Too bad Mo values his leg too much to take that challenge on the shin.
Let’s leave the pedantic hair pulling to the political board.
Great game all around.
if Liverpool got some Duke players, and we could start calling him Jürgen Flopp?
What’s the soccer equivalent of Zion Williamson.
Premier league answer: it’s a yellow even though it seriously endangered the safety of the opponent because...reasons.
FIFA LOTG answer: it’s a sending off for serious foul play as the challenge seriously endangered the safety of the opponent.
Also, Klopp said it should have been a DOGSO. No way would that ever be a DOGSO at midfield like that.
Sterling also should have been given a penalty. If we’re going to soil a great game by whining about the calls...
Aguero and Sterling both flopped. That's pretty clear.
I dont want Kompany to get red there. Clearly it was dangerous. But Salah avoided the challenge and it was a proper yellow.
I have no clue how Mane doesnt earn a penalty when Ederson came bowling through before the Stones clearance. Missed the ball by 10 yards. Mane has an easy put back if hes not taken out there.
At the end of the day fair result for City. Liverpool have a Lovren. They do not.
We can’t be talking about the same plays. Aguero was breaking toward the goal with the ball, and Lovren slid straight through his legs. He got a yellow card, and had Aguero’s feet been planted, he’d need a new set of knees. How anyone could call that a flop is beyond me.
As for Sterling, Robertson grabbed him and tackled him...in the box. Had that happened anywhere else on the field, it’s a foul a hundred times out of a hundred.
They grabbed each other, which was clearly shown on multiple angles. Taylor looked right at the AR when that happened. He’s not going to call that because if two players want to pull each other down, go for it.
Robertson absolutely mugs Sterling as he’s trying to cut back in the box. Robertson initiates contact with his arms out grabbing Sterling as he tries to get past him. How can that not be a foul?
Yes, Sterling’s arm gets behind Robertson’s head and helps bring Robertson down on top of him, but that’s only because Robertson had him wrapped up and prevented him from changing directions. I don’t see how anyone can think that isn’t a foul.
Not much difference in slow motion. Guarantee the AR saw it the same way, and Taylor had a dead on look at Sterling's arm as well. What didn't help Sterling either was that he went down a LOT in that game. Way too much.
And for what it's worth, Kompany's tackle will rarely result in a sending off in the PL in a 'big' match. This is pretty much a known thing. Vardy goes in during a meaningless game with two feet, lunging, misses the opposing player entirely and gets sent off without hesitation. That's just how they do it in the PL.
As far as Lovren's tackle goes, it's pretty much a by-the-book yellow card. Either for a reckless or tactical, pick your poison. Big difference between that and Kompany's challenge is a) this wasn't a 90 degree challenge which reduces the possible impact quite a bit b) Lovren kept his leg down and c) the risk to Aguero was nothing close to the risk to Salah. Salah tried to leapfrog Kompany and it kept Kompany from striking a planted foot with his studs. That's a big ow.
When you come from behind to stop an attack like that, you need to make an attempt on the ball. Lovren did, he was just well off and caught the front of the leg. Compare that to, say, the Forsberg tackle on Lahm a couple years back. Similar situation, but Forsberg was completely behind Lahm and stepped right on the achilles of Lahm's trailing leg. Referee didn't even hesitate to send off Forsberg.
foul in my view. Of course, my view doesn’t matter much.
As for the Lovren tackle, I think where we differ is that I don’t think he tried to play the ball. I think he tried to take out Aguero because he knew he had no chance at getting the ball. You don’t get credit for playing the ball when you don’t come anywhere close to getting it, and you had no chance of getting it in the first place. Thus, I think he could have been given a red. At the end of the day, though, I don’t expect (or want) a red given in that situation. But I’d probably say the same about Kompany’s tackle. I’ve seen far worse tackles not get red...especially in big games. Ashley Young’s tackle against City last year comes to mind. Virgil Van Dijk’s tackle against Napoli was also worse, and that’s in European competition, which is stricter than EPL.
I thought you were talking about Agueros flop before his goal. Lovrens tactical foul was a textbook yellow.
Sterling literally grabbed Robertson and took him down. Watch it again. Agree it's a foul. On Sterling.
I’m not saying Lovren should have seen red. I’m saying his tackle was every bit as dangerous as Kompany’s. I thought both were yellow. But if Kompany’s could have been red, so could Lovren’s.
As for Sterling, you must be joking.
One or both of us is being a complete homer, because there’s just no way that’s not a foul.
And it meets the current definition of a red. I just dont agree with the rule where the contact was avoided. (Unlike Edersons foul which took out Mane. I have a beautiful screen shot, but I dont know how to post it.) And I definitely didnt want this game decided by a rule I dont like.
I dont know any rule that makes Lovrens foul a red. But hey, Liverpool were probably better with 10. He was one of Citys better players today.
Watch the Sterling play again. If you dont see what I see then we'll agree to disagree. I think it's rather obvious.
And both could have led to serious injuries. Kompany’s studs were a little higher, so maybe his was *slightly* more reckless? But it was the same exact thing. Either tackle could have ended someone’s season. The difference is Mo Salah is Mo Salah, and Aguero is Aguero. And anyone calling Aguero a flopper, in comparison to Mo Salah, should rethink things.
As for Sterling, I don’t have the clip handy. But I remember watching it from multiple angles. Robertson saw Sterling was loose, broke down like he was trying to keep Sterling from dribbling past him into the paint, then clotheslined Sterling as he tried to run past him to the ball. But my memory has failed me before.
In any event, I think it’s fair to say City were fortunate to come away with three. Just as Pool were fortunate to avoid City coming away with three at Anfield.
The things you are saying are absolutely silly.
Lovren's tackle was from behind with his foot on the ground. Not just parallel to the ground. On the ground. It was a textbook tactical yellow card. It was about as dangerous as any tackle. It's a contact sport after all. Kompany's foot was several inches off the ground and perpendicular to the ground...coming directly at the player. Studs to shin. Completely different tackles. Mo was fortunate to avoid worse contact.
On Sterling's play he was already past Robertson. He did not have the corner to turn on Robertson. So he cut the ball back. It got further away from him than he would have hoped. One could claim a stonewall by Robertson. I could at least buy that argument. Except stonewalls are usually fouls when the player is going towards the goal. In this case Sterling was going away from the goal trying to cut back.
But the clear sign of Sterling's dive are his feet. If Robertson's contact made him go down, then he would have fallen from the point of contact (i.e. his upper body would have moved in the direction that Robertson was blocking or grabbing as some might claim). But you'll see Sterling's legs actually kick out in the opposite direction from Robertson. This is what players do when they dive. They kick their feet back. Sterling kicked his feet back, took his arm to the back of Robertson's neck and they both went to ground. What made the play look worse for Robertson is that he actually seems to try and grab Sterling's waste to keep him up (or maybe himself). But again, Sterling's legs and now but are going away from Robertson. Obviously there is contact there. But if Robertson made Sterling go down like that, then the laws of physics don't apply to him. And maybe they don't. He is a freakish athlete.
Rocksteady can weigh in because he knows the rules better than many.
But it doesn’t have to be studs up to be a straight red.
Lovrens tackle was bullshit, he didn’t come anywhere close to the ball.
I’ll grant that it was different than Kompany, who did have his studs up.
But Lovren doesn’t get a pass simply because his feet are planted. He clearly went in to take Aguero out with no attempt whatsoever to play the ball. I don’t think it was a red but I also think it was close and it’s not because his studs weren’t up. It was a really shitty and dangerous tackle with an intent to take him out of the play entirely. It was a dangerous two footed challenge (which again doesn’t require studs to be up). There are plenty of examples of a two footed challenge that don’t have studs up.
I never said it wasn't dangerous. Nor bullshit. I said it was textbook yellow.
My discussion of the studs is in reference to him calling it nearly identical tackles. They were entirely different. And the studs up being the clear and obvious distinction. The distinction in which I stated the rules tend to call that a red. But I nonetheless think was a yellow in this instance since Mo was quick enough to avoid the contact.
I never meant to suggest the tackles were identical in every respect. I acknowledged from the beginning that Kompany’s studs were up. What I’m saying is the tackles were exactly the same in terms of their recklessness and potential for injury—which means they each could have been given red cards. As HTown says, you don’t have to have studs up to get red carded for a dangerous challenge.
As for whether it was two footed, it wasn’t initially. But Lovren swept his other foot through at the end and absolutely wrecked Aguero.
That sweep through was the problem.
And to be clear, I wouldn’t have called it red, but I would not have been surprised if they had.
Lovren's was a proper challenge that missed the ball. He's looking at the ball. He's alongside Aguero. He lunges towards the ball with one foot, studs pointing directly to the ground. He misses. Catches Aguero. Yes violently. Thus a yellow card.
Kompany lunges directly towards Salah. Studs up. Both are violent actions. One is proper form. The other is not.
By the book, Lovren's tackle is a fair one if he wins the ball. It's not even a foul. He misses, he gets yellow. By the same book Kompany earns red because it was never a proper tackle...whether he won the ball or not. That's where I disagree with the rule. I think it's a yellow if the contact is avoided.
to the ball. The rules don’t allow you to wipe out someone’s legs with a challenge that late. You said yourself it was a “tactical foul.” In other words, you admitted he had no intention of getting the ball—he intended to foul to stop Aguero’s run. People commit “tactical fouls” all the time. But they are usually holds, pushes, less dangerous trips, etc.
You now act as if Lovren was unfortunate to just barely mistime an otherwise proper challenge. Horseshit. He intended to wipe out Aguero, and that’s exactly what he did. It was a reckless challenge with great potential for injury, regardless of whether his studs were up.
It's all captured right there in the picture. Yes it's tactical insofar as the point is to stop the counter. If you foul, so be it. Take the card and go on. A pull back is a completely different tactical foul not involving a tackle at all.
And now you are calling it "late." You do not seem to understand the rules. That is obviously not a late challenge. There is no argument for that at all. None. Zip. Zero.
This is a tackle. It's proper form. He didnt win the ball. Foul. Card. End of story.
Clearly we dont agree. You think that proper tackles that are dangerous should be red. I think that improper tackles that are dangerous should be red.
I never said it should be red. Not once. I said it *could* have been red—just like Kompany’s *could* have been red. I thought *both* tackles were properly yellow.
And you miss the whole point of my argument. The problem with Lovren’s tackle wasn’t his pre-contact form; it was that he slid through someone’s legs with absolutely no intention of getting the ball. It’s one thing to have a potentially dangerous tackle where the intent is to get the ball. It’s a whole different kind of tackle—regardless of the technique used to execute it—when the target is the player rather than the ball.
If you can’t see that—and judging from this conversation, you can’t—then there is nothing left to say. You can have the last word, because we fundamentally have a different view of the rules.
And never acknowledged mine. I acknowledged that you believe that the inherently dangerous tackle makes it red (or possibly red) just like Kompany's. You said Kompany's studs may have been a little higher. Then you also called it late. Then you said he never intended to go for the ball.
1. It's not a late challenge. That's indisputable.
2. His studs are not up. At all.
3. There's a picture of him looking directly at the ball while lunging directly at it. Not sure how you can claim he's not going for it.
4. Sliding through legs. There's nothing in the rules against it. Proper tackles go through the legs all the time and never get called. Hell, James Milner completely upended Neymar in the Champions league this year. I think he may have done the same to Sterling a year or so ago. Proper challenge, through the legs. No foul was even called. However, if you miss the ball, you are going to see yellow.
5. That leaves intent. You believe that he has intent to be going for Aguero and take out his legs. I believe that the intent is obvious. He's making a tactical foul going for the ball.
Where we disagree is with Kompany. You are trying to draw a connection between a discretionary/judgment call above with his definitive situation. Kompany's tackle was improper by the book. There's no judgment call to make there regarding intent or anything. It doesn't matter if he's going for the ball or not. He's studs up to the leg. That's a red card by the book. And it's my OPINION that there should be some discretion where the contact was avoided and a red could spoil a wonderful match. That's an unwritten rule, and one that I believe was probably the underlying reason why red wasn't given.
With the Aguero tackle, Lovren gets nowhere near the ball and slides into Aguero’s knees, making knee to knee contact. If that’s not dangerous, I don’t know what is. That’s a recipe for blowing out someone’s knee.
You may be correct that tackles that poor are fairly common. But so are tackles like Kompany’s. Kompany’s studs are up, so you are probably correct that he is more likely to see red. I still think they are both reckless with potential to injure. The difference is that Aguero got up and said, “WTF?” While Salah acted like Kompany impaled him with a pineapple tree.
As for Sterling, this is a penalty all day. Robertson clearly sticks out his arms and wraps him up to prevent him from going back to the ball in a dangerous position. I linked the clip. Maybe an impartial observer can shed some light on it. But I think it’s a pretty clear foul on Robertson.
I explained what I saw. Do you honestly think that Robertson took him down? And if so, please explain how his Sterling's legs go out in the opposite direction of his fall, and how Robertson suddenly falls.
As for Lovren, that's a nice picture of a proper tackle. He missed the ball and saw yellow.
I suppose Kompany should be happy that Salah "dove". Otherwise he'd be missing at his next match like Van Dijk for the same tackle in Champions League.
Especially since it was nearly identical to VVD's challenge in the Napoli match.
Lovren's wasn't a dangerous play, not sure why you think that could have been a red.
Raz probably deserved a penalty -- agreed with Dixon that that's given as a foul anywhere outside the box.
It was a great match. Nice to be 4 points clear, but when you hold City to under 50% possession, 1.0 xG, and see them clear three goals off the line, hard not to wonder what could have been. Hopefully it won't matter.
have injured Aguero. His studs weren’t up, but it looked like he slid right into Aguero’s legs. Liverpool has been great this year (and was great in this game). But Liverpool has certainly had its share of luck as well. It’s hard for City fans not to think what might have been had Mahrez not booted that penalty at Anfield.
In any event, I expect Liverpool will win the title, and it will be well deserved. And I’ll be happy for the Pool fans back here (although not the Scousers elsewhere). You lot are generally fair.
Coupled with three clearances off the line, and Sane scoring / Mane not scoring on basically the exact same shot. Going to be a good title race, but advantage LFC in terms of the fixture list. Although the dreams of me seeing them clinch live at Anfield against Chelsea just went kaput.
This could have gone either way, quite easily. Both sides had a lot of chances.
Definitely not an easy one it officiate, either. I do think Aguero should have been whistled for the flop just before he scored simply because he was screaming for a penalty.
best Thursday match since Liverpool/Dortmund? Sorry Arsenal.
Thoughts. 1.12 cm from Reds going 1-0.
Looked like a City handball to me on the Red goal.
Both teams looked quite good.
I was not pleased Shaq didn't start - he's been hot as hell. I understand it, but I wasn't pleased.
Wasn't pleased taking Mane out either.
What a game.
Liverpool seemed to have the possession more, but City was defending like dogs. Both defenses were amazing, diving and grinding to block every shot.
It's a title race again!