• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Stoke

Status
Not open for further replies.
You could argue its dangerous play

Jonjo never went in to hurt the player, yet he did after winning the ball

Accidental, yet punished

If the ref judges it to have been a two-footed tackle, under the rules it's automatically classed as dangerous play and a red card offence. I think the reasoning behind it is that a player who tackles like that clearly doesn't give a stuff whether or not he causes an injury. The question whether it really WAS a two-footed tackle is another matter, as unfortunately we saw in that incident.
 
When a thug looks down to see where his opponent is and then stamps on him I think thats a foul and a red card and Mason is an absolute cunt for saying he saw nothing wrong with it.

If right were right he would be made to review it so a red card could be given retrospectively.

Incidentally are these rules about refs seeing something or not and then using that for retrospective decisions, just a FA thing or is it FIFA?
 
No need to get him to review it. Something so blatant should be punishable without the need for a reference back to the original ref.

Don't know whether this is a FIFA thing or not. My guess would be not.
 
No need to get him to review it. Something so blatant should be punishable without the need for a reference back to the original ref.

Don't know whether this is a FIFA thing or not. My guess would be not.

But isnt that the problem with the rules JJ? Because the ref said he saw the incident the FA wont review it.

In the RVP case Webb said he didnt see it so they asked him to review the video.

I can possibly understand a ref seeing something but thinking theres no problem with it. But once he puts that in his report there can be no further action, even if he thinks on seeing the video that he made a mistake.

Its a crazy rule
 
I see what you're saying, but basically its means that if a referee sees a situation and makes a decision on it, hes right. Even if hes wrong.

As you say. Horseshit!
 
I don't have a problem really with Stoke. I don't enjoy the way they play, and it is quite heavy handed at times, but there are different ways to play games and not everyone is Xavi and Iniesta. It's a physical, contact sport and that's just as much a part of the game as passing in triangles and possession stats. Rugby tackles and stamps on the chest excluded.
 
I think everyone on here had a problem with Bolton, but as Fark says, no one was going to jump to the defence of Arsenal, they were the biggest bunch of winging pansies about at the time. "Oh we play the best football around, the only true football in the premier league" God I remember that shit that they and every commentator used to spill. As for Stoke, I don't mind them having their style, I don't like it, but kudos for finding a way to be successful. What I do mind is all the disgusting challenges against children, sure be rough and commit some fouls, but the way they were hacking Suso and Sterling down was disgusting, how someone wasn't sent of that game I don't know.
 
I don't recall an outpouring of sympathy from LFC fans when Arsenal used to say this about Bolton every year. Maybe my memory is fading.

Why in the name of God would anyone here be expressing sympathy for Arsenal?

I think its fair to say that most of us didnt like Bolton or the way they played.

Fucking bingo my arse
 
I don't give a flying fuck if Stoke want to play like that.

It's our job to nullify that as much as possible.

However, in order to do that you need the referee to uphold the rules of the game.

He didn't, that's my problem with it.
I also think pulis is a hypocritical fucker, but he did the best for his side & Huth by deflecting the attention to suarez.

Rodgers should also have made more of an attempt to attack their play & the facts that cards should have been dished out much earlier in the game to prevent it escalating, coming out after the game saying that would've helped some.
 
And admits most Liverpool fans are hypocrites in the process. A good day for Gerry.

I don't think you're using hypocrite in the correct fashion here sir ... We could care less what Arsenal fans were moaning about (be it with Bolton and/or Stoke) but we didn't say it didn't happen. We just didn't actively complain about it because it wasn't directly affecting our team (based on our style etc). Now that we play a similar style to Arsenal, and we're midgets like them, we complain because it directly affects us. That's no hypocrisy.

Also, to play off that you (& a few others) are 'morally superior' fan is a bit ridiculous. That belongs to Rael etc, not you.
 
It's not really being hypocritical. There's lots of things that happen to people I don't give a shit about, so I don't feel to comment on them, but when I do care, it's not hypocritical to then comment.
 
Yup. Hypocrite is completely wrong.

Just because no one commented at the time doesn't make them hypocrites. If they revelled in the arse getting booted then yes, hypocrites

I hated arsenal but I hated big Sam more
 
I actually don't really mind Stoke that much. Perhaps because I'm less engaged with football these days.

Fat Sam, Kevin Davies elbows and the rest of Bolton were horrible though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom