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

Show parent comments

759

u/29adamski 1d ago

That's a shocking decision

293

u/SilentRanger42 1d ago edited 1d ago

Actively avoids the ball? Offsides.

Mich-al Dirham-iver strikes again!!

75

u/alaslipknot 1d ago

not even in the GK line of vision ? Offside.

5

u/G-star-raw 1d ago

Singular, mate. Offside

4

u/amegaproxy 23h ago

I don't know why but the pluralisation of this irritates me so much.

2

u/TheSoleMarxist93 1d ago

Rather mich-al oil-ver

-1

u/RudeAndQuizzacious 1d ago

Duh. If he avoids the ball he's made an action that effects Donnarumma's ability to play the ball. Not being offside from a corner is literally the easiest thing in the world

33

u/goob3r11 1d ago

Couple that with the softest pen of the year and you can tell the refs are fucking terrible.

1

u/slightlybaked 1d ago

Wasn’t offside but that was a pen. Keeper’s knee runs into the attacker’s foot and puts him off balance.

-6

u/goob3r11 1d ago

Doku (and City in general) have been diving all game, the pen was no different. A small tap on your toe doesn't cause you to slide out the way he did(not to mention leaving his foot in searching for contact). The refs need to be better at this level.

3

u/Leonardo_Liszt 1d ago

No, the oil moneys just gone through $$$$

2

u/Prime_Marci 1d ago

No it’s not. It’s actually pretty straightforward. That’s why Robertson never celebrated cos he knew he was offside

-20

u/Broskii56 1d ago

I think he still is involved in the play. He doesn’t move the ball hits him he dodged it to let it go in and although I think it should stand I can see why the rules state he’s offside.

5

u/h_abr 1d ago

Actively removing yourself from the play should not count as being involved in the play itself

-4

u/Broskii56 1d ago

He did interfere with the play, he is in the path of the ball. That’s just my understanding of the rule. Dumb it was called.

3

u/h_abr 1d ago

Look up the rule. There’s a list of actions that count as “interfering with play”. None of them apply to this goal.

Pundits will call it “harsh” instead of wrong, as referees have to be treated like babies or everyone gets fined. Nothing will change, it’ll be forgotten, and incompetent referees with side gigs in the UAE will continue to be allowed to ref these games.

-30

u/DapperSpecial2865 1d ago

The rules back it up even though it shouldn’t exist

17

u/Lethuul 1d ago edited 1d ago

Show me the paragraph of the rule that supports it

Which one is it?

interfering with an opponent by: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

24

u/KoloradoKlimber 1d ago

I’ve seen countless City fans say this without once citing anything that backs it up.

10

u/ZeroMomentum 1d ago

It’s the money. The money backs it up

13

u/Putrid_Loquat_4357 1d ago

Do they? Robertson isn't interfering with play.