Liverpool 2-0 Everton - Sunday 24th April, 2022

[NittyNora]

I'd say the Super League is inevitable.

With it's creation comes the chance, for all the big/wealthy clubs, to control their own broadcasting rights. That could run to billions in revenue.

I suspect this is the reason Sky were at the forefront of opposing it. They would be a big loser if it came to pass.

Just for the record, no, I would not be in favour, but then again can you say you're really happy with the way football is run at the moment.

Time will tell.

[Stan]

21 minutes ago, NittyNora said:

I'd say the Super League is inevitable.

With it's creation comes the chance, for all the big/wealthy clubs, to control their own broadcasting rights. That could run to billions in revenue.

I suspect this is the reason Sky were at the forefront of opposing it. They would be a big loser if it came to pass.

Just for the record, no, I would not be in favour, but then again can you say you're really happy with the way football is run at the moment.

Time will tell.

'I'm alright Jack'.

Fuck the rest of the clubs, right?

[RandoEFC+]

People think the Super League would "kill football". To be honest, apart from the standard lowering for the domestic leagues, for the normal football fans of the clubs left behind it would be absolutely class. Basically exorcising all of the shite that has come with the Sky and oil money era of football from the local game and putting it much more back in the hands of proper fans.

The losers would be the proper non-plastic fans of the Super League Six. They were already treated with rank disrespect last year when they were referred to as "legacy fans" and similar. I will give fans of Liverpool, Man Utd and the others plenty of shit but regardless of what club you support, there's a time to acknowledge that football fans of all teams have a lot more in common with each other than with the incredibly rich and often corrupt elites who control the game and own our teams. For that reason, I remain dead set against the idea of the Super League. People shouldn't have their football teams taken away from them or be forced to support a husk of the football club they used to identify with but now play as many of their "league" matches overseas as in the UK.

And of course the vast majority of the owners would have happily accepted the conditions if they were invited. The Super League attempt was an affront to all football fans perpetuated by an out of touch ownership class who aren't used to hearing the word no. It shouldn't be used as an opportunity for one set of fans to score points over the other (unless you've got people who backed the Super League because it was good for their club so fuck everyone else, in which case, fuck them too). Know your enemy.

[NittyNora]

18 minutes ago, Stan said:

'I'm alright Jack'.

Fuck the rest of the clubs, right?

Pretty much.

 

[NittyNora]

33 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

People think the Super League would "kill football". To be honest, apart from the standard lowering for the domestic leagues, for the normal football fans of the clubs left behind it would be absolutely class. Basically exorcising all of the shite that has come with the Sky and oil money era of football from the local game and putting it much more back in the hands of proper fans.

The losers would be the proper non-plastic fans of the Super League Six. They were already treated with rank disrespect last year when they were referred to as "legacy fans" and similar. I will give fans of Liverpool, Man Utd and the others plenty of shit but regardless of what club you support, there's a time to acknowledge that football fans of all teams have a lot more in common with each other than with the incredibly rich and often corrupt elites who control the game and own our teams. For that reason, I remain dead set against the idea of the Super League. People shouldn't have their football teams taken away from them or be forced to support a husk of the football club they used to identify with but now play as many of their "league" matches overseas as in the UK.

And of course the vast majority of the owners would have happily accepted the conditions if they were invited. The Super League attempt was an affront to all football fans perpetuated by an out of touch ownership class who aren't used to hearing the word no. It shouldn't be used as an opportunity for one set of fans to score points over the other (unless you've got people who backed the Super League because it was good for their club so fuck everyone else, in which case, fuck them too). Know your enemy.

They are first and foremost, businessman, that's why I think the ESL is inevitable.

Don't you think the clubs have been taken away already. If it wasn't for my sister & bro in law having season tickets, I wouldn't have a cat in hells chance of seeing my team live, unless I could pay 250-350 quid for a hospitality ticket.

Oh for the days when you could roll up to the turnstile, pay your 2 bob and walk right on in.

[Lucas]

7 hours ago, LFCMike said:

 

Interestingly, it appears Gordon has previous from the game at Goodison.

As I said yesterday, hope someone sits down and offers him some words of wisdom because he doesn't want a stigma attached to him.

[LFCMike]

5 hours ago, Rick said:

Some embarrassing stuff in here, christ. 
 

Matip steps on the lads foot and pushes him in the back. At walking speed you would have to adjust to stay on your feet, never-mind at full sprint. We have 100% gotten away with that one and the Mane eye poke (wish he would fuck off getting himself involved in stupidity like that). 
 

Fucking eye poke? 

[LFCMike]

7 minutes ago, Lucas said:

Interestingly, it appears Gordon has previous from the game at Goodison.

As I said yesterday, hope someone sits down and offers him some words of wisdom because he doesn't want a stigma attached to him.

Yeah the ref had previously booked two of theirs in that game for diving and then gave Gordon the free kick for that one which was the worst of the lot.

[RandoEFC+]

People still looking at this incident and not acknowledging the fact his foot was clearly stood on.

You can lead a horse to water etc.

[Rick]

22 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Fucking eye poke? 

Your bias is laughable at times.
 

Mane attempts to poke Holgate in the face…towards the eye. There’s images and footage about, but seeing as how you made things up for the Matip/Gordon incident then you’ll probably not see this for what it was either. Take your glasses off. 
 

[Danny]

1 minute ago, Rick said:

Your bias is laughable at times.
 

Mane attempts to poke Holgate in the face…towards the eye. There’s images and footage about, but seeing as how you made things up for the Matip/Gordon incident then you’ll probably not see this for what it was either. Take your glasses off. 
 

Completely irrelevant to anything that's gone on this weekend but it's just reminded me of the time I was watching Liverpool and Man City play in a Sydney casino and one bloke nearly tried to start a fight over Mane's red card when he big booted, studs up, Ederson in the face. Could not accept that it was dangerous play. Genuinely hilarious viewing.

[Stan]

 

Nothing to see here.

[LFCMike]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

Your bias is laughable at times.
 

Mane attempts to poke Holgate in the face…towards the eye. There’s images and footage about, but seeing as how you made things up for the Matip/Gordon incident then you’ll probably not see this for what it was either. Take your glasses off. 
 

Well it wasn't an eye poke was it? He poked him in the face, no doubt, but an eye poke would be a definite sending off. Probably lucky that the punishment wasn't more but let's not sensationalise it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Stan said:

 

Nothing to see here.

Nose pick attempt.

In any case, I think it's hilarious Everton have written to the refs to ask them why a 50-50 wasn't given their way. Perhaps Burnley should write them to ask why Richarlison wasn't sent off for 2 red card offenses - seems like they're more negatively impacted by the poor standard of refereeing in the Merseyside derby than Everton were.

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

In any case, I think it's hilarious Everton have written to the refs to ask them why a 50-50 wasn't given their way. Perhaps Burnley should write them to ask why Richarlison wasn't sent off for 2 red card offenses - seems like they're more negatively impacted by the poor standard of refereeing in the Merseyside derby than Everton were.

They're not the only club to do so though so don't get why it's that hilarious? Also isn't the contact with PGMOL more about why the decision wasn't reviewed, as opposed to complaining a decision didn't go their way?

 

[RandoEFC+]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

They're not the only club to do so though so don't get why it's that hilarious? Also isn't the contact with PGMOL more about why the decision wasn't reviewed, as opposed to complaining a decision didn't go their way?

 

You fancy a giggle, have a quick flick through this thread to read how they reacted when Man City got lucky with a VAR call against Everton just for comparison. 

[OrangeKhrush]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/61213710

 

Everton want another apology lol.   It is like Gordon is diving into the championship. 

[OrangeKhrush]

 

[Rick]

57 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

Well it wasn't an eye poke was it? He poked him in the face, no doubt, but an eye poke would be a definite sending off. Probably lucky that the punishment wasn't more but let's not sensationalise it.

Okay, but I said it was an attempted eye poke in the post you quoted. I love Mane but he definitely allows himself to get wound up and gets himself into stupid situations like that. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

52 minutes ago, Stan said:

They're not the only club to do so though so don't get why it's that hilarious? Also isn't the contact with PGMOL more about why the decision wasn't reviewed, as opposed to complaining a decision didn't go their way?

 

Really how often do clubs do that?

I assume they're hoping for another apology for some reason, maybe they think they'll be able to cash those in for points at the end of the season.

[Dr. Gonzo]

39 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

You fancy a giggle, have a quick flick through this thread to read how they reacted when Man City got lucky with a VAR call against Everton just for comparison. 

My last post in that is me posting a meme I thought was funny because I thought the whole excitement over the apology was hilarious 

Good meme too.

[RandoEFC+]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Really how often do clubs do that?

I assume they're hoping for another apology for some reason, maybe they think they'll be able to cash those in for points at the end of the season.

It's just putting pressure on the referees. Standard practice. Place a tiny bit of doubt in one referee's mind that swings a decision could be the difference between 17th and 18th. It's not really about the apology.

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

My last post in that is me posting a meme I thought was funny because I thought the whole excitement over the apology was hilarious 

Good meme too.

It is a good meme .

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

It's just putting pressure on the referees. Standard practice. Place a tiny bit of doubt in one referee's mind that swings a decision could be the difference between 17th and 18th. It's not really about the apology.

Is it standard practice though? I think it's 50-50 whether or not that's given as a penalty, some weeks a ref gives it - some they don't. It's frustrating there's no consistency, but imo it's not a "clear and obvious error."

If that's Salah, Mane or Diaz going down and the penalty is awarded, I suspect Frank Lampard and Everton would be having a moan about how such a soft penalty was awarded. Especially if it's in a match where we'd only had 17% possession, completed 95 passes, and spent most of the match timewasting and diving.

And it might not be fair that a player who's been booked for diving isn't viewed as "trustworthy enough" to have a penalty that maybe should have been awarded not awarded because the numerous dives before a legitimate foul - but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a referee would get influenced, and even annoyed, by players constantly trying to con him all match.

And I'm not even sure it's the biggest decision that went wrong in the match that impacts the relegation battle the most. I think looking at the situation as non-biasedly as I can (which, admittedly, is tough) - I think the officials made some massive errors that wrongfully benefitted most sides. I'm not sure drawing a spotlight to the officiating in that match is necessarily the greatest thing for Everton.

I think it would be absolutely fair if Mane & Richarlison got retrospective bans for what they did on the pitch yesterday. Imo their conduct not being punished was more appalling than a penalty decision that I think could have reasonably gone either way. While Mane being out for us would be a miss, we've got the squad that can sort of overcome not having him for a few matches. With Everton I think missing out on Richarlison could be devestating cos I think he's your best player.

10 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

It is a good meme .

Yeah, I gotta say the blue half of Merseyside has been on fire with the memes in the last few months. But that one is a pretty fantastic meme in a sea of fantastic memes.

Gotta say it's commendable considering how miserable the season's been for you lot.

[RandoEFC+]

52 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Is it standard practice though? I think it's 50-50 whether or not that's given as a penalty, some weeks a ref gives it - some they don't. It's frustrating there's no consistency, but imo it's not a "clear and obvious error."

I disagree. I personally don't see how it can not be deemed a foul. Gordon runs past him. Gets his foot trod on while sprinting at full speed with the defender nowhere near the ball. He has absolutely no influence over the fact he ends up flat on the floor in the penalty box instead of legging it toward goal with the ball. I'm not trying to convince you because I won't but all of what I've written there is incontrovertible fact. If you choose not to acknowledge the stepping on his foot and focus on the push then I can understand why you think it's 50-50 but I've posted all of the photographic evidence there is now. We both see it the way we see it. I'm absolutely bored already now of arguing about it now though.

52 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Especially if it's in a match where we'd only had 17% possession, completed 95 passes, and spent most of the match timewasting and diving.

And this has what to do with whether Matip fouled Gordon or not? None. It's a pathetic argument. You know it. I know it. You're better than that. If you could objectively and conclusively argue that Matip didn't foul Gordon on the merits of that incident on its own merits, you wouldn't be talking about possession stats. If what you mean is "yeah it was a foul but Everton did all this other shit and I hate them so fuck them I'm glad they didn't get a penalty for it" then, well at least that would be honest.

52 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think it would be absolutely fair if Mane & Richarlison got retrospective bans for what they did on the pitch yesterday. Imo their conduct not being punished was more appalling than a penalty decision that I think could have reasonably gone either way. While Mane being out for us would be a miss, we've got the squad that can sort of overcome not having him for a few matches. With Everton I think missing out on Richarlison could be devestating cos I think he's your best player.

Perhaps. They both barely got away with it and both were stupid for risking trouble and could have no complaints. The squad depth is again irrelevant though. The job of the officials is to make judgements based on the merits of the incidents and nothing else. Taking this match in isolation, the Mane and Gordon incidents happened at potential game-changing moments. The Richarlison one didn't. I am man enough to admit though that he and we are lucky he's not now facing a three match ban for the run-in. That said, there's no risk of Everton drawing attention to the game because the referee booked both players and there's a long standing precedent that the FA don't step in with retrospective bans if the incident in question was spotted and "dealt with" by the referee.

As for other refereeing decisions, I don't really know what you're talking about. Gordon did a bad dive and he got booked for it. You're all acting as if he got away with that one and about three others when you lot won the game and all of the big decisions went in your favour apart from the Richarlison one when the game was over. Literally every fucker in the Premier League dives at every opportunity if they think they can get away with it so can we all just save each other the faux outrage? I'm pretty sure I could pretty much copy and paste that last sentence from posts you lot used to make during the Suarez years.

Anthony Gordon is a 21 year old lad who hasn't got the balance right yet, not that I agree that diving has any place in football for there to be some sort of balance to be struck. It does my head in but that ship has sailed and sadly it's just a cynical case of fuck or get fucked because the authorities have lost all control of the matter. He messed one up in a high profile game, he got punished for it on the pitch with a booking and has now had 24 hours of getting panned for it by most of the predatory football media and a huge number of dickheads on social media as well.

This nonsense about "planting a seed" with the referee needs to get in the bin as well. In the past, if the referee looks at it as a 50-50 I can accept him subconsciously acknowledging a player's reputation for going down easily if he has absolutely nothing else to swing his decision one way or the other. I know VAR is shite and our officials are shite but it does mean that those biases should no longer play any role in decision making. And I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's that controversial to call it a clear and obvious error when a player who has sprinted past his man into the penalty area and been tripped up from behind is not given as a foul. There's no excuse now for a referee to go "ah he went down a bit easily earlier on so he's probably done that again". Even if you still think it's a 50-50 call. Is that not enough for them to at least review it? I would have thought that easily meets the threshold to at least look at it, and that's the question Everton are supposedly asking of PGMOL. And they've already responded to Richard Keys saying they would have had no complaints if a penalty was awarded there, so I don't think they can take it as a bad faith enquiry.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I disagree. I personally don't see how it can not be deemed a foul. Gordon runs past him. Gets his foot trod on while sprinting at full speed with the defender nowhere near the ball. He has absolutely no influence over the fact he ends up flat on the floor in the penalty box instead of legging it toward goal with the ball. I'm not trying to convince you because I won't but all of what I've written there is incontrovertible fact. If you choose not to acknowledge the stepping on his foot and focus on the push then I can understand why you think it's 50-50 but I've posted all of the photographic evidence there is now. We both see it the way we see it. I'm absolutely bored already now of arguing about it now though.

And this has what to do with whether Matip fouled Gordon or not? None. It's a pathetic argument. You know it. I know it. You're better than that. If you could objectively and conclusively argue that Matip didn't foul Gordon on the merits of that incident on its own merits, you wouldn't be talking about possession stats. If what you mean is "yeah it was a foul but Everton did all this other shit and I hate them so fuck them I'm glad they didn't get a penalty for it" then, well at least that would be honest.

Perhaps. They both barely got away with it and both were stupid for risking trouble and could have no complaints. The squad depth is again irrelevant though. The job of the officials is to make judgements based on the merits of the incidents and nothing else. Taking this match in isolation, the Mane and Gordon incidents happened at potential game-changing moments. The Richarlison one didn't. I am man enough to admit though that he and we are lucky he's not now facing a three match ban for the run-in. That said, there's no risk of Everton drawing attention to the game because the referee booked both players and there's a long standing precedent that the FA don't step in with retrospective bans if the incident in question was spotted and "dealt with" by the referee.

As for other refereeing decisions, I don't really know what you're talking about. Gordon did a bad dive and he got booked for it. You're all acting as if he got away with that one and about three others when you lot won the game and all of the big decisions went in your favour apart from the Richarlison one when the game was over. Literally every fucker in the Premier League dives at every opportunity if they think they can get away with it so can we all just save each other the faux outrage? I'm pretty sure I could pretty much copy and paste that last sentence from posts you lot used to make during the Suarez years.

Anthony Gordon is a 21 year old lad who hasn't got the balance right yet, not that I agree that diving has any place in football for there to be some sort of balance to be struck. It does my head in but that ship has sailed and sadly it's just a cynical case of fuck or get fucked because the authorities have lost all control of the matter. He messed one up in a high profile game, he got punished for it on the pitch with a booking and has now had 24 hours of getting panned for it by most of the predatory football media and a huge number of dickheads on social media as well.

This nonsense about "planting a seed" with the referee needs to get in the bin as well. In the past, if the referee looks at it as a 50-50 I can accept him subconsciously acknowledging a player's reputation for going down easily if he has absolutely nothing else to swing his decision one way or the other. I know VAR is shite and our officials are shite but it does mean that those biases should no longer play any role in decision making. And I'm sorry, but I just don't think it's that controversial to call it a clear and obvious error when a player who has sprinted past his man into the penalty area and been tripped up from behind is not given as a foul. There's no excuse now for a referee to go "ah he went down a bit easily earlier on so he's probably done that again".

Yeah mate I'm not trying to convince you about why I think it's a 50-50 and I don't need you to further elaborate why you think it isn't. It's just my opinion based off what I've seen in football over the years - sometimes a penalty like that is given, sometimes it isn't. I remember against Newcastle, their keeper once stopped Mane from scoring by just grabbing onto his legs and pulling him down and that was deemed fair... and I think it would be more reasonable to question why VAR didn't overturn that than the incident yesterday.

Aside from Richarlison, there's also Allan (completely unrelated, but he completed only 2 passes yesterday  - both at kickoff, hilarious stat)

I just think it was a match where the officials were overall shite (which is sadly, the norm) and they never really did anything to exert control over the game, they just let things go out of hand.

But I don't think you can ever really get away from the whole "planting a seed" thing. Referees are meant to be more objective than that... but the reality is they're human. When you've got players going to ground at every single possible opportunity, doing shite like feigning head injuries and then popping back up to defend corners using their heads immediately afterwards, and time wasting literally all match... I think it makes it harder for referees to remain objective from a human perspective. Not every official is going to be able to remove those biases when you've got players that are constantly trying to con them.

Now you can ask me why Atletico Madrid can play the same way you did and they don't get the same sort of scrutiny from referees as Everton does... and I think that's a fair question tbh - and I don't know the answer.

I understand you're rightfully annoyed you didn't get a penalty where another ref may have given one - but I still think the worst thing about the referees performance yesterday was they did not have the match under control for a second. And it led to players doing things that were either stupid and socially unacceptable (like poking another player in the face) or just outright maliciousness like the other incidents I've mentioned. And in a fixture where referees not controlling a match and letting things get out of hand like that that's led to some serious injuries in the past, I think is more unforgiveable than a decision that in my eyes (and I acknowledge, you don't see it the same way - but that's just a difference of opinion) that's a 50-50.

Because honestly, that conduct from Mane, Richarlison, and Allan (and there's probably other instances I'm not remembering) are uncalled for and don't belong on a football pitch. And the history of this fixture indicates it's one where a strong referee is needed because we've seen other moments in the past that were uncalled for and players did get hurt.