Logic

This might be because we value them equally as footballers so we prioritize the cheaper option. Nothing wrong with that IMO. But why we seemingly can't work on two deals at the same time and getting them done before the last day of the transfer window... that's something I don't understand.

Looking at the following links it looks like we'd be unseeded if we get 4th. http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/trank2014.html http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedcl2013.html At least there are a couple of teams in the unseeded group with higher rankings that us (at that time). So... anyone that can take a better look at this? (My 2 year old is sick and for some reason thinks I should be tending to him rather than digging up european ranking points and possible combinations in the qualifiers if we possibly qualify)

Rooney had the same amount of passes to RvP according to StatZone.

"This is a humble club. We won’t be making DVDs of the performance. There are bigger things we’re trying to achieve." http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-brendan-rodgers-salutes-6656497

At first I was thinking about writing a long rant filled with words that would be *'d out by the forum software. Then I started writing a long post trying to explain the issue the club has. But I'm so unbelievably disappointed right now that I'll just say the following. 1) Ian Ayre and the committee are a good example of the Peter's principle. 2) Successful businessmen should be able to spot problems like that and the longer they don't fix it the more I doubt they are taking their "ownership" of the club serious enough.

Not available for OSX afaik.

Damn! Thanks though.

wiziwig dead? Anyone got any sopcast links?

My thinking was more that Kelly doesn't appear fit enough to play fullback for 90min and having no option off the bench - iirc - using him as the centreback to begin with would give us more options during the game. But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the team but lining up as a 4231/433.

What about Mignolet Kelly - Skrtel - Toure Sterling - Hendo - Stevie - Flanno Coutinho Suarez - Sturridge ? Could easily transition into a 4231 or a 433 in-game depending on how it develops.

Found this report on him. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1922355-scouting-report-manchester-united-target-saul-niguez-better-than-paul-pogba Highlights: I have no idea which version of him (the attacking midfielder version in your quote or this one from bleacher report) is the correct one though...

Is there an echo in here?

I'm not agreeing with how Bootle Buck worded it but the game needs someone active (and as high-profile as possible) to come public with it. It would do the whole "issue" a world of good (although it would admittedly cause some problems as well because of a minority of fans being d****eads.)

Mostly agree with that. For me it's simply about showing the ref respect no matter how much he f*cks up. But I don't think the questionable decisions get refereed better in that situation (where he's under less pressure from players) only that everyone would maybe be more relaxed about them so not go surrounding the ref for small infractions out in the middle of the field all the time. I like that. One question though - is it the ref that asks for the video replay or the players (or can both do it)? I'd also like to treat players claiming it's their ball when it goes out of play or falling down claiming a foul to be considered a challenge for the video ref. But I know few would agree to that. I'm glad someone did!

Fair as in the rules being applied equally to both teams on the pitch. It's a novel idea I know, but some of us actually believe the game should be decided by the players and not the referee. And where did I imply not having respect for the job the ref does or the laws of the game? I stated a fact that referees have been implicated in scandals all around the world (would never happen in England of course…). Which means you don't give them more of a chance to have an even bigger effect on results. You can respect the job and the referee even if you try to make sure things are run properly. But since you've pretty much never tried to argue any of the points I raised but rather spend your time deciding to create arguments no one on the pro-tech side has ever held or do what you just did in this post… Have a nice day - I'm out of this discussion with you for now.

Hehe, true. But even if it did - you'd have video referees that could drag them down to earth when they do their regular f*ck-ups.

Do they all hate me (reffing away) or love me (reffing at home)? It's not 40k neutrals we're talking about. I worked in QC/QA at a rapidly growing biotech company… sounds like a normal day at work at times. :P/>/> But… I'm not anymore likely to start giving the players more if they constantly act like idiots. This part is simply about respect. And I honestly believe 30k people aggressively shouting for fouls have more of an effect than the players on the pitch. Which is why teams get more favourable results (both football and refereeing-wise) at home. Agreed. Interpretation makes it more difficult to judge fairness. Interpretation makes fans go "Player X got away with that just 10 min before! OMG Corruption!!!" The ball doesn't strike a players hand/arm that often that'd make a huge difference. It'd simply make those few cases easier to referee. Although maybe with video refereeing it'd be easier. For some reason I always think of the penalty Baggio got vs. Chile in '98 when this discussion comes up. I always thought he tried to hit his hand and if he did I think that's just great and should be rewarded. 50s in -

Well… FIFA doesn't want to introduce this ("the most corrupt of all"). That should tell you something. Create a group of managers/players/referees + representatives from sports that use technology today. Let them come up with something. I'm certain it would be something similar to what most on here want - of those who want to introduce technology. And since this is a forum but not a committee that will present one idea after coming to a conclusion you'll have various ideas put forward. Most are very similar in that you limit the amount of challenges and how you deal with what happens from the incident until a decision is made (The Sterling v. ManC offside as an example -> play until next break in game (goal, goalkick etc) -> video ref makes a decision -> goal/goalkick). No one that I know of wants endless breaks in the game or any kind of "americanification" of the Beautiful Game. Most of us simply want to make it as fair as possible. And no, you should absolutely not enhance their authority. They've been implicated and found guilty in too many leagues of fixing games (or helping one team). You need to make their job as simple as possible (simplify rules, make sure teams have the chance to get obvious wrongs made right etc) as well as as transparent as possible and one of the best ways of doing that is introducing video-refs and more technology.

So… what are you going to do about the 20-70k fans around him? Or do you think the players have more an effect on them than the fans in the stands?

I don't disagree on changing how players can approach the ref. I just don't think it will have any effect on how well they referee. It's just about respecting the ref. You wouldn't have a system that stops play every single time something happens. And you need to stop making up arguments for those who would like more technology introduced because I don't think anyone has hinted that the video-ref should stop play a thousand times per game. Just one simple example instead would be to let each team have 3 challenges in total that they can use. They'd also need to specify what they are challenging (player X was offside at that point, red card tackle by that one or to use your example above - player x tackled that player illegally 5 passes before the goal). If something like this would be done it wouldn't be abused to get time-outs, it'd get fast answers to the most important calls - like those I mentioned in my previous post - and it'd would most likely lead to referees starting to deal with each situation on its own merit rather than being able to hide behind how early it is in the match (when it comes to red card tackles early in the game) or which is the bigger team (that they want to keep happy to keep getting those games) and so on and so forth. edited to add: I agree with simplifying the rules as well. Things like "was his arm in a natural position and/or did he move it towards the ball or not" needs to get eradicated from the rules. Should be simple as - did it hit his arm or not?

There have been attempts at trying to let the refs be more respected (Respect campaign just one example of that) and in one of the big tournaments the last 10-20 years the referees were told to book players who got in their face or showed disrespect - can't remember which one. There are variations of this in most leagues repeated over and over again. But I agree with you on this point (a rugby style rules of engagement) but I don't believe it will have any effect on the quality of their decision making. They get the vast majority of key decisions right. But we regularly have examples of decisive goals wrongly not being given (Suarez vs. Everton), goals wrongly being allowed (beachball vs. us), off the ball incidents not being spotted or seen correctly (Suarez putting salt&pepper on Ivanovic and having a bite before scoring a decisive goal), 50/50 incidents being judged the wrong way because of the occasion/time/speed of the game (Jonjo red card tackle vs. Evans red card tackle) and the list goes on. These are match changing decisions which would all have been dealt with quickly by a video ref. The only incident that might have a debatable outcome and might take at most a couple of minutes to figure out is the red-card for Jonjo. And these are only examples from the top of my mind only dealing with our own team. In a game decided by one goal most of the time one major decision wrongly given (or not given) changes everything putting the result in the hands of a single person trying to keep up with some of the best athletes (and "actors") in the world surrounded by 20-70thousand supporters of one of the "tribes" battling it out. That's not what the beautiful game should be about. It should be about the best team winning. And introducing video technology even just semi-competently will move us in that direction (and away from fixed results). Football should be more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_LX8Ds4-sw and less like (turn off the sound…).

So pretty much repeating the things we've been trying to do over and over and hoping for a different result this time? A wise mans said something about that IIRC...

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.