Relive every moment of every first team game since the beginning of the 2005/06 season. Our archive of matchday threads originally posted in the General Discussion Forum.
Marky wrote:Sit behind some Spanish chaps who add friends with Adrian. He feels really let down that he wasn’t given a go today. He felt he should play as was a dead rubber.
The rubber wasn't quite as dead as it might have been. Beating Southampton and then Watford puts us at least one and possibly two places higher, with the corresponding prize money increase.
S-H wrote:Doesn't it stem from them coming up automatically and us through the playoffs.
I think that’s right SH.
I never minded them before that season. Their fans had never so much as registered on my ‘unlikeable fans’ radar but they were patronising, thought they’d made it ****ers that year. I too had hoped they’d go down this year. Maybe next eh?
S-H wrote:Doesn't it stem from them coming up automatically and us through the playoffs?
Was gutted they didn't go down this year.
I remember them harping on (and on and on) about them being the best promoted team... But they never let it go. Meanwhile both teams have toiled in the midtable and they've become Liverpool's youth team.
Clacton-ammer wrote:
Another one looking forward to VAR, in my mind today VAR is going to help the smaller clubs more than the big 6. I hope I am right!
I'm theory it should eliminate the pathological need to give the bigger (and spurs) clubs the benefit of the doubt(or in Liverpool's case a 2 yard leeway on offside). But it will only do that IF the people on the other end of the cameras have any bottle.
They also need to get the questions and instructions right. The thing that annoys me with the rugby implementation is when they ask "is there any reason I can't give it?" Which is too broad. Assuming the football one won't have questions the impact will be - how far back do you go? Would a foul 2 minutes before a goal without the ball being dead count? What's that cut off? Will it be fairly and evenly applied? Also is the reason to give something clear evidence, or just balance of probability? If it's the latter it won't help everyone. If it's the former it puts the pressure back on the ref to make a decision in the first instance and then be overruled - potentially damaging their authority.
You would hope and think that the people making the VAR decisions will be subject to some scrutiny rather than it being wrapped up in the moment.
So if someone makes a few dodgy calls over the course of a couple of weeks they'd be subject to demotion or a good old fashioned sacking
The evidence is there for all to see. And ending years of "the ref has to make a quick decision in the moment" crap, the evidence any review board will see will be exactly what the VAR official would've seen. Same angles, same slow motion, same replays