Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2013

GavRedKing

New thread.

Link to old thread : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056873647

First woot!

In before Kess says "GavBlueKing"

super_furry

Baggsy no Suarez talk on this thread!

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.

missingtime

Om nom nom!

Kess73

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

Dub13

New thread,like a new hair cut.

GavRedKing

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

> >

< <

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.

Iang87

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

super_furry

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

Kerrigooney

Gbear wrote: »

I bags it!


GavblueKing is a ****.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fixed that for ya

Sorry Kess.

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

GavRedKing

Dont worry, I'm warming her up.

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

Kerrigooney

Sappy404 wrote: »

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

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.

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

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

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

Kerrigooney

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

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?

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.

McSasquatch

GavRedKing wrote: »

Dont worry, I'm warming her up.

By "her" do you mean the hammer, or the ugly girl in the skirt?

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

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

opr

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

GavRedKing

McSasquatch wrote: »

By "her" do you mean the hammer, or the ugly girl in the skirt?

Depends what you're into.

Kerrigooney

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

Speak Now

12 matches sounds a bit OTT.

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

missingtime

10 games apparently. On twitter.

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

Devilman40k

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

12 matches sounds a bit OTT.

10 games....

mike65

and its banned for 10 games confirmed

LFC

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

murpho999

10 ffs

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.

Kerrigooney

10 games. ****ing ridiculous.

super_furry

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

JimsAlterEgo

given previous gotten off lightly IMO

Lovely Bloke

haha, ten games!

Jesus.