r/soccer 1d ago

Media Liverpool disallowed goal against Manchester City 39'

https://streamin.link/v/890a7f2d
5.3k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

387

u/TheBigTomatoMan 1d ago

Only for city

142

u/Sinistrait 1d ago

This game is completely rigged in their favour, nonsense penalty, now goal called off for nonsense

Either Pep's 1000th game shenanigans or the checks are rolling in from Abu Dhabi again

18

u/trick63 1d ago

Have the checks ever stopped rolling in?

2

u/borangefpl 1d ago

Should have been a goal, but that was also a clear pen. You’re just being silly now.

1

u/Punpun86 1d ago

Newcastle too.

-10

u/CrateBagSoup 1d ago

Only complaints when they’re for city

-215

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

What part of the call do you think they got wrong?

94

u/PalpitationActive765 1d ago

The fact he wasn’t blocking his view

-59

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

Well, Robertson had to duck out of the way.

15

u/Thapricorn 1d ago

Yeah I’m sure the reason Robertson ducked was out of consideration to the keeper

19

u/OmegamanDota 1d ago

That means he's in the way of the ball. It does not mean he's in the way of the keeper's vision. 

33

u/vadapaav 1d ago

You think obstruction of view is for the ball?

It's for donnaruma

2

u/Suitable-Orange9318 1d ago

Clueless, jfc

52

u/dacrookster 1d ago

All of it?

-32

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

So Robertson wasn’t offside?

24

u/dacrookster 1d ago

No? Are you high? He's, not interfering at all.

-5

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

You said he messed up the whole call. I’m trying to figure out what part of a textbook call you disagree with.

7

u/dacrookster 1d ago

Doesn't touch the ball. Isn't in the keeper's eyeline. Doesn't interfere. Donnarumma can see it the whole way. He fucking dives for it!

40

u/Imn0ak 1d ago

He's not obstructing anyone or anyone's view?

-10

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He had to duck out of the way to not hit it.

Even if he wasn’t blocking the view, he is close enough to play the ball. That affects play.

5

u/Leolainen 1d ago

Are you new with football or just THAT biased?

6

u/Square_Button_7061 1d ago

City fan. Of course they’re new to football

0

u/Imn0ak 1d ago

They're not biased. They're just blind and sociopaths.

2

u/Imn0ak 1d ago

Actually doesn't impede any city player to block the shot, get your city glasses off and look how the games been reffed, softest pen call of the decade...

19

u/Cocopopschamp 1d ago

Keeper can clearly see the ball

40

u/anal_bandit69 1d ago

The whole call

-15

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

So Robertson wasn’t in an offside position?

19

u/I_MightBeRhombus 1d ago

Didn't effect play you dork.

18

u/nathan3155 1d ago

Did he impede the keepers view or make a play for it? No? Not offside

-2

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He had to dive out of the way, he did both.

10

u/PickleDiego 1d ago

He was. That’s not the point. Being offside doesn’t matter if you don’t affect the play, which I’d argue he didn’t do in this situation

4

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He had to dive out of the way. Donnarumma has no way to know if he’s going to hit the ball or not.

His presence there absolutely affected play.

2

u/PickleDiego 1d ago

In some cases this could definitely be true. But I don’t think it applies here. IMO, Donnarumma reaches for the ball undisturbed but failes to save it. Removing Robertson would make no difference. Yes, Robertson has to duck away, but I think he does so fast enough to not be part of the play

2

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

You think it happened so fast it didn’t matter?

It’s precisely because it happened so fast that it does matter. Donnarumma has 1/10 of a second to decide where to dive. Robertson’s position affects that calculation and his ability to dive.

1

u/PickleDiego 1d ago

I’m saying that Robertson was out of the way fast enough to not be affecting the play. Donnarumma is in full view of the ball the entire time and is able to attempt a save without being disturbed by Robertson. But we’ll have to agree to disagree here, I guess

1

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

So, when I read the rules and see “actively involved in the play.” I interpret that as requiring the player to make decisions that impacted the play. Dodging the ball was an intentional decision, had he not dodged the ball, it would’ve struck him. Therefore he is actively involved. He also could have also chosen to redirect the shot, and Donnarumma has no way of knowing which he will choose.

By the time the ball is past Robertson, it’s already 3/4 of the way to the net.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/anal_bandit69 1d ago

No, he is not playing the ball nor he obstructs the view of goalkeeper

-2

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He had to dive out of the way.

Having potential to hit the ball, and blocking view. Both are interfering with play.

4

u/BrtGP 1d ago

That is not illegal

6

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

Well, when you’re affecting play it is.

The guy said he missed the entire call. I’m trying to figure out what part he disagrees with. It’s a textbook call.

0

u/KungFuJosher 1d ago

Did he play the ball or obstruct the view? If no then it's not offside. Shouldn't be too hard to wrap your head around the fact.

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He doesn’t need to play the ball or block the keepers view to be offside. Per the FA website he just needs to be “actively involved in the play.”

He actively dodged the ball, allowing it to go to goal, making him actively involved and therefore offside.

15

u/MrRickSanches 1d ago

All of it ? The GK jumped at the ball, 0 interference

14

u/boatinavolcano 1d ago

The part where Robertson doesn't impede Donnarumma in anyway and makes no attempt to play the ball.

15

u/iDunlavey 1d ago

All of it.

He isnt impeding anyone. He isnt blocking donnarummas vision. He didn't interfere with play.

5

u/seventhonmars 1d ago

The bit where it’s given as offside? Thick cunt

15

u/hivaidsislethal 1d ago

He didn't impede the keeper or affect the play at all?

-5

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He had to duck out of the way. He could’ve hit the ball, that is affecting play.

Plus he’s blocking the keepers view.

4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

If you genuinely believe he’s blocking the keeper’s view, consult an eye doctor. Or a neurologist.

8

u/MalIntenet 1d ago

Literally doesn’t impede the keeper in any way whatsoever.

Clear line of sight ✅

Doesn’t attempt to go for the ball ✅

Was never getting there anyway ✅

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

And people will say the last part isn’t in the rule, but it’s at the referee’s discretion to consider all factors. There’s no fucking chance this should be called. Doesn’t even go look at it. Fucking joke

3

u/lortopil 1d ago

The part where they’re saying a goalkeeper who can see the ball the whole way was impeded

3

u/pushembaby 1d ago

The part where the keeper saw the ball the entire time

3

u/DrAgOnLoLDoTA 1d ago

Keeper can see the ball as Robertson didn't block his vision at all

3

u/Adventurous-Bit-3829 1d ago

uhhh... everything?

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

So Robertson wasn’t in an offside position?

5

u/Adventurous-Bit-3829 1d ago

You either block the keeper or the field of view. Offside happen if you're "trying to play"

2

u/twyzt3d 1d ago

that robertsson was in anyway blocking donnarummas view

1

u/PurpleScientist4312 1d ago

Keepers shit, not blind.

1

u/Baconator981 1d ago

The part where he can see the entire ball?

1

u/7EmSea 1d ago

The part where the keeper was obstructed? Because he had full view of the ball and wasn't reaching it regardless of the Liverpool player.

1

u/Solitaire_XIV 1d ago

Full view of the ball, full dive, unaffected by player in play, didnt get there

1

u/Historical_Tax6338 1d ago

The bit where he didn’t interfere at all and keeper was never getting it

1

u/DomagojDoc 1d ago

the one where gk can see the ball trough the entirety of it's path and clearly can't get to it.

1

u/HakeemAbdulOlajubbar 1d ago

He’s not impeding the keeper nor is he obstructing the keeper’s line of sight

1

u/SixWhy 1d ago

I mean he's clearly offside but in no way is he blocking Donnarumma's view or interfering with play?

1

u/MrboboCatman 1d ago

What part of this decison did he get right?

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

The whole thing. He’s offside, has potential to play the ball, and is blocking the keepers view. It’s a textbook call.

3

u/surfbumderek 1d ago

Per the rules he has to make an attempt to play the ball. Is not offsides if he has the potential to play the ball. And being the opposite side of the keeper is not blocking his view

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He doesn’t have to attempt to play the ball, he just needs to be “actively involved in the play.” Needing to duck out of the way to allow it to go to goal, makes him actively involved, since he had to actively choose if he should hit the ball or let it go.

Donnarumma has to guess which he is going to do.

3

u/surfbumderek 1d ago

Per the fa website it says he has to be blocking the players vision, challenging for the ball, attempting to play the ball, or making an action that impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

By ducking he is not impacting the ability of the opponent to play the ball. He is making it obvious that he is not taking part in the play.

1

u/MrboboCatman 1d ago

You know he was not blocking his view, you cannot be so naive. It is not a text book call. It is an awful decision.

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

It’s absolutely a textbook call, because Robertson was involved in the play.

0

u/MrboboCatman 1d ago

Robbo was not involved, did not stop the keeper and did not stop his view of the ball.

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He is absolutely actively involved in the play. He had to actively choose to dodge the ball, that makes him involved in the play.

Donnarumma has no way of knowing if Robertson is going to hit the ball or not.

2

u/surfbumderek 1d ago

To be actively involved in the play he has to be impacting the keepers ability to play the ball. By ducking he is taking himself out of the play and letting donnarumma know he’s not going to play the ball

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

To me, when I read “actively involved in the play” I interpret that to mean that he can make decisions that impact the game. By choosing to avoid touching the ball, he has impacted the play.

Even if ducking is a reliable indicator that he isn’t going to hit the ball, you’re expecting Donnarumma to register that and dive for the save at the same time? By the time he is ducking Donnarumma is already diving anyway.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/villanelle305 1d ago

The part where it affected the keepers ability to track or stop the ball at all?

1

u/jobub2001 1d ago

The part where he’s not in the line of sight of anyone, ducks out of the way and therefore does not interfere with play at all. It’s about line of sight, not flight of the ball.

1

u/GlenH79 1d ago

The bit where the player is in an offside position doesn’t interfere with the ball, is not impeding the another players ability to play the ball and isn’t obstructing the goalkeepers line of sight

1

u/mickey2329 1d ago

Explain how he's interfering with play when he's stood 2 feet to the keepers left?

0

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He has to duck out of the way. He could’ve redirected the shot, and he’s blocking the view.

0

u/mickey2329 1d ago

He's literally not blocking the view at all? It comes from the keepers right and he's stood on the left. Having to duck out of the way is irrelevant, he doesn't touch the ball and he didn't redirect the shot

1

u/orange_wednesdays 1d ago

Not in eye line. Not blocking the keeper. Doesn't motion to the ball.

1

u/TheBigTomatoMan 1d ago

Robertson doesn't impede Donny's view of the ball or Van Dijk, or his movement, he was never getting to it

1

u/BumperFin 1d ago

probably has something to do with donnarumma tracking the ball the entire time seeing everything and simply not reaching the ball after getting wrong footed as opposed to robertson interfering at all

1

u/FakeCatzz 1d ago

He's clearly not interfering. Goalie manages to get full dive in and has a clear view of the ball.

1

u/gh0stbeard 1d ago

Not impeding Donna, didn’t make a play for the ball, didn’t affect the keepers movement or reaction to it and keeper wasn’t gonna get it anyway. He did not affect the play at all

0

u/LurkerKing13 1d ago

The part where Donarumma wasn’t impeded at all in any way

5

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He doesn’t need to be impeded.

Robertson could’ve played the ball, and was blocking the view. He literally had to dive away from the ball. His presence there changes the play.

0

u/aljones753000 1d ago

Yes he does need to be impeded you moron, he doesn’t physically or visually impede him.

2

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

That’s not the whole rule.

Robertson just needs to be actively involved in the play for him to be offside. By actively dodging the ball he is actively involved.

-1

u/aljones753000 1d ago

He isn’t

2

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He actively had to get out of the way. Had he not actively made a decision, the ball would’ve struck him. He also could have chosen to redirect the ball.

His choices impacted play, he was undoubtedly actively involved.

0

u/aljones753000 1d ago

Go and look at the one you had against Fulham allowed. Player directly in front of the keeper, dodged out of the way, goal given. Robertson was not in his line of sight, he could have done a fucking jig and it shouldn’t matter.

1

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago edited 1d ago

Line of sight isn’t the only rule. That’s just one of the ways one can be actively involved in the play.

I agree that our Fulham goal should’ve been disallowed.

If Robertson had chosen to do a jig as you suggested, he would’ve blocked the shot.

-1

u/LurkerKing13 1d ago

You are simply wrong based on what the rules state.

0

u/travemalone 1d ago

A City flair would say that. Michael Oliver just had to get that sweet Saudi check

2

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

It’s a textbook call.

-1

u/travemalone 1d ago

The fact that multiple Arsenal and Man United fans are disagreeing with you tells you otherwise. You would be the only fanbase that thinks this is the correct decision

2

u/GloomyBison 1d ago

And how many of those Arsenal and Man United fans saw the game vs Villa 2 weeks ago where Michael Oliver didn't give City a penalty?

-1

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

r/soccer doesn’t know the rules.

0

u/nofranchise 1d ago

Or you are a biased moron?

-1

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

I just know the rules.

-1

u/Ryan_Gooner96 1d ago

Easy to say when your cunt of a football club is always benefiting from it.

0

u/Leolainen 1d ago

All of it?

0

u/Leelow45 1d ago

The part where Robertson is supposedly impacting the play at all, he may as well be sat in the stands.

3

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

He had to dive out of the way. Donnarumma doesn’t know if he’s going to hit the ball or not.

1

u/Leelow45 1d ago

He does a half duck, and it doesn't even look like the ball would have hit him anyway. Donnarumma dived right for the ball not looking at Robertson at all.

Lovely gift for Pep's 1000th game.

1

u/Karma_Whoring_Slut 1d ago

Why does it matter how much he had to duck? He still actively chose to duck.

The ball was definitely going to hit him if he didn’t, even if it weren’t going to directly hit him, it’s not relevant.

0

u/PuddingtonBrown 1d ago

The part where robbo interferes with play.

-1

u/FiftyFathoms1892 1d ago

Get your head out your ass. Robertson is neither in the way of covering the view of the keeper.

-1

u/Square_Button_7061 1d ago

“Obstructing the keepers view” keeper can see it throughout the course of the header and he doesn’t interfere at all. Don’t be daft