The Liverpool Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve*
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 44K
  • Views Views 3M
going down to 10 men shouldnt mean we should concede 5 goals. we should have shut up shop and tried to counter. its like they gave up which is the sad part. klavan showed why he is only the 3/4 CB but trent struggled in aswell maybe gomez would have been better seems he shut out sanchez against arsenal in another big game but if were going to lose a game then it might aswell be city away from home
 
Honestly I'm starting to get tired of the red card rule. It keeps ruining perfectly promising games and it fails as an effective punishment, because refs are always hesitating since they don't want to ruin the spectacle either. It's an awfully flawed system.

I think they should just massively increase match bans (**** it, 10 matches for straight red and 5 for two yellows), but otherwise just allow replacing sent off player to keep it 11 vs 11.
 
Scouseinthehouse said:
Why would you play Klaven against City's pace? Guess we'll be dropping off and hitting over the top the break again then?
Click to expand...
Was suicidal to play him in a high line. He cannot deal with pace at all, I'm not even talking blistering pace even a simple turn can take him out of position. I know he is backup but he honestly even isn't premier league standard. His partner in crime Matip is just as bad, gets bullied easily and is a ball playing defender who can't defend, people lay into Lovren but Matip is worse defensively. The central defense, in general, is weak. Right now until we can get a central defender who can play a high line, the attack is our best form of defense.
 
Well that was 'fun.' Could well have been 2 or 3 up early but for woeful finishing. (Mo lad. Seriously. WTF was that?). Sadio walks (thankfully the League Cup saves him missing Utd. Hope the goalies ok) and you're down to 10 men against the single worst side the PL outside of ourselves to have to face in that situation. But even saying that, outside of the 5th all self-inflicted goals by **** poor defending (Trents worst professional game by far but the experience will do him great to learn from) and goalkeeping. But at least some of the City gobshites got lashed out when the bizzies finally had enough. And ****** wet through before and after whilst the sun shines through the game.

**** happens. Hardest away out the way early. City's past and just a game back. Onto Seville.

Up the 'Glad to get one of them out the way early' Reds.
 
Last edited:
We can debate the decision. But as most have said, to defend like that with 10 men is diabolical. Let alone against a side like City. Any of the top 6 would have punished Liverpool here.
 
Mike. said:
We can debate the decision. But as most have said, to defend like that with 10 men is diabolical. Let alone against a side like City. Any of the top 6 would have punished Liverpool here.
Click to expand...
Klopp threw the white towel in. Shifted Can into the back with the terrible duo of matip and Klavan. With no protection in midfield, 5 nil was expected.
 
Lose 5. End up 1 game outside of first. Had worse days like.

Now to get a good start Europe.
 
paul joyce‏ @_pauljoyceFollow

More

Lvpl has the option to appeal 3-match ban for Mane, citing "excessive punishment," in hope it is downgraded to 1 or 2. Decision by 5pm​

3:39 am - 11 Sep 2017


I very much doubt we do, but I seriously hope we appeal that even if it leads to a longer ban and Sadio missing Utd.

Complete joke of a decision that completely turned a very even, competitive game (I say that but L'pool we're actually on top in most every statistical category at that point bar the scoreline), made even more so by what happened yesterday at Swansea.

 
Tbh I don't question the red itself, the severity of the injury very much comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised if they reject the red when you consider the state of Ederson's face afterwards
 
Mike. said:
Tbh I don't question the red itself, the severity of the injury very much comes into play. I wouldn't be surprised if they reject the red when you consider the state of Ederson's face afterwards
Click to expand...

But it shouldn't should it? Either after the effect or at the time of the incident.

Henry was making the point that Moss was going to his pocket to get out a yellow before he see's the goalie laid prone and changes his view to a red. Now only Moss knows if that was the case, but regardless, that shouldn't have played a part in his decision.

It's terribly unfortunate that Ederson caught the boot to the head but what way do you determine it's serious, dangerous play or not? If Sadio went with his head and risked them both clashing heads what then? Send them both off? The Newcastle fella' yesterday was saying maybe he stayed on as the Swansea lad didn't go down. But that shouldn't play a part. The severity of any injury when neither player has intentionally gone out to injure the other. The yellow card option is there for a reason. And there's been a few similar ones this season already elsewhere.

Either everything's treated the same, where you may as well say anything about chest height can't be contested unless it's with your head; or not.

I fully expect the FA to uphold and probably even extend this as the FA wouldn't know doing the right thing if it jumped up and bit them on the ****. But it wouldn't make it right just because the City player was unfortunate enough to be the one caught and left with the immediate after effects of his face looking like it does today.
 
Scouseinthehouse said:
But it shouldn't should it? Either after the effect or at the time of the incident.

Henry was making the point that Moss was going to his pocket to get out a yellow before he see's the goalie laid prone and changes his view to a red. Now only Moss knows if that was the case, but regardless, that shouldn't have played a part in his decision.

It's terribly unfortunate that Ederson caught the boot to the head but what way do you determine it's serious, dangerous play or not? If Sadio went with his head and risked them both clashing heads what then? Send them both off? The Newcastle fella' yesterday was saying maybe he stayed on as the Swansea lad didn't go down. But that shouldn't play a part. The severity of any injury when neither player has intentionally gone out to injure the other. The yellow card option is there for a reason. And there's been a few similar ones this season already elsewhere.

Either everything's treated the same, where you may as well say anything about chest height can't be contested unless it's with your head; or not.

I fully expect the FA to uphold and probably even extend this as the FA wouldn't know doing the right thing if it jumped up and bit them on the ****. But it wouldn't make it right just because the City player was unfortunate enough to be the one caught and left with the immediate after effects of his face looking like it does today.
Click to expand...

It actually does for serious foul play. It's in the law book.

Henry is actually wrong on the bold, because injury is taken into effect. Moss is entitled to see how bad it is, and react accordingly.
 
Mike. said:
It actually does for serious foul play. It's in the law book.

Henry is actually wrong on the bold, because injury is taken into effect. Moss is entitled to see how bad it is, and react accordingly.
Click to expand...

How do you define 'serious, foul play?'

That's the only section that should apply:

View attachment 83776

Did Mané do either of the last part there? I can see why some officials would say he did. Even if I wouldn't agree or else you may as well take any above waist height challenge out of the game. But either intent or not, or the outcome to the player, shouldn't be taken into consideration if they're going strictly by the rule book.

The same way it shouldn't in determining the severity of the punishment.
 
Scouseinthehouse said:
How do you define 'serious, foul play?'

That's the only section that should apply:

View attachment 1127475

Did Mané do either of the last part there? I can see why some officials would say he did. Even if I wouldn't agree or else you may as well take any above waist height challenge out of the game. But either intent or not, or the outcome to the player, shouldn't be taken into consideration if they're going strictly by the rule book.

The same way it shouldn't in determining the severity of the punishment.
Click to expand...

Intent is never taken into account. Basically by missing the ball (whether we agree he could make it or not) he opened himself up to a red.

He acted with disregard to the conseqences , ie he didnt take into account what happened if he missed

bb87424174d6e92af7fb8e3bde8f59f6

https://i.gyazo.com/7f9b454778a07ae40a14b439c8ed8e85.png

So that's serious foul play. Even not covering seriousl foul play, and you call it charging, it becomes excessive force and in danger of injuring his opponent, he did injure his opponent, under that law it's also a red card. The minute Ederson came off that bad he was getting sent off
bb87424174d6e92af7fb8e3bde8f59f6
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top