ECHO Comment: "Fears of Witch-hunt Against Liverpool FC"

[davek]

Im referring to his postmatch comments immediately after the Sunderland match, in reference to Howard's red card. You can't say that it should be a penalty when the goalie brings down a striker bearing down on goal, but then say it shouldn't be a red card. Either it's a penalty and a red, or it's nothing.

No he didn't. he said it was the rules of the game to concede the pen and get the red.

Maybe you have him mixed up with your crying arse David Brent?

 

[roydo]

Im referring to his postmatch comments immediately after the Sunderland match, in reference to Howard's red card. You can't say that it should be a penalty when the goalie brings down a striker bearing down on goal, but then say it shouldn't be a red card. Either it's a penalty and a red, or it's nothing.

I think he was referring to the rule itself, not the decision yesterday. Which quite a few folks would probably agree with. Ive said for ages that its daft to automatically give a red and a penalty. But I might be wrong.

 

[toffeejack]

I think he was referring to the rule itself, not the decision yesterday. Which quite a few folks would probably agree with. Ive said for ages that its daft to automatically give a red and a penalty. But I might be wrong.

it is daft, didn't blatter raise this issue recently when talking about sin bins. I'm not sure who came up with it, but a red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity, yet giving them back the goalscoring opportunity is just moronic. Of course, the player is going to go down looking for a pen and a red in that situation, it's a game winner. If he's have just tucked the ball away they would have continued to get battered like they were and lost 3 or 4-1.

 

[lmurkder]

Im referring to his postmatch comments immediately after the Sunderland match, in reference to Howard's red card. You can't say that it should be a penalty when the goalie brings down a striker bearing down on goal, but then say it shouldn't be a red card. Either it's a penalty and a red, or it's nothing.

Say what?

 

[roydo]

it is daft, didn't blatter raise this issue recently when talking about sin bins. I'm not sure who came up with it, but a red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity, yet giving them back the goalscoring opportunity is just moronic. Of course, the player is going to go down looking for a pen and a red in that situation, it's a game winner. If he's have just tucked the ball away they would have continued to get battered like they were and lost 3 or 4-1.

I suppose the logic is that if a foul is outside the box, a free kick plus a red is about right. So the idea of the same offence being in the area, but carrying a different punishment, would not be liked by the powers that be. But then again, I still think its daft.

 

[Stoic Ape]

This thread has well and truly been derailed. Congrats red

 

[Brennan]

it is daft, didn't blatter raise this issue recently when talking about sin bins. I'm not sure who came up with it, but a red card for denying a goalscoring opportunity, yet giving them back the goalscoring opportunity is just moronic. Of course, the player is going to go down looking for a pen and a red in that situation, it's a game winner. If he's have just tucked the ball away they would have continued to get battered like they were and lost 3 or 4-1.

A foul inside the penalty area is a penalty. A last man foul is a red card. The rule is perfectly clear and fair. If it wasn't a sending off inside the box it would actually encourage players to wait until the person through on goal was in the penalty area before taking him down.

There's no other logical way of handling that kind of foul.

 

[toffee-fellaini]

Sin bin maybe?

 

[Pat's Van]

Sin bin maybe?

1 minute blindfold gets my vote

 

[Bungle]

LOL at Brenda's latest comments

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25526952

 

[Baines' left foot]

1 minute blindfold gets my vote

Oh my, that would be simply incredible to watch.

 

[Baines' left foot]

LOL at Brenda's latest comments

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25526952

Hahahahaha, f*cking hell.

 

[roydo]

LOL at Brenda's latest comments

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25526952

Every ****ing time! I am amazed I have never sent money to Namibia or somewhere.

 

[toffeejack]

A foul inside the penalty area is a penalty. A last man foul is a red card. The rule is perfectly clear and fair. If it wasn't a sending off inside the box it would actually encourage players to wait until the person through on goal was in the penalty area before taking him down.

There's no other logical way of handling that kind of foul.

They'd still have the goalscoring opportunity from the pen though. It's a red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity as opposed to being the last man. How can you get sent off for denying a goalscoring opportunity, when the opposition is given a penalty i.e. a goalscoring opportunity.

I mean it's different circumstances, for example, suarez punching the ball when it's clearly going to be a goal, But people do actually go around the keeper and still miss the target i.e, torres, so that's not actually a goal yet, just a goalscoring opportunity.

i don't believe it is fair tbh.

 

[big_daddy]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...6449457?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter