Liverpool Thread - 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
The perfect fumble said:
I'm shocked....

Click to expand...

Is that to go with the numerous non red cards that the rags have got away with and the numerous non penalties that the scousers got at Anfield?

Oh the shock.

Like i say, it happens far too often for it to be coincedence.

Didn't gundog get a yellow for taking a throw in not so long ago?

Get fucked pigmol.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Net spend this past season (England)

lfc owners are cheapskates! Their fans are so easy to manipulate they'd accept anything. FSG have them sewn up.

PosClubSpentIncomeBalance
1Chelsea FC€490.49m€56.53m€-433.96m
2Manchester United€243.28m€13.25m€-230.03m
3Newcastle United€181.95m€2.30m€-179.65m
4Nottingham Forest€181.95m€7.00m€-174.95m
5West Ham United€194.00m€21.55m€-172.45m
6Arsenal FC€181.06m€23.80m€-157.26m
7Tottenham Hotspur€172.90m€38.75m€-134.15m
8Wolverhampton Wanderers€177.11m€60.37m€-116.74m
9Southampton FC€100.65m€5.50m€-95.15m
10AFC Bournemouth€59.65m€0€-59.65m
11Liverpool FC€137.30m€80.70m€-56.60m
...


242Manchester City€150.50m€159.90€9.40m
Click to expand...
I call bullshit!! We all know Haaland was 500 million pounds!!
 
manimanc said:
Is that to go with the numerous non red cards that the rags have got away with and the numerous non penalties that the scousers got at Anfield?

Oh the shock.

Like i say, it happens far too often for it to be coincedence.

Didn't gundog get a yellow for taking a throw in not so long ago?

Get fucked pigmol.
Click to expand...
There should be a D on the end of PIGMOL.

Maybe that makes it a bit to obvious though.

Prioritize
In
Giving
Man utd
Or
Liverpool
Decisions.
 
ninjamonkey said:
So where's the retrospective ban then? If they're admitting it should have been a red, ban him. that's what would have happened pre var, absolutely no reason not to apply it here where they've admitted a var error other than its Liverpool.
Click to expand...

They can’t ban him retrospectively as it was dealt with ( incorrectly) on the field with a yellow card. That rule pre- dates VAR.

The only exception I can recall was Ben Thatcher. Not sure how they officially squared that up.
 
Stephen230 said:
They can’t ban him retrospectively as it was dealt with ( incorrectly) on the field with a yellow card. That rule pre- dates VAR.

The only exception I can recall was Ben Thatcher. Not sure how they officially squared that up.
Click to expand...
They always had that rule pre-var where if refs confirmed they saw it they couldn't take action but they always found ways of ignoring that rule when it suited them, was always nothing more than an excuse for not taking action.

That rule cannot still exist surely, any time the ref gives a yellow and var intervenes and tells them it's a red, (as they've now admitted they should have done for fabinho) it contradicts that rule.
 
ninjamonkey said:
They always had that rule pre-var where if refs confirmed they saw it they couldn't take action but they always found ways of ignoring that rule when it suited them, was always nothing more than an excuse for not taking action.

That rule cannot still exist surely, any time the ref gives a yellow and var intervenes and tells them it's a red, (as they've now admitted they should have done for fabinho) it contradicts that rule.
Click to expand...

There is a difference. However subtle. The referee always officially makes the final decision on the field. Even when VAR tells ( advises him ) he’s got something wrong. In theory a VAR could tell a referee to change an offside decision and he could say, no fuck off, I still think it was off and that decision would stand. Whether you’d ever see that referee again is a different matter.

But the point is, whether VAR has intervened or not, the decision on the field is the deciding factor. And the FA won’t intervene if an incident has been seen and ruled upon on the field. Under the current rules I can’t see how retrospective action can ever be taken in a game with VAR, as between the two of them they will always have seen and adjudicated on it.
 
Stephen230 said:
They can’t ban him retrospectively as it was dealt with ( incorrectly) on the field with a yellow card. That rule pre- dates VAR.

The only exception I can recall was Ben Thatcher. Not sure how they officially squared that up.
Click to expand...

They changed the rules, if you look deeply you’ll see a number of our incidents whereupon rules have been changed after media outrage.
 
cheekybids said:
They changed the rules, if you look deeply you’ll see a number of our incidents whereupon rules have been changed after media outrage.
Click to expand...

If you follow the PGMOL Twitter feed you’ll find there’s a pretty even split of 20 sets of fans, all convinced their whole purpose is to fuck their clubs up.
 
Stephen230 said:
If you follow the PGMOL Twitter feed you’ll find there’s a pretty even split of 20 sets of fans, all convinced their whole purpose is to fuck their clubs up.
Click to expand...

I don’t think that.

However, I believe that some clubs have influential lobbyists that can & have highlighted incidents from City players which have resulted in rule changes. Fact.

These lobbyists have also had rule changes made in competitions & charges laid against City to try & get them penalised. Fact.

Now apologies for coming over all Rafa but I don’t go on twatter but tell me how many of those 20 can claim that.
 
VAR in my opinion has two main objectives the first isit can be used as a tool to manipulate results and the other is to create controversy which creates content which in turn creates money. All in the name of protecting the brand.
Would love to know what our hierarchy think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top