Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013

«134567…201

Comments

  • #2
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,348 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Baggsy no Suarez talk on this thread!


  • #3
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Yay!

    Boo!
    The Liverpool skipper will have keyhole surgery on his left shoulder once the current season ends and will miss England's summer friendlies against the Republic of Ireland at Wembley on 29th May and Brazil in Rio on 2nd June.

    It is a straghtforward operation and should take Gerrard six to eight weeks to recover.


  • #4
    missingtime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,942 ✭✭✭missingtime


    Om nom nom!


  • #5
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Should see this thread hit about 50 pages once the ban gets announced later.


  • #6
    Dub13
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dub13


    New thread,like a new hair cut.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Whos going to be the first to get a card/ban after th FA announce their decision?

    > >

    < <


  • #8
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Cannot help but wonder if the comments by the Prime Minister on Monday will have any impact on the ban length. Is the second time that he has come out and made a comment about Suarez with regards to a punishment.

    Good that he had the time to come out and have a statement issued with 24 hours or so of the incident, yet gets struck dumb when it comes to answering questions regarding the NHS, employment etc.


  • #9
    Iang87
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭Iang87


    anyone have the slightest clue when we can expect to hear about the ban.


  • #10
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,348 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Does the word baggsy mean nothing to you people?!?


  • #11
    Kess73
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Iang87 wrote: »
    anyone have the slightest clue when we can expect to hear about the ban.


    Possibly this evening as the hearing is being held today.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    Whos going to be the first to get a card/ban after th FA announce their decision?

    > >

    < <

    I'm expecting him to get 6 games so if it's any more than that it'll probably be me. :(


  • #13
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    Kess73 wrote: »
    Possibly this evening as the hearing is being held today.

    They're not even meeting for it...it's a video conference thingy. I have a feeling it'll be pretty soon.


  • #14
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    This thread will explode if he gets 8 games or more.

    Actually, it will probably explode if he gets 3 or 4... We need 5 or 6 to keep the shite to a minimum :p


  • #15
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    I have asked this already but I really think someone needs to make clear what involves the referee having dealt with or seen something in the game. It seems the FA currently make up the rules for this as they please.

    Huth stamped on Suarez chest. No ambiguity as it's a red card if seen. Referee did nothing. The FA say it can't be reviewed as once the incident is seen even if not to the full extent then it can't be review. Same happened McManaman incident.

    Suarez incident is clearly seen by the referee. He even talks to each player involved after the incident. No problem to the FA to review this though, why? What makes this different to the Huth stamp?

    Opr


  • #16
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    opr wrote: »
    I have asked this already but I really think someone needs to make clear what involves the referee having dealt with or seen something in the game. It seems the FA currently make up the rules for this as they please.

    Huth stamped on Suarez chest. No ambiguity as it's a red card if seen. Referee did nothing. The FA say it can't be reviewed as once the incident is seen even if not to the full extent then it can't be review. Same happened McManaman incident.

    Suarez incident is clearly seen by the referee. He even talks to each player involved after the incident. No problem to the FA to review this though, why? What makes this different to the Huth stamp?

    Opr

    Because they make it up as they go along?

    Sorry for being flippant but I really think they do.


  • #17
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    Whos going to be the first to get a card/ban after th FA announce their decision?

    > >

    < <

    I bags it!


    GavRedKing is a ****.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


  • #18
    Sappy404
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,181 ✭✭✭Sappy404


    Kerrigooney wrote: »
    They're not even meeting for it...it's a video conference thingy. I have a feeling it'll be pretty soon.

    653804.jpg


  • #19
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    Gbear wrote: »
    I bags it!


    GavblueKing is a ****.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Fixed that for ya :p

    Sorry Kess.


  • #20
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    Kerrigooney wrote: »
    Because they make it up as they go along?

    Sorry for being flippant but I really think they do.

    Well then I think the club should be making that known. Yeah we're in the wrong here after the incident but we don't deserve to be treated any different just because it's Liverpool/Suarez. I worry that we don't have much steel in the club at present and just a load of lads who'll roll over and let the FA tickle their belly.

    Opr


  • #21
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    Dont worry, I'm warming her up.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNxrcqOS5vKQVdVk1C6jorhqqkekqEtA52vcHCHnu5SFcksy1j7w


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    pitythefool
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭pitythefool


    they will intervene in exceptional circumstances

    biting is one that is above the norm

    the stamp, if he was booked they are less likey to intervene

    macmanaman, cant remember f he was booked or not but should have seen red

    there is inconsistency and thats not right obviosly but biting is way above the norm


  • #23
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    Sappy404 wrote: »
    653804.jpg

    Have you got a secret camera in my sitting room? :eek:


  • #24
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    opr wrote: »

    Suarez incident is clearly seen by the referee. He even talks to each player involved after the incident. No problem to the FA to review this though, why? What makes this different to the Huth stamp?

    Opr

    He saw the aftermath as both players crashed to the ground, Ivanovic indicated he had been bitten but the ref clearly decided there was nothing conclusive and anyway if he missed the initial incident he could do nothing anyway unless he fancied guessing.


  • #25
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    pitythefool wrote: »
    they will intervene in exceptional circumstances

    biting is one that is above the norm

    the stamp, if he was booked they are less likey to intervene

    macmanaman, cant remember f he was booked or not but should have seen red

    there is inconsistency and thats not right obviosly but biting is way above the norm

    Trying to stamp on someones chest is fine. Trying to break someones leg is fine. We draw the line though at biting someones arm. He might have to get a plaster put on it afterwards. Above and beyond? GTFO

    Opr


  • #26
    citytillidie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,262 ✭✭✭✭citytillidie


    pitythefool wrote: »
    they will intervene in exceptional circumstances

    biting is one that is above the norm

    the stamp, if he was booked they are less likey to intervene

    macmanaman, cant remember f he was booked or not but should have seen red

    there is inconsistency and thats not right obviosly but biting is way above the norm

    The stamp did not even get a free kick from the ref so as others say they are making things up to suit them as they go along

    ******



  • #27
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    mike65 wrote: »
    He saw the aftermath as both players crashed to the ground, Ivanovic indicated he had been bitten but the ref clearly decided there was nothing conclusive and anyway if he missed the initial incident he could do nothing anyway unless he fancied guessing.

    So the incident was seen? Under the FA guidelines this means no further action can be taken. Same thing happen with Suarez/Huth. He seen the coming together between them but didn't see the stamp. This is what the FA said afterwards with regards that incident.

    "Under FA rules retrospective action cannot be taken if an incident has been seen, even if the full extent of it has not been witnessed."

    Opr


  • #28
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    We seem to have gained a hell of a lot of new,outraged posters since this whole thing blew up.


  • #29
    messinkiapina
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,162 ✭✭✭messinkiapina


    As a player would you prefer a guy to have a nibble on your arm or have a two footed lunge at your standing leg? I think the answer to that is obvious. He will get a longer ban because biting someone looks a bit more psychotic than a dangerous tackle does, even if it's less harmful in reality.

    Luis does deserve his ban, but if it's any more than 5 games it's unreasonable in my opinion. If he had bit him in the face that would be another matter, just as kicking someone in the head is a lot more serious than kicking them in the arm.

    I also wonder if the fact that he is insistent that a 3 game ban is enough is a good indicator that he intends to stay at Liverpool next season?


  • #30
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    mike65 wrote: »
    He saw the aftermath as both players crashed to the ground, Ivanovic indicated he had been bitten but the ref clearly decided there was nothing conclusive and anyway if he missed the initial incident he could do nothing anyway unless he fancied guessing.
    opr wrote: »
    So the incident was seen? Under the FA guidelines this means no further action can be taken. Same thing happen with Suarez/Huth. He seen the coming together between them but didn't see the stamp. This is what the FA said afterwards with regards that incident.

    "Under FA rules retrospective action cannot be taken if an incident has been seen, even if the full extent of it has not been witnessed."

    Opr

    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you read? He saw two players tussle and go to ground. The bite was unseen - you only have to look at the body position of Suarez the ref would have seen nothing beyond Luis back/head, he would have seen what looked like a shove.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    McSasquatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,467 ✭✭✭McSasquatch


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    Dont worry, I'm warming her up.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNxrcqOS5vKQVdVk1C6jorhqqkekqEtA52vcHCHnu5SFcksy1j7w
    By "her" do you mean the hammer, or the ugly girl in the skirt?


  • #32
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    mike65 wrote: »
    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't you read? He saw two players tussle and go to ground. The bite was unseen - you only have to look at the body position of Suarez the ref would have seen nothing beyond Luis back/head, he would have seen what looked like a shove.

    EVEN IF HE SEES WHAT LOOKS LIKE SHOVE THEN THAT MEANS HE HAS SEEN IT> THE FACT OF WHETHER HE SEES THE BITE NOT DOES NOT MATTER.

    Christ do you ever have conversations with people on this thread without insulting them.

    Opr


  • #33
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    mike65 wrote: »
    He saw two players tussle and go to ground. The bite was unseen

    Referee in the Huth/Suarez incident seen the same thing, two players tussling without the stamp. Why can it not be reviewed but this one can?

    Opr


  • #34
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,735 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    opr wrote: »
    Referee in the Huth/Suarez incident seen the same thing, two players tussling without the stamp. Why can it not be reviewed but this one can?

    Opr

    Good point.

    In relation to the Defoe incident. Did the ref see the biting or just a tussle?


  • #35
    gafferino
    Registered Users Posts: 4,724 ✭✭✭gafferino


    opr wrote: »
    Referee in the Huth/Suarez incident seen the same thing, two players tussling without the stamp. Why can it not be reviewed but this one can?

    Opr

    Because Huth is not Suarez.


  • #36
    opr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,267 ✭✭✭opr


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Good point.

    In relation to the Defoe incident. Did the ref see the biting or just a tussle?

    I'm not sure what way it works which is why I think it needs to be clarified. If you saying it relates to the actual bite. Then why didn't it relate to the stamp. I mean the referee can hardly claim to have seen the stamp and have not at least given a yellow card. So in both cases the bite/stamp has not been seen but one is ok for review but the other isn't.

    Opr


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    gafferino
    Registered Users Posts: 4,724 ✭✭✭gafferino


    opr wrote: »
    I'm not sure what way it works which is why I think it needs to be clarified. If you saying it relates to the actual bite. Then why didn't it relate to the stamp. I mean the referee can hardly claim to have seen the stamp and have not at least given a yellow card. So in both cases the bite/stamp has not been seen but one is ok for review but the other isn't.

    Opr

    yeah thats basically it. Whatever they feel like really.


  • #38
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    opr wrote: »
    I have asked this already but I really think someone needs to make clear what involves the referee having dealt with or seen something in the game. It seems the FA currently make up the rules for this as they please.

    Huth stamped on Suarez chest. No ambiguity as it's a red card if seen. Referee did nothing. The FA say it can't be reviewed as once the incident is seen even if not to the full extent then it can't be review. Same happened McManaman incident.

    Suarez incident is clearly seen by the referee. He even talks to each player involved after the incident. No problem to the FA to review this though, why? What makes this different to the Huth stamp?

    Opr

    It was the same with the Aguero incident last week and the Balotelli tackle on Song last season.

    This is what the FA had to say on the Balotelli tackle:
    Where at least one of the officials has seen the coming together of players retrospective action is not taken, regardless of whether they have seen the full extent of the challenge.

    Retrospective action can only be taken in scenarios where none of the match officials saw the players coming together.

    The normal scenarios in which retrospective action is taken are for 'off-the-ball' incidents.

    Retrospective action was introduced for off-the-ball incidents where there was no contest for possession and could not be deemed to be re-refereeing an incident.

    In agreement with FIFA, this is how 'not seen' incidents are dealt with retrospectively in England.

    It is a policy that is agreed with all football stakeholders.

    The ref clearly 'reffed' the incident as he talked to both players after it despite the fact he didn't see the full extent of what went on.

    So it's clear that the FA are treating this as an exceptional circumstance. So why not treat the Defoe incident as an exceptional circumstance?


  • #39
    GavRedKing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,262 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    McSasquatch wrote: »
    By "her" do you mean the hammer, or the ugly girl in the skirt?

    Depends what you're into. ;)


  • #40
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    God almighty,I hate watching Sky Sports waiting for bad news.


  • #41
    Speak Now
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,708 ✭✭✭Speak Now


    12 matches sounds a bit OTT.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    He's gotten a 10 game ban.

    http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/apr/luis-suarez-violent-conduct-charge-liverpool-chelsea-ivanovic-ten-matches.aspx


  • #43
    missingtime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,942 ✭✭✭missingtime


    10 games apparently. On twitter.

    EDIT: Too much imo. We'll have to try and appeal that if we can.


  • #44
    Devilman40k
    Registered Users Posts: 2,073 ✭✭✭Devilman40k


    Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »
    12 matches sounds a bit OTT.

    10 games....


  • #45
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    and its banned for 10 games confirmed

    LFC

    "We await the written reasons tomorrow before making any further comment."


  • #46
    murpho999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,536 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    10 ffs


  • #47
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,477 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    Jaysus, over the top in my opinion, by a fair bit.

    Anyway, we'll move on. FA and their decision making system is a joke as we all know.


  • #48
    Kerrigooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,987 ✭✭✭Kerrigooney


    10 games. ****ing ridiculous.


  • #49
    super_furry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,348 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Have to appeal that, it's a ****ing joke. Six would have been fair, seven harsh, ten is an insult.


  • #50
    JimsAlterEgo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭JimsAlterEgo


    given previous gotten off lightly IMO


  • #51
    Lovely Bloke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,748 ✭✭✭✭Lovely Bloke


    haha, ten games!

    Jesus.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement