Liverpool

[God is an Englishman]

Can you imagine what liverpool fans would be saying if he hadn't gone for it. Any striker not going for that, shouldn't be playing the game.

[GaylyColouredStumps]

Can you imagine what liverpool fans would be saying if he hadn't gone for it. Any striker not going for that, shouldn't be playing the game.

Who says he shouldn't have gone for it? The issue is he went in and didn't get the ball and collected the keeper in the head with his foot. It's pretty straightforward

[The Kop]

it was either go for the ball or leave it.

LOL at people saying he should have headed it.....how on earth can you head a ball coming over your shoulder when you're through on goal and header to whom exactly?

The ball bounced and sat head high directly in front of him, the keeper headed it. If he didn't think the keeper was that close he might have chosen to head to his own advantage. If he honestly didn't think the keeper was that close ......

I guess Ederson in that situation only has to make contact and head it away from goals, his momentum and direction he's facing helps and makes it routine.
Mane has to twist to see the flight of the ball then try and head with the trajectory of the ball, very tough skill. From his perspective he probably never expected a keeper to be rushing 30 yards out from goal like that.

Anyway, its a red and 3 games. I doubt we'll see any more reds for head high contact this season.

[Brian the Postman]

Any professional footballer, or former footballer who says he thinks Sadio Mane deserved a red card is a liar.
I know Graham Poll and his referee mates will talk about the letter of the law and dangerous play, but any centre forward or goalscorer HAS to go for that ball.
If Mane beats the goalkeeper to the ball, if he nicks it past the keeper, it’s a goal. That is the ultimate reward and that is why he has to go for it.

Can you imagine the Liverpool fans if he shied away from that? Any fan would question his commitment — they would want the shirt off his back.
I can understand why the referee, Jon Moss, gave the decision. But it’s the law and the climate that is flawed. It was an accidental collision, not excessive force.
The referees will say it is dangerous and there was danger, but there is a danger in every challenge you make. The fault is with the pressure on referees.
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
It is understandable why Jon Moss gave the decision but the laws of the game are flawed
Commitment, courage, blood and guts are ways we describe great teams, great players. Arsenal were smashed for showing a lack of that at Liverpool two weeks ago, but now the game penalises a player for showing all those traits.
I strongly object to Mane getting a three-game ban, the same as Marko Arnautovic and Aleksandar Mitrovic for blatant elbows. How can that be right?
I just hope that it is rescinded, but I’m not holding my breath.

I'm with Chris

I stand with Chris too

[GaylyColouredStumps]

Sanity prevails...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... t-man-city

Strong message sent that kicking opposition players in the head in a football match is unacceptable. Well done FA

[thebeautifulgame]

Sanity prevails...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... t-man-city

Strong message sent that kicking opposition players in the head in a football match is unacceptable. Well done FA

+1
Can understand those defending Mane as the intent was not there and he genuinely attempted to play the ball. That said the challenge was a Serious Foul Play incident which merited a straight red. I bet there would have been more controversy if the ref only handed out a yellow so good on him for doing the right thing.
What Shearer and MOST other ex pros (Sutton was one of the exceptions) said was that though Mane was entitled to go for the ball in that manner he has to take the responsibility of accepting a red when such a challenge goes wrong (ie. kicking an opponent in the head). I did expect a mandatory 2 match ban and not the three dished out to be fair.

[Victoria's Secret]

Sanity prevails...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... t-man-city

Strong message sent that kicking opposition players in the head in a football match is unacceptable. Well done FA

+1
Can understand those defending Mane as the intent was not there and he genuinely attempted to play the ball. That said the challenge was a Serious Foul Play incident which merited a straight red. I bet there would have been more controversy if the ref only handed out a yellow so good on him for doing the right thing.
What Shearer and MOST other ex pros (Sutton was one of the exceptions) said was that though Mane was entitled to go for the ball in that manner he has to take the responsibility of accepting a red when such a challenge goes wrong (ie. kicking an opponent in the head). I did expect a mandatory 2 match ban and not the three dished out to be fair.

i thought straight red, dnagerous play, was always 3?

[thebeautifulgame]

Sanity prevails...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... t-man-city

Strong message sent that kicking opposition players in the head in a football match is unacceptable. Well done FA

+1
Can understand those defending Mane as the intent was not there and he genuinely attempted to play the ball. That said the challenge was a Serious Foul Play incident which merited a straight red. I bet there would have been more controversy if the ref only handed out a yellow so good on him for doing the right thing.
What Shearer and MOST other ex pros (Sutton was one of the exceptions) said was that though Mane was entitled to go for the ball in that manner he has to take the responsibility of accepting a red when such a challenge goes wrong (ie. kicking an opponent in the head). I did expect a mandatory 2 match ban and not the three dished out to be fair.

i thought straight red, dnagerous play, was always 3?

Think you may be getting confused as 'dangerous play' is deemed not to be physical contact with an opponent, resulting in an indirect free-kick. Such an offence does not carry a sanction unless it is denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. As Mane's challenge involved physical contact it escalates from 'dangerous play' to 'serious foul play' and the offending player must be dismissed. As I understand it 'serious foul play' carries a minimum two game suspension depending on the severity of the challenge. This is why I believe a 3 game ban is excessive in this instance.

[God is an Englishman]

Think you may be getting confused as 'dangerous play' is deemed not to be physical contact with an opponent, resulting in an indirect free-kick. Such an offence does not carry a sanction unless it is denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

So, would you caution the player then if it was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

[thebeautifulgame]

Think you may be getting confused as 'dangerous play' is deemed not to be physical contact with an opponent, resulting in an indirect free-kick. Such an offence does not carry a sanction unless it is denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

So, would you caution the player then if it was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

No, by sanction I meant you would send the player off for this offence.

[God is an Englishman]

Think you may be getting confused as 'dangerous play' is deemed not to be physical contact with an opponent, resulting in an indirect free-kick. Such an offence does not carry a sanction unless it is denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

So, would you caution the player then if it was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity?

No, by sanction I meant you would send the player off for this offence.

You can't send him off though as he hasn't committed an offence punishable by a direct free kick.

[thebeautifulgame]

You can when it is an indirect free-kick (dangerous play) while denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity though you can't award a penalty (or direct free-kick if outside the penalty area) as there is no physical contact). Please refer to page 28 (Playing in a Dangerous Manner) in the link below.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeve ... _47379.pdf

[God is an Englishman]

You can when it is an indirect free-kick (dangerous play) while denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity though you can't award a penalty (or direct free-kick if outside the penalty area) as there is no physical contact). Please refer to page 28 (Playing in a Dangerous Manner) in the link below.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeve ... _47379.pdf

Look at number 5 on the sending off offences. You cannot red card for DOGSO if the foul is only an indirect free kick.

[thebeautifulgame]

You can when it is an indirect free-kick (dangerous play) while denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity though you can't award a penalty (or direct free-kick if outside the penalty area) as there is no physical contact). Please refer to page 28 (Playing in a Dangerous Manner) in the link below.

https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeve ... _47379.pdf

Look at number 5 on the sending off offences. You cannot red card for DOGSO if the foul is only an indirect free kick.

Yes you can! An offence punishable by a free-kick or penalty kick. The Law does not state a direct or indirect free-kick as it applies to BOTH. Read number 5 again and see the word 'free-kick' as both indirect and direct.
I would imagine the thinking behind this is not to disadvantage the attacking team by merely gaining an indirect free-kick for losing an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, hence the offending player must be sent off.

[God is an Englishman]

well, you learn something knew every day.

[Nice One Cyril]

Looks like Klopp will be phoning Dedes for his advice on defending

[ozzie owl]

Looks like Klopp will be phoning Dedes for his advice on defending

Cant watch games through the fence for free in England.

[God is an Englishman]

Looks like Klopp will be phoning Dedes for his advice on defending

Cant watch games through the fence for free in England.

Scousers have history of not letting the fact they don't have tickets stop them from getting into the ground. He'd fit right in.

[Ice Adonis]

[Victoria's Secret]

well, you learn something knew every day.

Back to school for you.

[Victoria's Secret]

Looks like Klopp will be phoning Dedes for his advice on defending

Cant watch games through the fence for free in England.

Scousers have history of not letting the fact they don't have tickets stop them from getting into the ground. He'd fit right in.

it may have happened at some games, but if you are talking about 15th April 1989, it didnt happen.

As per my other post, you need educating :wink:

[Old Master]

Looks like another trophy-less season for the Scousers this season.

[God is an Englishman]

it may have happened at some games, but if you are talking about 15th April 1989, it didnt happen.

As per my other post, you need educating :wink:

Every team did it back then, amazing how much tickets looked like 10 pound notes, but you're saying it NEVER happened on that day. Every single person in the liverpool end had a legitimate ticket?

[Victoria's Secret]

Looks like another trophy-less season for the Scousers this season.

please explain.

[Victoria's Secret]

it may have happened at some games, but if you are talking about 15th April 1989, it didnt happen.

As per my other post, you need educating :wink:

Every team did it back then, amazing how much tickets looked like 10 pound notes, but you're saying it NEVER happened on that day. Every single person in the liverpool end had a legitimate ticket?

I dont know, but you have no proof they didnt.

I am not getting into this now...bigger battles to worry about

[Old Master]

Looks like another trophy-less season for the Scousers this season.

please explain.

They can't beat the teams below them and there are a lot more of them still to come and their cup form isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

I like Klopp but his defensive organisation is sadly lacking, you can't overpower teams by constant attacking play that fails tp produce enough goals.

[haywood djablowme]

Another blinder from the Ox i read.. out on the right wing, i thought he was a CM lol

Thx for the 40mil Klopp

[God is an Englishman]

it may have happened at some games, but if you are talking about 15th April 1989, it didnt happen.

As per my other post, you need educating :wink:

Every team did it back then, amazing how much tickets looked like 10 pound notes, but you're saying it NEVER happened on that day. Every single person in the liverpool end had a legitimate ticket?

I dont know, but you have no proof they didnt.

I am not getting into this now...bigger battles to worry about

and you have no proof they did, and you're the one who brought up that specific date.

[Victoria's Secret]

Looks like another trophy-less season for the Scousers this season.

please explain.

They can't beat the teams below them and there are a lot more of them still to come and their cup form isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

I like Klopp but his defensive organisation is sadly lacking, you can't overpower teams by constant attacking play that fails tp produce enough goals.

Arsenal - below LFC
Palace - below LFC

Can you explain what you are talking about?

[Old Master]

please explain.[/quote]


They can't beat the teams below them and there are a lot more of them still to come and their cup form isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

I like Klopp but his defensive organisation is sadly lacking, you can't overpower teams by constant attacking play that fails tp produce enough goals.[/quote]

Arsenal - below LFC
Palace - below LFC

Can you explain what you are talking about?[/quote]


Are you being deliberately stupid?

That is what everyone in the media is saying about Liverpool, again, their defensive weakness will keep them from winning anything Major, until Klopp can find a defence that can work together with the midfield and vice-versa.

Liverpool really need to get back to being a defensive fortress if they ever want to win the League again - defensive strength used to be a normal for them in their heyday.

Their forwards need to be more decisive in the box instead of the continual searching for a better option courtesy of Couthino & Firminio, & co. - to paraphrase Bill Shankley - 'Put the ball in the back of the net and we'll talk about your options later'.