Football

[Donny Dave]

I hope Hooper moves as well, preferably for over £10m ....

 

[306024]

Apparently if you offer Luis Suarez a last minute equaliser, he'll bite your arm off for it!

Shame John Terry didn't come on as sub to prevent the equaliser. Now there's two players that deserve each other.

If Liverpool do off load Suarez he could always take up a career in advertising - promoting Bite Cards.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Probably, however I am more thinking that some club down at the bottom end of the table would probably be happy to take a punt on him in exchange for their Premiership survival. The potential reward is just too great to ignore for most clubs.

Today, we find...

1)....Liverpool say that have fined Suarez (figure not disclosed) and want to help him through his problems and say that they will not be selling him, reiterating that Suarez signed a four-year contract recently.

2)....The Profssional Footballers Association state they want to help Suarez and an anger management course was mentioned

3)....The Police say no action against Suarez is envisaged.

4)....No news at the present from the Football Association in regard to the matter, even though the referee claims that he did not see the incident.

 

[Eagle]

I'd rather we(QPR) we're relegated today then whem i'm there saturday :cry:

I'd also rather Van Persie United didn't win the title at the Emirates next week. :P

 

[Ivo]

Would there be any difference between this - common assault or whatever the technical term might be - and a deliberately dangerous tackle? Only one has the potential to end another player's career (leaving aside the danger of rabies or the like!). I am in no way trying to defend Suarez's behaviour, but what is there in it to justify the "outrage" that there isn't in other vicious foul play?

There's a difference between dangerous play and biting. The latter is childish and completely unrelated to the sport, both of which are not (usually) true when it comes to dangerous play.

A tackle like that of Calum McManaman was hazardous - but it's considered something that will happen in football occasionally. Whereas taking a chomp on another player's skin is frankly the sort of thing we would expect a 2-year-old to do.

I hope Hooper moves as well, preferably for over £10m ....

I've said this before, but how is he good enough for Celtic and not Southend?

...oh, right

 

[CC 72100]

Suarez has been charged with violent conduct by the FA, a charge which normally carries a 3 match ban. The FA have admitted, however, that a ban is likely to be longer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22250458

 

[Oswyntail]

There's a difference between dangerous play and biting. The latter is childish and completely unrelated to the sport, both of which are not (usually) true when it comes to dangerous play.

A tackle like that of Calum McManaman was hazardous - but it's considered something that will happen in football occasionally. Whereas taking a chomp on another player's skin is frankly the sort of thing we would expect a 2-year-old to do.....

I can see what you're saying, but I am still puzzled by the "outrage". I did put "deliberately", which perhaps introduces a grey area (as shown by Macmanaman, but not by Keane). What was the reaction at the time to Defoe's bit of naughtiness (I honestly could not recall it)? So let me pose it slightly differently - what is the difference between Suarez's bite and a player thumping someone on the side of the temple (potentially life-threatening)? Both are purely childish, instinctive reactions to frustration (if not, neither perpetrator is really fit to take part in adult life). So why do we call for long bans for one, but often excuse the other?

 

[SS4]

I can see what you're saying, but I am still puzzled by the "outrage". I did put "deliberately", which perhaps introduces a grey area (as shown by Macmanaman, but not by Keane). What was the reaction at the time to Defoe's bit of naughtiness (I honestly could not recall it)? So let me pose it slightly differently - what is the difference between Suarez's bite and a player thumping someone on the side of the temple (potentially life-threatening)? Both are purely childish, instinctive reactions to frustration (if not, neither perpetrator is really fit to take part in adult life). So why do we call for long bans for one, but often excuse the other?

I have little doubt that in this case it's because it's Suarez. For some reason the pundits have always had it in for him and he seems to come in for more stick than other players.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I have little doubt that in this case it's because it's Suarez. For some reason the pundits have always had it in for him and he seems to come in for more stick than other players.

You may very well think that, I coudn't possibly comment.....

What is the Spanish translation of "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me"...:roll:

 

[Oswyntail]

I have little doubt that in this case it's because it's Suarez. For some reason the pundits have always had it in for him and he seems to come in for more stick than other players.

In other words, you have no real idea either

 

[Liam]

Suarez is a disgrace (and the FA should throw the book at him) Racist and part time cannibal indeed...shocking

Do you think the same about Jermain Defoe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXBSvngRR0

 

[hairyhandedfool]

My memory may be failing me but I think they can. I remember reading somewhere that the FA appear to be taking the stance that if a referee has taken action with regard to an incident then they cannot do any more, but if the referee has not seen an incident then retrospective punishment can be given.

I could be wrong though......

I recall that Roy Keane was given a ban after his book was released. In the book he apparently (I haven't read it nor do I wish to) admitted deliberately injuring Alf Inge Haaland in 2001 (three years after Haaland had accused him of faking an injury after a tackle). He had already served a three match ban and had a fine for the tackle. As I recall Manchester United and Roy Keane did not appeal on the basis that the extra punishment (a five game ban and another fine) was much less than they expected and didn't want to risk it being increased.

I'd also rather Van Persie United didn't win the title at the Emirates next week. :P

They won't get a point at the Emirates..........(if my dream comes true)......

 

[Liam]

As I recall Manchester United and Roy Keane did not appeal on the basis that the extra punishment (a five game ban and another fine) was much less than they expected and didn't want to risk it being increased.

Didn't he also have an operation, or spend part of the ban recuperating from an op?

 

[richw]

Today, we find...

1)....Liverpool say that have fined Suarez (figure not disclosed) and want to help him through his problems and say that they will not be selling him, reiterating that Suarez signed a four-year contract recently.

2)....The Profssional Footballers Association state they want to help Suarez and an anger management course was mentioned

3)....The Police say no action against Suarez is envisaged.

4)....No news at the present from the Football Association in regard to the matter, even though the referee claims that he did not see the incident.

1) They will also be donating the fine to Hillsborough Families.

2) I would say Nursery school lessons would be more appropriate.

3) Because the Chelsea player refused to press charges or provide them a statement.

4) They've now charged him for violent conduct.

 

[CC 72100]

I have little doubt that in this case it's because it's Suarez. For some reason the pundits have always had it in for him and he seems to come in for more stick than other players.

Because the things that he does is worse than other players. A fair few dive and get stick for it, we know that, a fair few don't shy away from scraps and get stick for it, we know that, but then Suarez goes quite a bit further and has tried to bite an opponent. Twice. The reason why the pundits seem to have always had it in for him is because he's done a hell of a lot in not much time, ranging for his bad rep to diving, to the Evra thing, and now to this.

 

[balne-wonderer]

90 seconds in. offside goal. sums this season up.

no penalties against, no players sent off and another blatantly offside goal. feel for Villa. poor officiating.

 

[SS4]

90 seconds in. offside goal. sums this season up.

no penalties against, no players sent off and another blatantly offside goal. feel for Villa. poor officiating.

Quelle surprise. I was telling my mate at work that we'd lose, even if the ref had to arrange circumstances

 

[balne-wonderer]

Quelle surprise. I was telling my mate at work that we'd lose, even if the ref had to arrange circumstances

the question is though why does it keep happening? 2nd game in a row theyve been clearly offside yet the goal has stood. plus the sending off and penalty stats. its incredible.

 

[SS4]

the question is though why does it keep happening? 2nd game in a row theyve been clearly offside yet the goal has stood. plus the sending off and penalty stats. its incredible.

Couldn't tell you to be honest. I doubt it's a conspiracy the club are involved in if one at all. Perhaps refs are afraid of the home crowd?

 

[balne-wonderer]

Couldn't tell you to be honest. I doubt it's a conspiracy the club are involved in if one at all. Perhaps refs are afraid of the home crowd?

big chance there for Benteke.

oh its 2 0.offside again! wow

 

[JoeH]

the question is though why does it keep happening? 2nd game in a row theyve been clearly offside yet the goal has stood. plus the sending off and penalty stats. its incredible.

Why are you using the West Ham game as an example of United getting decisions when you acknowledged that Carroll should have been sent off, and that United would have been better off playing against 10 men for the entire second half rather than getting a late offside goal?

 

[SS4]

big chance there for Benteke.

oh its 2 0.offside again! wow

Not surprised. Manchester United can win the title tonight iirc so damn the laws of the game!

 

[balne-wonderer]

Why are you using the West Ham game as an example of United getting decisions when you acknowledged that Carroll should have been sent off, and that United would have been better off playing against 10 men for the entire second half rather than getting a late offside goal?

on review it may have been a genuine attempt to win the ball. the Sky guys certainly thought so. plus lets not forget in the game before agaist Stoke the Vidic 'slip'

 

[GWRtom]

Oh Dear villa

 

[balne-wonderer]

Not surprised. Manchester United can win the title tonight iirc so damn the laws of the game!

yep they can. how hasn't Giggs been booked there? that is truly crazy.

 

[SS4]

Oh Dear villa

Come on, we're a club near the bottom facing the thirteen men of Manchester United.

yep they can. how hasn't Giggs been booked there? that is truly crazy.

I take it that's a rhetorical question
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've just tuned in on BBC WM and there isn't much background noise in the so-called theatre of dreams. Have the real fans been priced out?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Shock horror. Evra booked, fetch the smelling salts!

 

[JoeH]

Anyway, the third pass before a goal being made by a player about 2cm offside doesn't make for a 'blatant' offside goal, at least not if you need video replays to determine it.

In real time both appeared to be in line, so the benefit of the doubt should go with the attacking team.

Decisions go for and against every team. If not for Manchester City being awarded an offside goal in the recent derby match United might already have secured the title and would have no need for goals today.

Even if you for some reason don't think Carroll should have been sent off, was he not at least deserving of a yellow card? Since he was subsequently booked he would have been sent off anyway.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Didn't he also have an operation, or spend part of the ban recuperating from an op?

I think you are correct.

 

[SS4]

We're ****ed. Let's put 11 men behind the ball and keep the goal difference down

 

[familyguy99]

If Man Utd keep going like this it could end up like 5/6-0 but wow what a goal for Van Persie for his second goal of night.