The Premier League - Season 2023/24

[Zambo]

The Salah/Klopp spat was a complete embarrassment. How unprofessional can you get. Arguing like a couple of fish wives on the touchline. There appears to be some resentment and bad feeling in that camp at the moment, and someone has got to come in and keep it together.

[Sadact7]

Your unconditional support and defence of anything to do with Liverpool, is somewhat childish and nauseating, not to mention pathetic.

And your never-ending negativity seems "childish and nauseating". What kicked this off was your wrong assertion, with no facts, about where Liverpool fans reside. So why do it?

And no I was a regular at Anfield during the Souness and Dalglish reigns ( both of those) and we didn't boo either them or their teams. No, not lies. That's what you trade in Sadact.

Ever listen to 606? For years, every week, we've heard snivelling Scum fans attack manager after manager.Moyes, Mourinho, Solskjaer, Van Haal, Rangnick.. and now Ten Hag .And to be fair, they've been supported. More than double what Klopp had to spend. The Chelsea fans can hardly get on air with time to attack their own manager.

It's laughable the shite you throw and then act all offended when you get some back.

By the way not only was it Pellegrini who signed De Bruyne, but he got the chance because a certain Guardiola rejected him for Bayern.

“Scum”



Windmilling all over the shop.

“We’re special lar, now please stand there while I phlegm all over you”

[JW90]

Why is booing your manager a sign of bad behaviour, though? Every club has had some awful coaches who deserve it.

It doesn't make you superfans because you always back them (which you don't anyway).

It's a stupid thing to do.
Be critical if you want, but during a game it's only going to make your team's problems worse.

And then there's the question of whether it's the coach to blame. Certainly both Chelsea and United have replaced coaches enough to suggest there are other things wrong. But if the people who should face up to their role in things ( eg Boehly) witness the crowd turning on the manager, they figure that buys them another 18 months before the crunch comes again.

After all it's the owners and the board who choose the manager/coach. Didn't anybody at United wonder at Ten Hag's paying £80m for Antony, a player he knew so there should be no excuses? Or Mount at £55m , Casemiro who Real knew was finished? Or Onana? Who indulged Pogba? Didn't anyone ask themselves , a long time ago,have we got the right man here?

Both of those sets of supporters, among many in the country (including my own), criticise the board as well. Most fanbases will blame everyone involved throughout a period of time.

[Sunbeam Alpine]

So now the ref's right. Seems a moveable feast.

Have you seen it?

No 'so now' about it. If you bother to read others posts, you would see that I've said he was right all along.

And yes I've seen it.

PGMOL , not for the first time, have tried to cover up his mistake.

[Sunbeam Alpine]

Your unconditional support and defence of anything to do with Liverpool, is somewhat childish and nauseating, not to mention pathetic.

And your never-ending negativity seems "childish and nauseating". What kicked this off was your wrong assertion, with no facts, about where Liverpool fans reside. So why do it?

And no I was a regular at Anfield during the Souness and Dalglish reigns ( both of those) and we didn't boo either them or their teams. No, not lies. That's what you trade in Sadact.

Ever listen to 606? For years, every week, we've heard snivelling Scum fans attack manager after manager.Moyes, Mourinho, Solskjaer, Van Haal, Rangnick.. and now Ten Hag .And to be fair, they've been supported. More than double what Klopp had to spend. The Chelsea fans can hardly get on air with time to attack their own manager.

It's laughable the shite you throw and then act all offended when you get some back.

By the way not only was it Pellegrini who signed De Bruyne, but he got the chance because a certain Guardiola rejected him for Bayern.

“Scum”



Windmilling all over the shop.

“We’re special lar, now please stand there while I phlegm all over you”

Hypocrite

[Zambo]

So now the ref's right. Seems a moveable feast.

Have you seen it?

No 'so now' about it. If you bother to read others posts, you would see that I've said he was right all along.

And yes I've seen it.

PGMOL , not for the first time, have tried to cover up his mistake.

The signal from the referee, is the advantage or offended against team retained possession signal. Irrespective of this, the goal keeper needed treatment, so play was stopped.

[Sunbeam Alpine]

Yesterday you told us Gakpo had fouled him.

No he didn't. If he had Taylor would have whistled for a free-kick. He didn't

Areola collided with his goal-post. Taylor decided he needed treatment, apparently. The West Hamd physios were not waiting to come on, so this was something of a surprise to them. It appears Areola thought he had a free-kick judging by the way he rolled the ball in front of him, but it was still in play.

Gakpo , as McCoist said, was in order to advance and if he had then put the ball into the goal VAR would have had to work it out. Taylor's action, in picking up the ball and rolling it to the goalkeeper, was wrong.

[Zambo]

Yesterday you told us Gakpo had fouled him.

No he didn't. If he had Taylor would have whistled for a free-kick. He didn't

Areola collided with his goal-post. Taylor decided he needed treatment, apparently. The West Hamd physios were not waiting to come on, so this was something of a surprise to them. It appears Areola thought he had a free-kick judging by the way he rolled the ball in front of him, but it was still in play.

Gakpo , as McCoist said, was in order to advance and if he had then put the ball into the goal VAR would have had to work it out. Taylor's action, in picking up the ball and rolling it to the goalkeeper, was wrong.

You're hard work, and it makes it harder that you either don't read posts, or you've forgotten what you have read.

If you watch it, you will see that Gakpo fouled Areola, which caused the keeper to collide with a goalpost injuring himself. The referee identified this, thought the keeper was OK and signalled for play to continue. That is the reason he didn't blow for a free kick at that stage.

You need to ask yourself why the keeper would then throw the ball down for an opponent to score an open goal. As a referee when you see something like that happen, you have a split second to decide what to do. This particular referee had two options.

1. Allow play to continue and allow a goal to be scored or

2. Rescind the advantage clause, and blow your whistle stopping play, and permit the keeper to receive treatment.

I'm done on this, but just wonder what you would have said if it had been the Liverpool keeper had been fouled.

[chelseachelsea]

After 34 games Manchester United have 54 points under Erik ten Hag. A decade ago last Monday (22 April) David Moyes had accrued 57 points after 34 games and was sacked. .....with hind sight it seems really harsh on Moyes.

[Carlos J]

Yesterday you told us Gakpo had fouled him.

No he didn't. If he had Taylor would have whistled for a free-kick. He didn't

Areola collided with his goal-post. Taylor decided he needed treatment, apparently. The West Hamd physios were not waiting to come on, so this was something of a surprise to them. It appears Areola thought he had a free-kick judging by the way he rolled the ball in front of him, but it was still in play.

Gakpo , as McCoist said, was in order to advance and if he had then put the ball into the goal VAR would have had to work it out. Taylor's action, in picking up the ball and rolling it to the goalkeeper, was wrong.

You're hard work, and it makes it harder that you either don't read posts, or you've forgotten what you have read.

If you watch it, you will see that Gakpo fouled Areola, which caused the keeper to collide with a goalpost injuring himself. The referee identified this, thought the keeper was OK and signalled for play to continue. That is the reason he didn't blow for a free kick at that stage.

You need to ask yourself why the keeper would then throw the ball down for an opponent to score an open goal. As a referee when you see something like that happen, you have a split second to decide what to do. This particular referee had two options.

1. Allow play to continue and allow a goal to be scored or

2. Rescind the advantage clause, and blow your whistle stopping play, and permit the keeper to receive treatment.

I'm done on this, but just wonder what you would have said if it had been the Liverpool keeper had been fouled.

Dermot Gallagher talked about it for a while this morning on 'Ref Watch' and sure he said something similar.

[chelseachelsea]

Yesterday you told us Gakpo had fouled him.

No he didn't. If he had Taylor would have whistled for a free-kick. He didn't

Areola collided with his goal-post. Taylor decided he needed treatment, apparently. The West Hamd physios were not waiting to come on, so this was something of a surprise to them. It appears Areola thought he had a free-kick judging by the way he rolled the ball in front of him, but it was still in play.

Gakpo , as McCoist said, was in order to advance and if he had then put the ball into the goal VAR would have had to work it out. Taylor's action, in picking up the ball and rolling it to the goalkeeper, was wrong.

You're hard work, and it makes it harder that you either don't read posts, or you've forgotten what you have read.

If you watch it, you will see that Gakpo fouled Areola, which caused the keeper to collide with a goalpost injuring himself. The referee identified this, thought the keeper was OK and signalled for play to continue. That is the reason he didn't blow for a free kick at that stage.

You need to ask yourself why the keeper would then throw the ball down for an opponent to score an open goal. As a referee when you see something like that happen, you have a split second to decide what to do. This particular referee had two options.

1. Allow play to continue and allow a goal to be scored or

2. Rescind the advantage clause, and blow your whistle stopping play, and permit the keeper to receive treatment.

I'm done on this, but just wonder what you would have said if it had been the Liverpool keeper had been fouled.

Dermot Gallagher talked about it for a while this morning on 'Ref Watch' and sure he said something similar.

Indeed he did, as did Halsey over the weekend

[Sunbeam Alpine]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -draw.html

https://talksport.com/football/1845703/ ... -west-ham/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/27581116 ... f-blunder/

Gakpo did not foul the goalkeeper.

There was no advantage played as there had been no foul.

Areola was hurt colliding with the post. He did not expect the physio, and they weren't expecting to be called on . If Taylor had thought there was a head injury, the goalkeeper would have been expected to go off and come back on. You can see Taylor telling him to request the physio.

If Taylor thought afterwards there had been and whistled, as if to compensate, that was wrong.

I am not claiming it turned the match but if Gakpo had scored VAR would have been involved and Taylor would have been in the shit.

[Carlos J]

I'm not getting into this, but in the Sun article, there is a piece by Mark Halsey titled 'The referee got it right... mostly,'

Same as the TS article says:

The Liverpool striker looked perplexed but talkSPORT understands Taylor was already playing advantage as just before, Areola had been adjudged to have been fouled

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

You're in way deep now MeinHans, hope you got waders

[Carlos J]

You're in way deep now MeinHans, hope you got waders

Aye.