• Liverpool Message Board

  • A Yahoo! User Mar 3, 2012 14:50 Flag

    Count yourselves lucky , gunners

    This match should easily have been 3 or 4 to 1 in the first half alone. How many goalposts / crossbars is that now this season....must be in the 20's? Cruel result for the Reds.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Which goes back to my original question - has anyone seen the reasons why Mark Halsey agreed with it?

    • Gosh , Bob , you don't mind if I call you Bob.....do you , Bob? I reckon we ought to start a witch hunt against Luis Suarez and we ought to appoint you as head inquisitioner........since no forward has ever before embellished a contact by an opposing player ever before in the history of the world. You could try him , find him guilty , and execute him......would that be enough for you.....Bob?

      Please select some other of your 1001 pet peeves against Liverpool FC , and in your own Bob-like slimy underhanded way attempt to discredit our club.

      You are a stuck record....mate. Now quick , scurry around like the little rat you are...find some other thing to take a cowardly dig at LFC. Its what you do.....isn't it....Bob?

    • My view is that a penalty should have been given if there was sufficient contact to bring Suarez down. If there was no contact or very minimal contact then Suarez was play-acting, both in going down and rolling around.

      I'm not asserting that he was play-acting. I'm just saying I can't see the contact. If his leg was indeed hurt then he wasn't play-acting and the penalty was correct. Shins are extremely sensitive.

      Yes, fouls can be made without contact. I don't think this is an example of one. (There was one in the Chelsea game last night when Zigic almost took Cahill's leg off, Cahill managed to hurdle out of the way and Zigic got off with a yellow card.)


    • Hi Robert

      Totally agree - Suarez rolling around on the floor like he'd been shot was clearly wrong (but no more so than a whole host of professionals that seem more acceptable to the footballing media).

      That said - your comment that "If there was indeed contact sufficient to hurt his shin then I will change my mind and think the penalty was correct" is interesting. What difference does that make? It shouldn't matter whether he hurt his shin or not - as you said yourself in an earlier post, it can be a foul even if there is no contact.

      Maybe the sentiment behind that comment is why so many professionals act as if they have been shot - they think it's the only way to convince us and the ref that a foul has been committed.

    • I don't know, but the slight touch that Shearer saw and I can't see has Suarez writhing about in agony on the ground clutching the top of his shin.

      If there was indeed contact sufficient to hurt his shin then I will change my mind and think the penalty was correct. But from all the angles I still can't see it. Halsey certainly couldn't have seen it - he could only have inferred it.


    • Hi Robert

      Thanks for the reply. I was interested in this case as I wondered if the "slight touch" that Shearer commented on was what caused Mark Halsey to agree or whether he was taking the line that it doesn't matter whether there was contact or not.

      Can anyone else help?

    • I've seen it but not heard it as my machines here have no sound.

      However, all these rent-a-quote referees always say the referee made the right decision. There was a similar defence of Chris Foy/Hoy after the infamous QPR v Chelsea match earlier in the season. I paraphrase slightly:
      - Bosingwa v SWP. Yes, both players were tangling for the ball. You can see Bosingwa does touch SWP's shirt so the referee is right in sending him off.
      - Luiz penalty. yes, Luiz is following the QPR striker away from goal. The striker deliberately stops, causing the collision and Luiz has no alternative but to run into his back so the striker dives to the ground. The referee is right in awarding a penalty.
      - Drogba red card. Drogba goes in two footed. Red card.
      - four second half incidents in QPR penalty area. Yes, we can see that the QPR defenders have their arms wrapped around the Chelsea attackers, preventing them getting the ball from freekicks and corners, wrestling them to the ground. Well, you always expect a bit of argy bargy in the penalty area. The referee was right to ignore it all.

      So the referee got everything right as we always do. We are perfect and grossly misunderstood.

      Hope this helps.


    • Hi All

      I'm out of the country at the moment so can't view the link to this (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/06032012/58/whistle-blower.html) but it seems like Mark Halsey agrees that the ref was right to give a pen against Arsenal.

      Has anyone seen it? If so, what was the reasoning behind it?

    • Liverpool FC set to sign unknown Dutch player

      Robin Nan's Persie

    • You would think that with all the troubles at chelsea , he would spend more time debating that on the chelsea board , than making post after post over here though.
      But each to their own.

    • View More Messages