Post Match Liverpool 2 Leicester 2

[Mawsley]

It needs saying again, Mark Lawrenson is a twat.

 

[Hazzman]

What a day.

Got it the train up from Brum found a great pub called the Ship and Mitre drinking some beautiful delights such as Erdinger Dunkel and Brooklyn Weisser. Found the bus to get towards Anfield that was a result.

Our fans were up for it. I was cursing our luck inches away from taking the lead, Mahrez should have hit the target for his chance and the lunacy of the two penalties. What a second half performance though - to a man they were brilliant and the confidence is coming back judging from some of our passing moves. We were right behind Nuge's strike and knew it was in when it left his foot. Then Schlupp's I didn't even see go in, it was total bedlam. Then Wasyl could have finished off but it just got caught underneath him.

Our last ditch defending was better than Hull too; Hamer punching crosses away, De Laet with a great tackle when they were on the counter, Cambiasso with a great header too.

Walked back to the pub after the game - f'kin hell that's a long walk. Still wasn't going to dampen any moods.

 

[The Old Fox]

It needs saying again, Mark Lawrenson is a twat.

Is there anybody, outside LCFC, who does not garner that label from TalkingBalls followers?

I watched Final Score and Lawrenson was very clear that the first penalty was a joke and the second questionable. He was one of the first, on BBC (I don't watch Sky for anti-Murdoch reasons), to analyse the play with freeze frame, etc.: for a non-player, such as myself, it opens the game to an extent.

 

[pork pie fox]

Is there anybody, outside LCFC, who does not garner that label from TalkingBalls followers?

I watched Final Score and Lawrenson was very clear that the first penalty was a joke and the second questionable. He was one of the first, on BBC (I don't watch Sky for anti-Murdoch reasons), to analyse the play with freeze frame, etc.: for a non-player, such as myself, it opens the game to an extent.

I've met him three times. The first time he was a bit of an idiot, however the last two times he has been nice as pie and a genuinely nice bloke. Despite my initial meeting with him, I see him as a good bloke and have a lot of time for him.

 

[Mawsley]

Is there anybody, outside LCFC, who does not garner that label from TalkingBalls followers?

I watched Final Score and Lawrenson was very clear that the first penalty was a joke and the second questionable. He was one of the first, on BBC (I don't watch Sky for anti-Murdoch reasons), to analyse the play with freeze frame, etc.: for a non-player, such as myself, it opens the game to an extent.

I'm not speaking on behalf of all other TB members.

I imagine the set of people disliked by all members of TB is quite large.

Hope that helps.

 

[Lako42]

Just like to comment on the composure shown by Vards to chest the ball down into Nugent for the goal, a simply beautiful bit of link up play that is lovely to see from forwards.

 

[The Old Fox]

I'm not speaking on behalf of all other TB members.

I imagine the set of people disliked by all members of TB is quite large.

Hope that helps.

Much obliged! :icon_bigg

 

[spionfox]

I think the officials are petrified of making a decision for the fear of being torn to shreds in the media the following day.

Jones decision re: the first penalty disproves that theory.

 

[LCFC'sGodWears9]

Jones decision re: the first penalty disproves that theory.

The point was more in reference to the Green/QPR one, because it was such an obvious decision, but nobody has the balls to stand up and be counted and make the call.

Quite right it isn't applicable to all situations, but I think officials are sometimes scared of the backlash of making an incorrect decision. This then causes them to not make an obvious decision. (Not sure if I have worded that very well!)

 

[Redditch Fox]

Poor decisions part of the game - tho cruelly unfair in this instance.

Wouldn't want everything reviewed tho.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

No reason why each team could not have a 'challenge' available for each half. If a 5th officicial in the Sky truck can see the ref clearly got it wrong on a penalty decision, the ref can change the decision, and even yellow card a player if it was a dive that fooled the ref. There would be no shame on the ref to say 'I thought it hit Morgan's hand from my viewpoint'. The ref does not enjoy the luxury of 5 different camera angles and replays. It works well in rugby where a referee needs to know if a player touched the ball down for a try. Could do the same with a penalty decision. If the player calling for the review clearly did handle it, then he gets booked as well.

 

[Hazzman]

There's a debate whether it works well in Rugby though. A game in Wales over the Christmas period had a 55 minute half!

 

[camberwell fox]

I think the reviews should be immediate but only for crucial decisions such as:

Was it a goal (did the ball cross the line - ONLY)?
Sendings off - direct red only.
Penalties where they are awarded.
Violent conduct where a red card is to be issued.

By 'as they are awarded' I mean where the referee makes a decision that affects the game immediately and not in instances such as when a penalty is not awarded but there is a case for one to be given.

I think by this approach we won't ruin the game in terms of stoppages and more importantly there needs to be a certain amount of ambiguity in a game as surely this is part of what we all enjoy about the game - we don't want the game to become sterile.

 

[Jeff]

I think the reviews should be immediate but only for crucial decisions such as:

Was it a goal (did the ball cross the line - ONLY)?

There's already technology in place for this, so no reviews are needed, it all happens instantly.

Sendings off - direct red only.
Penalties where they are awarded.
Violent conduct where a red card is to be issued.

By 'as they are awarded' I mean where the referee makes a decision that affects the game immediately and not in instances such as when a penalty is not awarded but there is a case for one to be given.

I think by this approach we won't ruin the game in terms of stoppages and more importantly there needs to be a certain amount of ambiguity in a game as surely this is part of what we all enjoy about the game - we don't want the game to become sterile.

I think it should also be available when penalties aren't awarded - but only once the ball is dead, so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the game.

If you're using an appeals system where the captain/manager has one appeal per half, you're not going to get that many stoppages anyway. If you win your appeal you'll get another one, but if that happens it means the ref's made a mistake, so the right outcome has happened.

 

[camberwell fox]

There's already technology in place for this, so no reviews are needed, it all happens instantly.





I think it should also be available when penalties aren't awarded - but only once the ball is dead, so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the game.

If you're using an appeals system where the captain/manager has one appeal per half, you're not going to get that many stoppages anyway. If you win your appeal you'll get another one, but if that happens it means the ref's made a mistake, so the right outcome has happened.

Yes perhaps you are right but I don't like the idea of an appeal each team per half.

If you therefore didn't use this system how would you be able to correct something that was not seen at the time (such as a penalty that should have been awarded)?

 

[FryattFox]

There's a debate whether it works well in Rugby though. A game in Wales over the Christmas period had a 55 minute half!

Plus the majority of rugby decisions are more objective (grounding the ball for a try/going into touch/high tackles), as opposed to the subjectivity of a lot of red cards/fouls in the penalty area in football.

It still needs to be used at some level though, as the blatantly wrong decisions are ludicrous in this day and age.

 

[The Old Fox]

I think the reviews should be immediate but only for crucial decisions such as:

Was it a goal (did the ball cross the line - ONLY)?
Sendings off - direct red only.
Penalties where they are awarded.
Violent conduct where a red card is to be issued.

By 'as they are awarded' I mean where the referee makes a decision that affects the game immediately and not in instances such as when a penalty is not awarded but there is a case for one to be given.

I think by this approach we won't ruin the game in terms of stoppages and more importantly there needs to be a certain amount of ambiguity in a game as surely this is part of what we all enjoy about the game - we don't want the game to become sterile.

What a very sensible list! It seems to cut out a lot of potential problems.

 

[Mawsley]

Yes perhaps you are right but I don't like the idea of an appeal each team per half.

If you therefore didn't use this system how would you be able to correct something that was not seen at the time (such as a penalty that should have been awarded)?

I like Jeff's idea although I see problems for Mourinho (who has used up his complaints for the next seventeen years) and Wenger (who never sees anything).

 

[camberwell fox]

Thanks TOF

 

[Real Sharapova]

Great performance by the team, and NP chose the right formation and tactics. When the team were read out you might have thought we were there to park the bus - it was anything but. The mobility and slick passing meant we were able to attack almost at will. It won't happen every week, but when it does come off like that it's a joy to watch. Shout out for the fans as well, kept behind the team througout.