Jump to content

Liverpool Football Club Thread


glb
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, gospvg said:

 

Who gives a fuck about the red card, the kid has a broken lwg and is probably going to be out for the season!.

Yeah I'm not diminishing the injury. But on a purely rules based debate it's incorrect to say that a leg break is an automatic red card. 

Hopefully he'll be fine and it won't cause him any long term problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

He was incorrectly given a red card. The ref made a mistake. 

I'm not saying that this particular one was necessarily not a red. But to say a leg break is a default red is wrong. And provably so. 

 

Literally wasn't your argument but whatever and I can't be arsed because you're literally moving the goalposts.

 

But what do I know, I'm just "flauncing off to my safe space".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

 

Literally wasn't your argument but whatever and I can't be arsed because you're literally moving the goalposts.

 

But what do I know, I'm just "flauncing off to my safe space".

"Mate, he broke his leg. It's an automatic red regardless of if there was intent or not."

 

These are your exact words. You are wrong. These aren't the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ryodi said:

Elliot has a dislocated left ankle so I assume that him out for the season. 

 

Is that worse than a break though? I've dislocated stuff before and it seemed to heal quicker than my breaks. Unless there's ligament damage too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

Is that worse than a break though? I've dislocated stuff before and it seemed to heal quicker than my breaks. Unless there's ligament damage too.  

 

Sounds like for a dislocated ankle that surgery is still involved and recovery time is similar to a broken leg, but I guess they'll talk about a timescale soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stoppy2000 said:

More like instantly proving you wrong only to have you flounce off. 


Arguing about it in the main football thread is fair enough if that’s what you want to do but following people into club threads to continue your weird campaign seems a lot like trolling or harassment to me. Reported. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Pockets said:


Arguing about it in the main football thread is fair enough if that’s what you want to do but following people into club threads to continue your weird campaign seems a lot like trolling or harassment to me. Reported. 

So for clarity - you are allowed to say something that isn't true and then disappear to the club only thread to hide from any replies? Also I never resorted to any insults. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great win but horrible for Elliott, lad doesn't deserve it. Leeds are fucking dirty and it was a disgusting challenge from behind, wild and wrapped his legs around for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

So for clarity - you are allowed to say something that isn't true and then disappear to the club only thread to hide from any replies? Also I never resorted to any insults. 

Mate, are you being serious?  Hide from replies?  What is this, primary school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stoppy2000 said:

So for clarity - you are allowed to say something that isn't true and then disappear to the club only thread to hide from any replies? Also I never resorted to any insults. 

 

You're allowed to do what you want, including being a whiney man baby, as you have proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Chewylegs said:

Mate, are you being serious?  Hide from replies?  What is this, primary school?

Apparently so. Spout off some nonsense then run off to a different part of the playground when someone points out what you have said is factually incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Stoppy2000 said:

Apparently so. Spout off some nonsense then run off to a different part of the playground when someone points out what you have said is factually incorrect. 

 

Except you didn't, other people did and pointed out examples, but you didn't. We've already established Son was actually red carded because he broke a players leg, even if it was recinded. This is boring and tedious now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

 

Except you didn't, other people did and pointed out examples, but you didn't. We've already established Son was actually red carded because he broke a players leg, even if it was recinded. This is boring and tedious now.

The fact it was rescinded means it wasn't a red card. I'm not sure how hard it is for you to understand that. Tedious indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stoppy2000 said:

The fact it was rescinded means it wasn't a red card. I'm not sure how hard it is for you to understand that. Tedious indeed.

Are you being stupid or being a wind up merchant? I've said multiple times now "in the moment" the referee gave a red card because of the leg break. I haven't disputed once that it was a red card offense or not. Yes, after review it was rescinded because it was deemed not to be foul play, but because Son was involved in breaking a player's leg the referee felt he had no option but to send the player off, the exact same thing yesterday.

 

You're banging on about Son challenge not actually being a red card offense but the facts are he was shown a red because he broke a player's leg and most referees will send a player off for doing this regardless of intent or not. Better they send a player off and the review rescinds it rater than not sending then off and finding out later it was a malicious challenge.

 

Your arguing a completely different thing here. I couldn't care less if it was a red card offense or not, the point is at that moment in time a player broke another player's leg which is why a red card was shown. Thats what I meant about it being an automatic red. It was the wrong choice of words by myself but the point being simply, I can see why a player is sent off for being involved in a leg break.

 

Also, why is anyone acting like it would have made a difference anyway? Leeds were shit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you guys could get a room? @Stigweard @Stoppy2000

 

I can't believe some of the nonsense I've been reading lately. It was red, no question. A scissoring tackle from behind with both legs off the ground to lunge. The injury isn't the problem. Craig Pawson now says that he was allowing the game to flow as per directive, but was always going to give the card. The 4th official saw it more clearly and decided instantly it was a red card. AS PER THE LAWS OF THE GAME!

 

But, because it's Liverpool and everyone can't wait to hate us, people are calling it harsh. Just the way they did 2 weeks ago when a handball on the line led to the red card that the laws of the game state was required. People are either ignorant, or choosing to want the punishment reduced when it's done against Liverpool. Excuse me if I play my victim card here, but it's absolutely sickening to see this happen week after week.

 

Klopp publicly called this out after the Burnley game, and the response outside of LFC circles was to call us moaners and whiners. Every Liverpool fan knows that referees ignore assaults on our players, and yet we're never the team that surrounds them on the field after any decision. We're also the team that wins the Fair Play league every year, so why they give us this treatment is beyond me. 

 

Basically, fuck non-LFC fans. @Stoppy2000, you are welcome here, we're nice guys, but your need to be right on the internet isn't. Spout that crap in the main thread all you like, nobody in this thread cares about Son getting a card in a game against the Bitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Stigweard said:

 

Is that worse than a break though? I've dislocated stuff before and it seemed to heal quicker than my breaks. Unless there's ligament damage too.  

 

Depends a lot on soft tissue damage. Andre Gomes was a dislocation and fracture and he was out for about 4 months I think. Typically it's probably a less serious injury than snapping your tib+fib, because then you have to have all the rods and pins and stuff put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a red card, personally. He went through the back of him, didn't seem particularly interested in playing the ball, and showed zero consideration for the safety of his opponent.  Hopefully Elliott can make a full recovery. He was playing well this season and his career seemed on the point of taking off. It's such a shame.

 

I also think it was sort of inevitable that someone was going to get a serious injury sooner or later with this harebrained philosophy of "letting the game flow" that has come in this season.  Every game I've watched this season has had one or two dangerous challenges that have been let go by the referees. Letting the game flow has become allowing players to fly into tackles in the name of entertainment.  This isn't the 80s anymore. Footballers now are massive units capable of going into tackles with much more speed and force than in previous times.  Bones however have not become any less breakable.  The restrictions on tackling were sensible measures that have come into the game as it has evolved to protect players. Suddenly throwing all that away in the name of appeasing fans who want to see big tackles is like throwing away safety measures in motorsports for the benefit of spectators who want to see crashes. It's stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's best for the player's safety that horific injuries mean a red card, weither they end up standing or not, because it helps to de-escalate the situation.  Imagine seeing someone snap your mates leg in half then trying to keep a level head when going in to tackle them, in would end in carnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fox said:

 

Depends a lot on soft tissue damage. Andre Gomes was a dislocation and fracture and he was out for about 4 months I think. Typically it's probably a less serious injury than snapping your tib+fib, because then you have to have all the rods and pins and stuff put in.

 

Ah, OK. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they say after the operation then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, feltmonkey said:

I thought it was a red card, personally. He went through the back of him, didn't seem particularly interested in playing the ball, and showed zero consideration for the safety of his opponent.  Hopefully Elliott can make a full recovery. He was playing well this season and his career seemed on the point of taking off. It's such a shame.

 

I also think it was sort of inevitable that someone was going to get a serious injury sooner or later with this harebrained philosophy of "letting the game flow" that has come in this season.  Every game I've watched this season has had one or two dangerous challenges that have been let go by the referees. Letting the game flow has become allowing players to fly into tackles in the name of entertainment.  This isn't the 80s anymore. Footballers now are massive units capable of going into tackles with much more speed and force than in previous times.  Bones however have not become any less breakable.  The restrictions on tackling were sensible measures that have come into the game as it has evolved to protect players. Suddenly throwing all that away in the name of appeasing fans who want to see big tackles is like throwing away safety measures in motorsports for the benefit of spectators who want to see crashes. It's stupid.

 

In the few games I've watched this season the tackles certainly are flying in more now and as you say, at pace. I guess players know they will get away with more, thus reducing the chances of bookings/red cards, and so are committing a bit more forcefully to those 50:50 challenges and from behind (which was almost always a free kick previously.)

 

It's actually a shame that Klopp spoke out about it previously, because it has meant a lot of fans/media have put it down to him moaning again rather than, you know, having a point. Ole also criticised it, incidentally, either the same day as Klopp or the day before/after - but he didn't get the same column inches when he spoke out.

 

It's all very well coming out with the 'it's a contact sport' guff, but there still needs to be level of player protection to avoid dangerous challenges - and yesterday's certainly looked unpleasant. I've only seen it in a YouTube video (so not great quality - but I've no great desire to see a kid's foot flopping about detached from his leg) and whilst I don't for a second think it was malicious, it's not a smart tackle at all and whilst it's the trailing leg that does for Elliott, it's the fact that Struijk has jumped off the ground the get the extra momentum that has done the damage. Had that been a sliding tackle along the floor, that injury doesn't occur I don't think (though perhaps a twisted ankle still happens as the legs still get intertwined).

 

I'm totally gutted for Elliott though, because this is (was?) a big chance this season for him to play a good amount of games and he's now going to robbed of x months of key development. And who knows what mental scars it will leave? He wouldn't be the first player to come back from a serious injury and lose that a fraction of his competitiveness due to fear of being hurt again. It's a horrible, horrible situation for a player of any age, let alone and 18-year old boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.