The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Thanks mate, it's taking all of my willpower not to say I hope Villa go out of business so I'll just say thanks. 🤣

Woah woah woah, here I am being a nice guy and you want us in administration?!

Need I remind you that Baggies are the enemy not us! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Its nice to have some form of local rival, being as both of our nearest are nowhere near us
 
Woah woah woah, here I am being a nice guy and you want us in administration?!

Need I remind you that Baggies are the enemy not us! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Its nice to have some form of local rival, being as both of our nearest are nowhere near us

Our rivals are Real Madrid and AC Milan not those scumbags 🤣
 
Lots of discussion re why the goal scorer was not booked last night. There’s a lot of opinions and even more rose tinted glasses. However whether you like it or not. This probably ( and I say probably as some still won’t accept it) explains why play was not stopped for a booking.
From the BBC

Already on a booking, Bergvall brought down Tsimikas but play continued with Liverpool retaining possession.

However, Tsimikas was then off the pitch receiving treatment when Bergvall scored to seal a 1-0 first-leg victory for Spurs.

The International Football Association Board's Laws of the Games state: "If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution/sending-off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution/sending-off must be issued when the ball is next out of play.

"However, if the offence was denying the opposing team an obvious goalscoring opportunity, the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour; if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned."

The crucial part of the above is the final sentence. The offence - the foul by Bergvall - was interfering with a promising attack.

If referee Stuart Attwell did indeed play advantage then, applying the above, he did not have to go back and caution Bergvall.

But the laws also state "advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play, violent conduct or a second cautionable offence unless there is a clear opportunity to score a goal."

Was this a clear opportunity to score? Debatable.
The first bit is plainly wrong.

He wasn’t having treatment!
He was standing waiting 30 seconds to come back in to play while the guy who chopped him down was scoring!
 
Who would you want?
I'd have sacked him 2 days ago and got Potter but I suspect that discussion was had and he chose West Ham instead.

I'm not sure now, it's a precarious time. Had it been summer I'd have been tempted to try someone like Michael Carrick, doing a very good job at Middlesbrough. He'd have a full pre season, get some players in. As it is I'm not sure who is being talked about, who is around.

Let's hope the inevitable guff about Rooney is just that. Same with Jose. I can't see why he'd want to come but equally, I don't want him anywhere near us.

The new owners are not new to football, nor to changing managers. Hopefully they have someone lined up and get them in quickly.
 
Top