DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75087--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: GingerReferee
Date: February 1, 2024, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Only seen the highlights on YouTube and it showed two penalty
incidents. 1 given, 1 not. Both for me are correct. For the
Chelsea incident, thrown himself to the ground. And for the
penalty for Liverpool that was given I think there’s enough
contact to give a penalty
#Post#: 75100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: robbie_scouse
Date: February 1, 2024, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My post last night was - slightly - tongue in cheek.
But definitely slightly, the first one - on Gallagher I think -
was not a foul. The second one, on the lad who scored -
definitely had contact on the foot and not the ball.
His reaction, though, was something else, and I’m wondering if
that played a part in the decision of Tierney and the VAR. It
could have been costly in more ways than one, as within seconds
on the incident Chelsea were straight back on the attack whilst
he was still writhing around in, er, “agony”.
#Post#: 75101--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: robbie_scouse
Date: February 1, 2024, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MCPridz link ---
>
> [quote author=robbie_scouse link=topic=5653.msg75070#msg75070
date=1706742697]
> Not often I’ve said it but credit where it’s due, good
performance from Paul Tierney with no real contentious decisions
- Chelsea claiming a couple of half-hearted penalty appeals that
really had nothing going for them.
> Rare incident at the end with Liverpool given an attacking,
i.e. edge of the box, free kick but the final whistle was blown
before it was taken.
>
--- End Quote ---
Can tell you biased
[/quote]
Now that is irony!!!!
#Post#: 75104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: ryan80
Date: February 1, 2024, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am a great supporter of referees, but I thought Tierney was
poor. It seemed he was too quick to please Liverpool. It would
appear that all the dirt that Klopp has thrown at him has
finally had the desired effect.
I did feel for Chelsea last night.
#Post#: 75109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: February 1, 2024, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tierney has just confirmed a penalty for Wolves where there is
absolutely no proof of contact on the Wolves player.
Make that make sense after what he did last night?!
#Post#: 75111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: JCFC
Date: February 1, 2024, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Marvin Grapevine link ---
>
> Tierney has just confirmed a penalty for Wolves where there is
absolutely no proof of contact on the Wolves player.
>
--- End Quote ---
There is no requirement for proof of contact - the onfield
decision has covered that.
For an intervention there would have to be absolute proof that
there was no contact, an entirely different matter.
But then, I am listening to commentary, not watching.
#Post#: 75117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: Claretman
Date: February 1, 2024, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Marvin Grapevine link ---
>
> Tierney has just confirmed a penalty for Wolves where there is
absolutely no proof of contact on the Wolves player.
>
> Make that make sense after what he did last night?!
>
--- End Quote ---
Tierney in var would have had to prove there was no contact at
all to overturn the onfield decision, something he didnt have
clear and conclusive evidence of.
#Post#: 75125--------------------------------------------------
Re: Paul Tierney - Liverpool v Chelsea
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: February 2, 2024, 2:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think the decisions an official makes as a on-field
referee are especially relevant to those they make as a VAR in
another game, especially when the initial on-field decision is
different. I can understand why people sometimes find that
frustrating but that's just how it works.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page