Watch.. Did the referee deny Liverpool a penalty kick against City? Abu Trika answers | sports


Liverpool coach Jurgen Klopp confirmed that the referee denied his team a penalty kick against Manchester City on Sunday in the match that ended in a 1-1 draw in the 28th round of the English Premier League.

The penalty kick was enough for Liverpool to win, which was tied 1-1, and in the last minute of stoppage time for the second half, City player Jeremy Doku raised his foot high to keep the ball away from his rival McAllister inside the first penalty area. He actually played the ball, but he hit the bottom of the shoe with his chest and abdomen. Reds striker.

Doku raised his foot high and played the ball, but he recklessly smashed into his opponent’s chest (French)

Television replays confirmed that the City player hit Alistair in the chest, and even beIN Sports commentator Issam Chawali confirmed that it was a penalty kick, but referee Michael Oliver refused to award it, and it appears that the VAR referee supported his opinion, amid overwhelming anger from Klopp and his technical staff.

Was the referee unfair to Liverpool?

Klopp entered into a long discussion with the referee after the final whistle, before confirming in press interviews that “it was a 100% penalty kick.”

Aboutrika agreed with the Liverpool coach by confirming the validity of the penalty kick during the match’s analysis studio on the “BeIN Sports” channels, and he further sarcastically stated that it was not awarded by saying that it was “a valid penalty kick unless they allow Kung Fu in football.”

Former international referee Nasser Sadiq believes that the referee and video technology made their decision not to award a penalty kick, because the City player had already succeeded in playing the ball, which is one of the most important considerations in violations according to Article 12 of the Football Law (Faults and Misconduct).

Sadiq told Al Jazeera Net that despite this, he supports the opinion of Klopp and Aboutrika that it is a valid penalty kick, due to the most important consideration, which is that the City player completed the sole of his foot (under the shoe) on his opponent’s chest in a way that was marred by violence, indicating that it is one of the rare cases in which the referee must calculate the violation. Despite playing ball.

He added that the City player could have held his foot so that it would not collide so violently with his opponent’s chest, but he did not do that and therefore he deserved a penalty kick without warning him, because he was in a struggle over the ball with his opponent.

Leave a Comment