Football 17/18

[jyoung]

33 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

"Cocaine sniffing yid"

You really reckon it was that tho?

[TheGayTent]

15 minutes ago, jyoung said:

You really reckon it was that tho?

Yes. 

[zahidf]

2 hours ago, jyoung said:

Been reading about the Livermore incident and strongly conflicting rumours as to what was said but judging from his behaviour, I think we can all imagine.

 

[TheGayTent]

Presumably he's looking at a long ban. 

[Hugh Jass]

6 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Presumably he's looking at a long ban. 

We'll plead extenuating circumstances, having not been within 10 feet of the incident I obviously don't know what was said, but the club are claiming his son was abused.

https://www.wba.co.uk/news/2018/january/club-statement-jake-livermore/

If true then Livermore would have been within his rights to knock the guy's teeth out.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

If true then Livermore would have been within his rights to knock the guy's teeth out.

lol - I know what you mean, but it's never that as far as the game goes.

It looks like it's something lesser than Cantona and Evra, but i can't see it being a short ban.

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

lol - I know what you mean, but it's never that as far as the game goes.

It looks like it's something lesser than Cantona and Evra, but i can't see it being a short ban.

It never fails to sadden me the mentality of fans who think that because they're part of a crowd they can get away with abuse they'd never dare to give one on one. I've been in crowds at Albion and England matches and heard some unforgivable stuff.

Conversely it never fails to amuse when fans start whinging when a player gives a little back (cupped ears, the V's, etc) despite screaming w*nker at him for 90 minutes. 

[TheGayTent]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It never fails to sadden me the mentality of fans who think that because they're part of a crowd they can get away with abuse they'd never dare to give one on one. I've been in crowds at Albion and England matches and heard some unforgivable stuff.

Conversely it never fails to amuse when fans start whinging when a player gives a little back (cupped ears, the V's, etc) despite screaming w*nker at him for 90 minutes. 

Totally agree. 

[zahidf]

14 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

We'll plead extenuating circumstances, having not been within 10 feet of the incident I obviously don't know what was said, but the club are claiming his son was abused.

https://www.wba.co.uk/news/2018/january/club-statement-jake-livermore/

If true then Livermore would have been within his rights to knock the guy's teeth out.

Lets see but it would be massively unfair for him to get a long ban, esp as he didnt hit anyone

[TheGayTent]

Just now, zahidf said:

Lets see but it would be massively unfair for him to get a long ban, esp as he didnt hit anyone

Stick to the GD thread can't you 

[jyoung]

The lad should receive backing from the FA, not a ban. Ridiculous.

[TheGayTent]

The football club and the authorities should investigate the incident. That's as much as anyone can say right now I would think. 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

The football club and the authorities should investigate the incident. That's as much as anyone can say right now I would think. 

Yup.

But whatever the circumstances and no matter how far he went (or didn't) with the fan, I can't see how the FA can take the view that it's OK under certain circumstances to go into the crowd to confront a fan. If nothing else, it opens a can of worms going forwards.

So I reckon it's a ban, and something more significant than a 3-gamer.

But if it was something about his dead child, there's not many who are going to hold it against him beyond the ban. I doubt it would put his england place in the future (if he has one) at risk, for example.

[CRW5252]

Surprised Hazards shin is still intact... Impressive dive, very convincing. Will be interesting if there is any retrospective action.  

[Hugh Jass]

I had 2-3 on the Bet365 offer. Morata fluffing that last minute one on one screwed me for £550.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Hugh Jass

[thetime]

8 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

Surprised Hazards shin is still intact... Impressive dive, very convincing. Will be interesting if there is any retrospective action.  

He didn’t dive did he? The tackle made contact with his foot, the tackle made contact with him so no dive.

[CRW5252]

3 hours ago, thetime said:

He didn’t dive did he? The tackle made contact with his foot, the tackle made contact with him so no dive.

His fall was completely unnatural and hugely exaggerated. Bellerin tapped him on the boot and he rolled around holding his shin. To suggest that any contact excuses it being a dive is ridiculous. 

[jyoung]

14 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

Will be interesting if there is any retrospective action.  

Well no, because he didn't simulate a foul, he was fouled.

[The Nal]

Wilshere did an old "leave the leg in" dive, could've been sent off and then scored so evened it up for me.

 

[thetime]

2 hours ago, CRW5252 said:

His fall was completely unnatural and hugely exaggerated. Bellerin tapped him on the boot and he rolled around holding his shin. To suggest that any contact excuses it being a dive is ridiculous. 

Does not matter how he fell, he was touched which mean it wasn’t a dive.

just saying how the FA will see it.

[Lad]

1 minute ago, thetime said:

Does not matter how he fell, he was touched which mean it wasn’t a dive.

just saying how the FA will see it.

Because he was touched doesn't mean it wasn't a dive.I'm talking in a general sense.If someone brushes against you and you jump 2ft into the air it's simulation at the least.

[thetime]

16 minutes ago, Lad said:

Because he was touched doesn't mean it wasn't a dive.I'm talking in a general sense.If someone brushes against you and you jump 2ft into the air it's simulation at the least.

The FA don’t think that way, guarantee he won’t be banned by the FA because of that slight touch.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, thetime said:

The FA don’t think that way, guarantee he won’t be banned by the FA because of that slight touch.

wasn't there a touch on Niasse? I thought there was.

[lost]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

wasn't there a touch on Niasse? I thought there was.

Yes they did him for exaggerating the contact. As Unsworth said at the time it was a dangerous precedent as it opened it upto the opinion that he wasn't hit hard enough rather than fact that he wasn't touched.

Edited January 4, 2018 by lost

[CRW5252]

2 hours ago, lost said:

Yes they did him for exaggerating the contact. As Unsworth said at the time it was a dangerous precedent as it opened it upto the opinion that he wasn't hit hard enough rather than fact that he wasn't touched.

Most dives are done by exaggerating the contact. Retrospective action only for dives that have no contact would have little effect on the player's mentalities in my opinion.

Most important thing is that they are consistent with whatever bans they do impose though. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by CRW5252