- This topic has 28 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Those sorts of comments really get on my nerves, batman and Danny, and I would suggest you rethink them. Were either of you at the game that day?
Whoever was at fault for the incident, supporters’ efforts would be better spent showing gratitude to those who aided in any and all rescue attempts, and remembering those who were unfortunate enough to lose their life. There is no sense in continuing to fight for something which, were it ever granted, would not be deemed ‘just’.
Liverpool forums across the internet continue to harbour threads entitled ‘boycott the sun’, ‘don’t buy the sun’ and ‘the sun is such and such’, when 99% of contributors (and there are normally thousands) freely admit that any apology from Kelvin McKenzie wouldn’t be accepted. With that attitude you have to ask yourself, what’s the point? Why spend time needlessly campaigning against something which a) isn’t going to change, and b) would be dismissed if by some chance it did change?
I was at the game that day, a four-year-old attending my first game with my uncle and grandad. I remember little of the day given my age, the flurry of activity and the almost apocalyptic soundtrack, but we were few of many lucky enough to escape the atrocities. Had we not forced our way through the ever increasing crowds and climbed on to people’s shoulders and over their heads, then I can only imagine what might have happened. I’m only thankful to my grandad for keeping me atop his shoulders during the crush.
So do not question my loyalty to Liverpool Football Club, or the right I have to call myself a fan.
I don’t hold any grudge against the police force, or against The Sun, for what they have to say in retrospect is meaningless. I’m just thankful that my family and I were able to escape relatively unscathed, and can be even more thankful that I wasn’t old enough to remember the day fully. ‘Justice for the 96’ won’t come, and as heart-wrenching as Hillsborough’s effects are, nothing will offer life to those who lost it. All we can do is preserve their memory- and I lay flowers at the memorial every time I go to Anfield to do just that.
Great result for Liverpool, though the sending off a Matterazzi (rather harsh, imo) was crucial.
I think Liverpool will now go through to the quarter – finals.
2 – 0 is a healthy lead.Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Great result for Liverpool, though the sending off a Matterazzi (rather harsh, imo) was crucial.
I think Liverpool will now go through to the quarter – finals.
2 – 0 is a healthy lead.Just a bit harsh
The second yellow card was just about deserved, but the first..
– it wasn’t even a foul was it? Torres ran in front of him and clipped his heels if I remember rightly – or something like that. For Matterazzi to be booked was barmy.But yes, the result was a fantastic one for Liverpool and they should get the job done over there. One goal for Liverpool means Milan have to score four.
I think we will see a better performance from an Italian team tonight. They are past masters at doing what they have to do, and if Arsenal are slightly weakened then AC Milan at around 3/1 (4.1 on BF) looks a healthy bet.
Mike
Those sorts of comments really get on my nerves, batman and Danny, and I would suggest you rethink them. Were either of you at the game that day?
Whoever was at fault for the incident, supporters’ efforts would be better spent showing gratitude to those who aided in any and all rescue attempts, and remembering those who were unfortunate enough to lose their life. There is no sense in continuing to fight for something which, were it ever granted, would not be deemed ‘just’.
Liverpool forums across the internet continue to harbour threads entitled ‘boycott the sun’, ‘don’t buy the sun’ and ‘the sun is such and such’, when 99% of contributors (and there are normally thousands) freely admit that any apology from Kelvin McKenzie wouldn’t be accepted. With that attitude you have to ask yourself, what’s the point? Why spend time needlessly campaigning against something which a) isn’t going to change, and b) would be dismissed if by some chance it did change?
I was at the game that day, a four-year-old attending my first game with my uncle and grandad. I remember little of the day given my age, the flurry of activity and the almost apocalyptic soundtrack, but we were few of many lucky enough to escape the atrocities. Had we not forced our way through the ever increasing crowds and climbed on to people’s shoulders and over their heads, then I can only imagine what might have happened. I’m only thankful to my grandad for keeping me atop his shoulders during the crush.
So do not question my loyalty to Liverpool Football Club, or the right I have to call myself a fan.
I don’t hold any grudge against the police force, or against The Sun, for what they have to say in retrospect is meaningless. I’m just thankful that my family and I were able to escape relatively unscathed, and can be even more thankful that I wasn’t old enough to remember the day fully. ‘Justice for the 96’ won’t come, and as heart-wrenching as Hillsborough’s effects are, nothing will offer life to those who lost it. All we can do is preserve their memory- and I lay flowers at the memorial every time I go to Anfield to do just that.
had to edit my post as i am near boiling point here……..you were not the only one at that match i cant write anymore before i get myself banned form here please think before you post anymore crap
I didn’t think either incident warranted a yellow card although if the first hadn’t been issued, then the second MAYBE warranted one for persistent fouling. Matarazzi barely placed his hand on Torres for the second free kick and his hand was off him before Torres went down.
I didn’t think either incident warranted a yellow card although if the first hadn’t been issued, then the second MAYBE warranted one for persistent fouling. Matarazzi barely placed his hand on Torres for the second free kick and his hand was off him before Torres went down.
Yep, I agree with that David. My memories are slightly clouded as I watched the match from a distance in some grotty pub – as well as being drunk probably. Having just seen both incidents again, I don’t think any of them were yellow card offences.
Definitely a huge stroke of luck for Liverpool seeing one of Inter’s best defenders sent off – and then there other strong defender (Cordoba) being stretchered off after 75 minutes. No surprise to see the goals come after these incidents.
Mike
I figured as much, batman.
And no, I wasn’t the only one at that game but neither were you, and I don’t appreciate anyone questioning my allegiance to the club I have supported since I was all but a one-year-old. We all have our take on ‘that day’ and mine simply revolves around the idea that our efforts are better spent remembering the 96 who died, rather than waging a pointless war which will never come to a satisfactory conclusion.
I didn’t think either incident warranted a yellow card although if the first hadn’t been issued, then the second MAYBE warranted one for persistent fouling. Matarazzi barely placed his hand on Torres for the second free kick and his hand was off him before Torres went down.
Materazzi was yellow carded because he held back an opponent. He grabbed hold of Torres’ shirt and under Law 12 this is a yellow card offence, and having previously been yellow carded he was dismissed.
The offence specified is that the player ‘…holds the opponent for the tactical purpose of pulling the opponent away from the ball or preventing the opponent from getting to the ball.’ If, in the opinion of the referee, this is what happened then he had no choice but to yellow card the player.
The bottom line is that if Materazzi hadn’t pulled Torres’ shirt, which he clearly did, then he would have stayed on the field.
Rob
robnorth
I refer to the FA’s site and the downloadable Laws of the Game booklet here[/url:1hwfm38j]
This booklet specifically mentions 7 offences for which a yellow card is issued (excluding those for substitutes only), which are as follows:
1. Guilty of unsportsmanlike behaviour
2. Shows dissent by word or action
3. Persistently infringes the Laws of the Game
4. Delays the restart of the game
5. Fails to respect the required distance when play is restarted
6. Enters or re-enters the field of play without the referee’s permission
7. Deliberately leaves the field of play without the referee’s permissionWhile I readily admit that further on in the site it states
“a caution for unsporting behaviour shall be issued when a player holds an opponent to prevent him gaining possession of the ball or taking up an advantageous position”
in practice, this is unworkable in EVERY case without some leniency/discretion as otherwise we would be abandoning matches week in week out due to insufficient players on the field. Football is a contact sport and I don’t believe that Materazzi would have received the second yellow card had Torres stayed on his feet.
Indeed, Torres’ action in falling to the ground effectively unaided is a direct violation of Decison 5 of The International FA Board with regard to Law 12 which states:
“Any simulating action anywhere on the field, which is intended to deceive the referee, must be sanctioned as unsporting behaviour.”
and carries a mandatory yellow card.
The important issue here is that in most cases, it is at the referee’s discretion whether or not to issue a yellow card and I feel personally that Materazzi actions in the incident where he received his second yellow card didn’t in fact warrant a yellow card. The referee did (but he can’t be right all of the time
)We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this
The fact is, you are both right.
It was a yellow card offence going by the rules of the game, but a ref can use total discretion any time he likes – or common sense as I call it. The ref could easily have said, "look son, you’re already on a yellow card, one more foul and you’re off"
Instead, the referee gives Materazzi a yellow card because Torres fell over in front of him, and he gives him another yellow card for a slight tug on the shirt – a bit harsh in my opinion.
Mike
David
I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with you particularly. More a suggestion that even amongst those reading the same text, and I had previously downloaded the document from the FA, that there are differing opinions.
Yes there would be a problem if players were punished on a regular basis for holding an opponent, but if that is the case then it’s a problem for those running the game to address.
Football is only a contact sport where that contact is fair, though when is a shoulder charge ever considered fair these days?
Yes, Torres could have been booked for his act of ‘simulation’ but, in the opinion of the referee Materazzi was in the wrong, and it’s the referee’s opinion that counts.
Watching football as a neutral at non-league level at Scotland, cheating of one form or another is basically endemic, and it’s no better in England. Players get away with what they can in seeking to gain an advantage. If the referees applied the letter of the law on foul and abusive language then many games would be abandoned for lack of players.
The position of referee in the average Scottish non-league game is about as lonely as it gets. Apart from the highest level games, such as Junior Super League or latter round Cup games, there are no official referee’s assistants, only a committee man with a ‘fag and a flag’ signalling when the ball is out. At a recent Scone v Bankfoot game I watched the game alongside each set of supporters for one half. Both were convinced the referee was giving everything to the other side. A fair suggestion that he got it about right perhaps?
Rob
– it wasn’t even a foul was it? Torres ran in front of him and clipped his heels if I remember rightly – or something like that. For Matterazzi to be booked was barmy.
)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.