Villa at home 8pm Saturday

[Mark79]

Its ****ing pathetic in here with regard to negative comments on Nunez. He scored one, could have had another and played well all game!

Diaz on the other hand was ****ing abysmal all game constantly losing the ball and giving back ro the opposition. He should have been hooked at half time. The silience with regard to this is deafening and highlights the agendas of many

Just. ****ing. Bull****. Agendas

Silence?

Diaz's touch has been a bit wayward so far.

Diaz is having one of his give-the-ball-away fests so far.

Is Diaz drunk?! He’s been appalling so far.

Is Diaz pissed or what?

[Exiled_red]

Coote cleary did the "no-foul" gesture is why. Otherwise its a straight red. Playing advantage for a foul doesn't mean you don't still get booked.

VAR didnt intervene afterwards because Tierney is a cunt

It would have been a red for denying a goalscoring opportunity. But play carried on and we scored so despite the foul he wasn't successful in denying a goalscoring opportunity so it wasn't a red card. He should however have been booked for the foul, but as there was no denial of a goalscoring opportunity it was just a yellow card offence so VAR cannot intervene. IMO ref was in the wrong, VAR was correct to do nothing. If the chance hadn't fallen to Nunez VAR should have intervened for a red card.

[Kenneth]

Loved this from Curtis, hes so calm with players closing him down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LiverpoolFC/s/YxWzKXil1p

[Buzzo]

Coote cleary did the "no-foul" gesture is why. Otherwise its a straight red. Playing advantage for a foul doesn't mean you don't still get booked.

VAR didnt intervene afterwards because Tierney is a cunt

It was an interesting one technically not a red because it didn’t stop a goal scoring opportunity only for to the fact we scored… is that the rule??? Did he even get booked?

[labourRed]

It would have been a red for denying a goalscoring opportunity. But play carried on and we scored so despite the foul he wasn't successful in denying a goalscoring opportunity so it wasn't a red card. He should however have been booked for the foul, but as there was no denial of a goalscoring opportunity it was just a yellow card offence so VAR cannot intervene. IMO ref was in the wrong, VAR was correct to do nothing. If the chance hadn't fallen to Nunez VAR should have intervened for a red card.

Coote played on that's clear. It was also mentioned in commentary and they were incredulous as I was. That said nothing surprises me with Coote, he's absolutely ****ing dreadful, as he was again yesterday.

[Mark79]

It was an interesting one technically not a red because it didn’t stop a goal scoring opportunity only for to the fact we scored… is that the rule??? Did he even get booked?

Yes, he didn’t deny a goal scoring opportunity, because we scored, so can’t be a red. Still a foul in the build up though, so could have been a yellow.

What’s weird is Coote signalling ‘no foul’. So if the ball hadn’t run to Darwin and we hadn’t have scored, we still wouldn’t have gotten a free kick and the Villa defender wouldn’t have received a red for denying a goal scoring opportunity. Unless VAR would have stepped in.

[fidget]

Cootes looked absolutely clueless all game.

[Exiled_red]

It was an interesting one technically not a red because it didn’t stop a goal scoring opportunity only for to the fact we scored… is that the rule??? Did he even get booked?

Yeah the rule is it's a red for denial of a goalscoring opportunity, if you go on to score the opportunity to score hasn't been denied, so not a red, but it's still a foul so if deemed worthy of a yellow that should be the outcome. It gets complicated if we hadn't scored, because if for example Nunez had missed the chance, we had still had the advantage and hadn't been denied the opportunity so isn't a red, whether VAR could intervene there is open for debate, and if the ref had said no foul it would likely have been a goalkick or corner if the chance was missed or saved

[brightred]

He's a cute cunt...coote cunt?

This is a work in progress. come back later

cooty?

****

[rudedog]

Well he certainly denied Mo a goal scoring opportunity

[Cerbie]

Well he certainly denied Mo a goal scoring opportunity

DOGSO is judged at the moment of the offence - my take was that had Mo not been taken out he would have been in on goal and scored. Coote said no foul, so he got a potential red card call wrong. That a different player went on to score is immaterial without the advantage.

Double jelpardy doesn’t apply cos it was outside the box and he made no attempt to play the ball.

VAR should have intervened, but after we scored they were never going to do anything.

[BG1973]

That a different player went on to score is very material and the reason could never have been a red.

"An offence committed outside the penalty area that denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity will be a red card".

That's all the PL says on it and by that take a goal scoring opportunity was not denied.

[Le Chef]

Cootes looked absolutely clueless all game.

Oh so true

[brightred]

Clooteless

Yes!!

I ****in nailed it!

[Doc_Piptorious]

That a different player went on to score is very material and the reason could never have been a red.

"An offence committed outside the penalty area that denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity will be a red card".

That's all the PL says on it and by that take a goal scoring opportunity was not denied.

Yep it is a goal scoring opportunity for the team that is meant. Still should have been a yellow as soon as the natural run of play ended though.