Liverpool Thread 2014/15

[blue cigar]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Sends out a dangerous signal if sterling gets away with that,how can you slap a player whilst reaching behind the referee and no action be taken?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Jonjo Shelvey has just been charged for his elbow in the game, yet no news as of yet about Sterling. You'd think they'd be announced at the same time?

Strange....

 

[aguero93:20]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Jonjo Shelvey has just been charged for his elbow in the game, yet no news as of yet about Sterling. You'd think they'd be announced at the same time?

I think if they're going to charge him it has to be done before 3 tomorrow, to give the dippers time to appeal before the next game, so it looks like he's gotten away with it.

 

[Bozzie]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Jonjo Shelvey has just been charged for his elbow in the game, yet no news as of yet about Sterling. You'd think they'd be announced at the same time?

Strange....

Daily Telegraph reporting that 'Young Raheem' will face no action because the incident was seen by the officials who chose to take no action. If that is the case it is scandalous and demonstrates how warped the whole FA disciplinary policy is.
Now has got to be the time when retrospective action is consigned to the dustbin with the exception of 'extraordinary circumstances' (we all know what they are). No after the incident bans, no red card appeals. Just take what the referee gives and get on with it as you have to do with every other decision the officials get wrong. It's not a perfect solution but at least everyone knows where they stand before, during and after the game.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Retrospective action is fine. The bit that is open to abuse is the question of whether the referee saw it or not. On the pitch everyone can see appalling decisions and, indeed, referees can be demoted on the strength of a mistake. However, no-one can argue if a referee says that he saw the incident but decided not to punish the offender and I've never seen a referee demoted for not seeing something as obvious as the Sterling incident. The least I'd expect would be a mandatory eye test.

 

[mosssideblue]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Retrospective action is fine. The bit that is open to abuse is the question of whether the referee saw it or not. On the pitch everyone can see appalling decisions and, indeed, referees can be demoted on the strength of a mistake. However, no-one can argue if a referee says that he saw the incident but decided not to punish the offender and I've never seen a referee demoted for not seeing something as obvious as the Sterling incident. The least I'd expect would be a mandatory eye test.

What about the lino, he must have had to swerve out of the way of it. Disgraceful conclusion from the FA

 

[Bozzie]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

Retrospective action is fine. The bit that is open to abuse is the question of whether the referee saw it or not. On the pitch everyone can see appalling decisions and, indeed, referees can be demoted on the strength of a mistake. However, no-one can argue if a referee says that he saw the incident but decided not to punish the offender and I've never seen a referee demoted for not seeing something as obvious as the Sterling incident. The least I'd expect would be a mandatory eye test.

Isn't the big problem with retrospective action that it's application is so selective and so haphazard. The number of variables that come into play just to decide whether someone will face action or not mean that most actions have little or no credibility and definitely no consistency. Whenever they do take action the first thing you hear is "well so and so did exactly the same thing last week and nothing was done" or the reverse of that. The vast majority of them also seem to be for incidents like Sterling's, yeah technically he raised his hands so should have been sent off but actually it was powder puff stuff not worth wasting time on. So just accept the decision, or non decision, of the referee and move on.

 

[mad4city]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

The big problem with retrospective action is that Sky seem to be deciding which deeds are to be retrospectively acted upon.
We had similar in the last Chelsea game with the issue of the yellow card. How many times have they glossed over dives and fouls when it suited them? Remember them trying to get Tevez to bring the game into disrepute after he was much more clearly, unfairly booked for diving v Norwich, in 2012?
As somebody said earlier, if Sterling's team-mate, Balotelli had gotten away with the same action, he'd be vilified by Sky. Nobody is under any illusions either, surely, that Sterling's being as close as England have to a rising star was a major factor in both the officials and, subsequently the media, ignoring the misdemeanour.
I could bleat on but I suppose I'm only preaching to the converted. Sterling has a case to answer. The fact that he's not answering is an indictment of the FA and the fact that it has been glossed over is an indictment of the media, particularly the station that covered the game live.

 

[Blue Mist]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

The big problem with retrospective action is that Sky seem to be deciding which deeds are to be retrospectively acted upon.
We had similar in the last Chelsea game with the issue of the yellow card. How many times have they glossed over dives and fouls when it suited them? Remember them trying to get Tevez to bring the game into disrepute after he was much more clearly, unfairly booked for diving v Norwich, in 2012?
As somebody said earlier, if Sterling's team-mate, Balotelli had gotten away with the same action, he'd be vilified by Sky. Nobody is under any illusions either, surely, that Sterling's being as close as England have to a rising star was a major factor in both the officials and, subsequently the media, ignoring the misdemeanour.
I could bleat on but I suppose I'm only preaching to the converted. Sterling has a case to answer. The fact that he's not answering is an indictment of the FA and the fact that it has been glossed over is an indictment of the media, particularly the station that covered the game live.

It was me.......
Sterling: English Starlet, plays in a so called 'Top Four' team.
Wooney: England Captain, pays in another so called 'Top Four' team.
(In fact any Rag)
Skirtel: Not English but darling of a so called Top Four team.

none of the above will never be singled out by $ky for continuous loops of fouls missed by the referee.

Ballotelli: Italian (When at City) not in a so called 'Top four' team. 15 minute loop for alleged stamp on a spuds player which was clearly seen by the referee..... until he was told by the PL that he hadn't seen it.

You cannot decide who to retrospectively punish based on what $ky show.

 

[superseiyan]

Re: The Red Lion Pub Team (Liverpool) Thread 2014/15

From a purely selfish reason Sterling needs a retroactive ban because Rodgers is not going to rest him otherwise.

Despite Rodgers assurances of "managing the boy's career", "protecting him", and having "learned from Michael Owen", he's played more minutes this season than any EPL outfield player.

A ban is the only way the kid'll get a rest.