Sport Liverpool Football Club

[Gabe]

Carra's tackle was awful - late, reckless and needless too. Rafael's wasn't as bad (ignoring that it didn't connect). And yet Carra's probably was without malice, Rafael's wasn't. To be fair to Rafael though, the thigh-high kick he got just before it wasn't too pretty either.

Still, we beat the Mancs so who cares?

[Liamness]

bugger, I forgot. will it be on iPlayer?

MOTD2 can be viewed again on iPlayer from wednesday I believe? Or you could torrent it, whatever.

[SMD]

[Chewylegs]

superb win, only watched it an hour ago on repeat while sitting drinking jugs of beer in a british pub in canada. Unfortunately i knew we won, but thought it would be a 1-0 bore. Nice surprise!! Oh and Nani, lol!

[Guest]

Well at least the lad Suarez has some passion. His work rate yesterday was excellent. Torres had lost the love and his passion at Liverpool and it almost looks like that's carried over to Chelsea.

The result was excellent, the performance was perhaps more important. We'd been in a bit of a slump and we blasted out of it in style.

Let's hope that can continue against teams that are not Man Utd; the intensity, passion!

It's going to be quite the season when such an ordinary Man Utd team most likely win the title. It seems that they're going to grab it by default, often grounding out results...and, yes surely aided by referees. It's about time they got a bit if payback.

Does anyone know if Raphael apologised for his flying knee high kick on Lucas...or was it only Carragher that showed such class?

Final note; cam carroll get in the team now?!

[Graham S]

[Guest]

It's always terrible when referees make decisions that change or settle games. If only we had strong referees...

Who's the ref here...?!

Hmm seems strange that such a strong ref would side with Man Utd, it's not like he now has a history of being kind to them or their players

And lest we forget..

Stay Classy

[rjpageuk]

Nani being known for diving means you can excuse an initial reaction of expecting his flailing about to be diving/over-reaction but as soon as you can see the injury it is obvious it is not being faked. Just because he has dived in the past doesnt excuse the challenge Carragher made in any way, or mean Nani is any less entitled to sympathy. Hopefully he will not be out too long - Carragher really should see retrospective punishment for his challenge which was completely ridiculous and dangerous in the extreme.

Hopefully we can use this result to get some momentum going but this season has always been about our away form - we have had plenty of good results at home and this is just another of them. If we can get a win next week away to Sunderland it would be a good start.

[bradigor]

Nani being known for diving means you can excuse an initial reaction of expecting his flailing about to be diving/over-reaction but as soon as you can see the injury it is obvious it is not being faked. Just because he has dived in the past doesnt excuse the challenge Carragher made in any way, or mean Nani is any less entitled to sympathy. Hopefully he will not be out too long - Carragher really should see retrospective punishment for his challenge which was completely ridiculous and dangerous in the extreme.

Hopefully we can use this result to get some momentum going but this season has always been about our away form - we have had plenty of good results at home and this is just another of them. If we can get a win next week away to Sunderland it would be a good start.

As much as I think Carra should have gone for that challenge, they cannot change the rules for a past action. What that can do though, is look at the rule and change it for all future actions.

[bowser123]

As much as I think Carra should have gone for that challenge, they cannot change the rules for a past action. What that can do though, is look at the rule and change it for all future actions.

Funnily enough they already have the rules and power to act on Carragher, or Rooney, or anybody if they wanted. You sound like what I was saying (wrongly) the other day that the FA can only act if the ref admits a mistake or doesn't see it at all.

I read this, wrote by Martin Samuel, late last week:

For the last time: FIFA disciplinary code, article 77, specific jurisdiction.

'The Disciplinary Committee is responsible for: a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials' attention; b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee's disciplinary decisions; c) extending the duration of a match suspension incurred automatically by an expulsion; d) pronouncing additional sanctions, such as a fine.'

So why does everyone perpetuate the lie that the FA can only act on a disciplinary matter if the referee admits he was unsighted, or wrong. To rectify an obvious error does not require the compliance of officials, just a proper sense of priority and leadership.

Read more

"To rectify an obvious error does not require the compliance of officials, just a proper sense of priority and leadership." sums it up pretty damn perfectly. I understand why the FA haven't acted as it may lead to a situation where every week there's a million appeals lodged and counter appealed over tiny things. It's obvious why they don't want to re-officiate every match. Infact one of the few times they have reversed a refs decision it was down to the ref admitting a mistake and saying he would have issued a red had he seen it (Thatcher smashing up Mendes the other year).

FIFA came out earlier in the week and said the FA could have punished Rooney had they wanted to.

It's like you say though, how can they start enforcing now (plus deciding just what is serious enough to re-officiate) and not be accused of bias? It'd have to be made abundantly clear these where the rules at the start of next season and go from there.

[bradigor]

Couldn't agree more bowser. Especially with the later bit. Imagine the uproar if they acted on Carragher but not Rooney, or acted on Rooney but not Carragher.

[Guest]

We already knew they could come out and do what they wanted; see Thatcher case. The thing is that they were a bit sly and decided not to.

To be honest Carragher SHOULD get retrospective punishment - except now he won't because they've made a rod for their own backs.

[bowser123]

Na, the difference with the Thatcher case was the ref came out and admitted he made a mistake and would have issued a red had he seen it properly.

What that quote of the rules, Martin Samuel and FIFA are saying is that in exceptional circumstances the FA can ignore the ref and ban Rooney if they wanted. The Rooney ref said he was right in not sending off, which is the basis for the FA not acting in that case. With the FA's reluctance to do anything where it has been seen or the ref says he was right I guess that's where the theory came from that if the ref saw it nothing could be done. I have no idea why the ref only gave a yellow yesterday and if he's been asked why.

Quite what "exceptional" means is anybodys guess. Where does is start and stop? Do you go back and ban Luis because he should have had a second yellow against Utd? He was cynical but was that dangerous and thus not exceptional? I'd say Rafael and Maxi both could quite easily of been sent off yesterday, do we go back and do both of them?

Does Neville get banned after he wasn't sent off against Stoke? But his first tackle shouldn't have been a yellow... etc, etc, etc.

[Ryan]

Carragher really should see retrospective punishment for his challenge which was completely ridiculous and dangerous in the extreme.

As should Nani for the dives? and Rooney for what he did a week ago?

[Guest]

I think if it's serious foul and dangerous play to be honest.

Luiz/Neville were yellows; not leg breakers like Carragher's or intent like the knee high lunge Raphael decided to aim at Lucas.

Sure let's say "Ref dealt with it at the time"; then how does it help stamp such challenges out of the game? It doesn't, and moreover a pissed off player might take a risk and hope he gets away with it.

[Dandy_Sephy]

MOTD Highlights:

http://dai.ly/gmWXQC

[bowser123]

I think if it's serious foul and dangerous play to be honest.

Luiz/Neville were yellows; not leg breakers like Carragher's or intent like the knee high lunge Raphael decided to aim at Lucas.

Sure let's say "Ref dealt with it at the time"; then how does it help stamp such challenges out of the game? It doesn't, and moreover a pissed off player might take a risk and hope he gets away with it.

And Maxi on Rafael? That's your grey area. It's high, intentional and if you can class a push that DJ Campbell got sent off for as violent conduct then I'd say that challenge is violent conduct. Football is weird though. Raise your hands, even if it's only a push, and that's a straight red. I'd say you run a much bigger risk and potential for serious injury with your feet than a push yet there doesn't seem to be the same kind of stigma around that.

But Maxi didn't really use great force and was never going to injure anybody. It was more an act of crass stupidity than real malice. Then again there was enough contact to leave a mark on Rafaels thigh.

I don't think damage done, or potential damage done, should be taken into account unless you're increasing a ban. It's either violent or not, and thus should all be treated the same.

You then have the idea that Rafael wouldn't have made that lunge on Lucas had he rightly been awarded a free kick, should that be taken into account? I think he lost his head and acted on the spur of the moment, diving in which was reckless- I think Carragher doesn't have that (admittedly limp) defense. Clumsiness may explain the height of the challenge as the ball is bouncing, but why is he using that much force?

[bradigor]

I would be shocked of there was no intent from Carragher.

[Guest]

You then have the idea that Rafael wouldn't have made that lunge on Lucas had he rightly been awarded a free kick, should that be taken into account?

No of course not. If someone "get's a bit wound up" for whatever reason; when they fly into try and smash someone else then that's all you need to know. The attempted smashing. Not why they did it. Perhaps they're dog died or someone called them a bad name. Shall we get Zidane back onto the pitch after what Materazzi said to him? No.

[bowser123]

Oh I agree with you, Rafaels tackle was reckless and endangered the safety of Lucas. Like you say why he did it is irrelevant, it's a red, though it wouldn't have happened if the ref had acted correctly previously.

What I was trying to say though was a little different though. You basically said that if it injures, or has the potential to injure, then it's serious enough to be retrospectively acted upon.

What I'm on about is the grey area of what should and shouldn't be acted upon, as basically that's the whole reason why the FA seem to pretend that the rule doesn't say what they really do. I was further muddying the waters by bringing intent into it.

Any opinion on the Maxi challenge that I was on about? We ban Carragher and Rafael, what about him basically. By the letter it's violent, but it was never going to harm etc.

[dogsout]

Any opinion on the Maxi challenge that I was on about? We ban Carragher and Rafael, what about him basically. By the letter it's violent, but it was never going to harm etc.

I don't know why it has been mentioned. It was cynical and worthy of a foul but that is about it.

[bowser123]

I don't know why it's been mentioned. It was cynical and worthy of a foul but that is about it.

I'm repeating myself but basically it's the two paragraphs that you didn't quote that explains why I'm on about that challenge. It was high, intentional and like I say, if a push is classed as violent conduct, then that challenge is violent too. There was no bouncing ball or two players jumping to mitigate it, but likewise it was never going to do harm and was more stupid than dangerous.

The original point was retrospectively banning people for dangerous, or violent, or both, and I'm trying to say that it's either violent or it isn't. Damage or perceived chance of damage is irrelevant. That sort of thing is to be added onto original bans like what Thatcher got, not to determine whether it's a red or not.

In short: it's a grey area and I think this is why the FA don't act to their own rules, for fear of a million incidents a week being reported and having to be acted on.

[FATEone]

Both Rafael and Carragher's challenges could have been reds.. by the last couple of seasons' standards, but 5 years ago there wouldn't have been such an issue made of either. You guys should watch women's football, they make the men look like complete whimps sometimes! These guys are big, strong, fit, extremely well paid fuckers. If they can't except getting studded every now and then, they're in the wrong game. Obviously if someone is just going in to hurt someone, that's not acceptable, but with the pace of the premier league there's always going to be late challenges, and today was a typically exciting and entertaining derby, with that extra bit of added fire that these games bring. Man Utd didn't make as much of a game of it as perhaps they should have, but it was a great game to watch none-the-less. I thought the ref was really good actually. Obviously Suarez is class. Lucas was absolutely flawless.. I have to say I'm so impressed with Hernandez every time I see him, his movement is beautifully devestating. Well played the 'Peeoool!

[SMD]

Seriously, why is the challenge on Nani such a debate? There have been worse from both sides this season, is it just because the pansy went down like a pansy? He had a gash and it would've been alright if he wore proper shinpads rather than trying to wax his legs during the match.

He's a shithouse and it's been a long time coming.

[Guest]

If it's a grey area and you can't decide then it's not clea cut enough to bother with. Simple.

Quite frankly the slow way the FA have always dealt with anything is a disgrace. They're lazy bastards who can't take a few extra minutes to help protect the players that make them up there all rich.

Too much time? It's all blah by them. The way they handle nearly everything from the New Wembley fiasco to the money spent on our catastrophic World Cup bid.

Somehow we all seem to turn on the players, managers, and referees. How do the FA always walk away Scott free?

[FATEone]

I'm repeating myself but basically it's the two paragraphs that you didn't quote that explains why I'm on about that challenge. It was high, intentional and like I say, if a push is classed as violent conduct, then that challenge is violent too. There was no bouncing ball or two players jumping to mitigate it, but likewise it was never going to do harm and was more stupid than dangerous.

The original point was retrospectively banning people for dangerous, or violent, or both, and I'm trying to say that it's either violent or it isn't. Damage or perceived chance of damage is irrelevant. That sort of thing is to be added onto original bans like what Thatcher got, not to determine whether it's a red or not.

In short: it's a grey area and I think this is why the FA don't act to their own rules, for fear of a million incidents a week being reported and having to be acted on.

Football is played with the feet, hence why raising your hands falls under the sending off box of voilent conduct. Rugby players use their hands, which is why they get sin-binned if they trip someone using their feet. I'm no fan of the FA, but on this they can't really do anything else, but stand by the referee's decisions. Otherwise the refs would have even less credebility and respect than they already do (Thanks to a downward spiral that Ferguson and Man Utd set into motion some years ago!) Like you say, if the ref comes out and admits he's made a mistake, the FA have the go-ahead to re-officiate, without worry that every game will end up the with multiple retrospective punishment appeals.

[FATEone]

If it's a grey area and you can't decide then it's not clea cut enough to bother with. Simple.

Quite frankly the slow way the FA have always dealt with anything is a disgrace. They're lazy bastards who can't take a few extra minutes to help protect the players that make them up there all rich.

Too much time? It's all blah by them. The way they handle nearly everything from the New Wembley fiasco to the money spent on our catastrophic World Cup bid.

Somehow we all seem to turn on the players, managers, and referees. How do the FA always walk away Scott free?

It's us who make them rich! And players are wrapped in cotton wool most of the time, well, the ones from certain teams!

As I said, I think the FA are a set of cowardly wankers, but I don't see how they can be blamed for the World Cup bid, and Wembley might have been late, but man it was worth it!

[bowser123]

Both Rafael and Carragher's challenges could have been reds.. by the last couple of seasons' standards, but 5 years ago there wouldn't have been such an issue made of either.

I disagree. Due to my age my first memory of football is Arsenal winning 2-0 on the last day for the title, but it was only really the season before the inception of the Premier League when Leeds won it that was my first season of following avidly, but in all that time I'd of said a tackle that high and with that force would always see a red.

I mean I remember Keane making similar challenges and getting a red.

Maybe it happened earlier, some of the challenges you see replayed that the likes of Leeds of the 70s dished out or Best received where horrific, but five years ago? Nah.

Seriously, why is the challenge on Nani such a debate? There have been worse from both sides this season, is it just because the pansy went down like a pansy? He had a gash and it would've been alright if he wore proper shinpads rather than trying to wax his legs during the match.

He's a shithouse and it's been a long time coming.

OK, sure, whatever. He deserves it for what, diving and rolling around? I'm sure you'd say the same if, say Gerrard, gets the same treatment next week.

As for worse challenges no way, not a chance. I guess Wilkins was biased when he said it was the worst of it's kind this season.

[RobinTripp]

There's some proper cunts in this thread. Like, horrible cunts.

Claiming Nani, or anyone really (barring people like Lee Hughes or players that people could have a genuine issue with because something that they have done has caused incredible harm to someone), deserves to get talked like that - that's pathetic.

[FATEone]

I mean I remember Keane making similar challenges and getting a red.

I remember Keane making similar challenges and getting nothing!