the other 'protection' Burnley got, makes me think that we are not being reffed impartially and that is more concerning than any individual decision going our way.

[Exiled_red]

Yes he did touch the ball but there wasn't enough contact for the ball to get away from Robertson and so he makes sure to take out the man after. It's one of those that needed a break in play for whoever doing the VAR to really gather their thoughts and come to the right decision. That's how I feel anyway.

Strange thing about it is that it looked a clear foul in real time (or at least a clumsy challenge) and the fact the ref didn't give it, as well as the other 'protection' Burnley got, makes me think that we are not being reffed impartially and that is more concerning than any individual decision going our way.

This is where the problem lies, because VAR deals in absolutes, under the current rules of VAR no matter how much time they have to make the decision or look at the details of the situation you will get the same result. On the options available to him (VAR official) he made the correct decision, even if he thinks it is a penalty on the evidence available he can't overturn it because of the way that the rules are.

[Maxiedge]

This is where the problem lies, because VAR deals in absolutes, under the current rules of VAR no matter how much time they have to make the decision or look at the details of the situation you will get the same result. On the options available to him (VAR official) he made the correct decision, even if he thinks it is a penalty on the evidence available he can't overturn it because of the way that the rules are.

I think the middle ground we can agree on is the ref should have at least blown for the VAR to take a look. I've seen it from his angle and it's hard to make out the touch. Looks more of a foul than not, if that makes any sense.

[Exiled_red]

I think the middle ground we can agree on is the ref should have at least blown for the VAR to take a look. I've seen it from his angle and it's hard to make out the touch. Looks more of a foul than not, if that makes any sense.

IMO we need a system where the VAR official say to the on field referee I think you got that one wrong look at the TV monitor. That way the correct decision can be reached and it can be made by the on field official which should make everyone happy...