|
Post by iglugluk on Dec 18, 2017 17:50:20 GMT
Without sounding like i'm defending Hughes too much, we're incredibly fragile at the moment, the first goal always kills us off It probably did have an affect on the game and how it turned out I think there should be a ref review at half time and then fulltime, all four officials should come together and look at the major events of each half and retrospectively dish out reds/yellows/remove goals that should never have been Lanzini will be banned but it does fuck all for us, if anything it screws us over even more, they've got Bournemouth and Newcastle next 2 fixtures, fellow strugglers that we could do with losing.. I see no reason why potential penalty decisions can't be subject to a video review in-game. Obviously there needs to be strict control regarding excessive use of video review for the sake of game flow......but penalty decisions make a massive difference to game outcomes.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 17:51:46 GMT
Moyes on about making an appeal. If they win said appeal, I give up. The bloke is a cheat! Some people may not agree, but with regard to the Burnley lad that got done, Tarkovsky or whatever, I think Murray made a meal of that one. Another cheat IMHO!
|
|
|
Post by Cast no shadow on Dec 18, 2017 18:10:07 GMT
The punishment for diving in the game should be a red, player might risk it, if punishment is only a yellow.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Dec 18, 2017 18:18:26 GMT
Diving in football as gone on for years,nobody was better at it than Fanney Lee.If your team is on the receiving side all hell let’s loose,if your team gains you look for every excuse possible.This board slated Monk after the Moses dive,Brighton fans slated Moss when he did not give the pen against Shawcross.The easist way to cut diving out is to stand up and defend properly so you don’t give the official a decision to make.Or If the player who makes the tackle asks the ref to see the video,if the defender did foul the player then he walks for trying to cheat.There are only two people on the pitch who no if there was contact that’s the forward and the tackler. So If the defender is proven right then the forward walks.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 18, 2017 18:30:58 GMT
Moyes on about making an appeal. If they win said appeal, I give up. The bloke is a cheat! Some people may not agree, but with regard to the Burnley lad that got done, Tarkovsky or whatever, I think Murray made a meal of that one. Another cheat IMHO! If he does and fails Lanzini's ban should be doubled and Moyes should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute.
|
|
|
Post by LiverpoolStokie on Dec 18, 2017 18:31:31 GMT
I find Moyes' argument regarding 'going against the ref' as missing the whole point - it about fooling to ref in the first place. Yes, Scott got it wrong but only because he was deceived by the cheating git. If VTR had been available he would have consulted it, changed the decision and booked Lanzini. Just because this is retrospective it makes no difference. I'd just love a manager to be honest for once (hate to say this but give Klopp his due that on reflection he agreed that Liverpool got lucky with the Mingolet decision). For the rest of Moyes' comments then they are just poor excuses of a manager trying to justify the actions of one of his players. As a number of people have said if the authorities are really serious about sorting this out properly, then the player would be banned for a significant period, made to pay a substantial fine (a couple of months wages - they can all afford it) and the team they played for docked points. It would stop overnight. As for the game, well we had a guest with us who is a West Ham fan and his view was that the decision changed the game entirely with a fairly even contest up to that point.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Dec 18, 2017 18:33:51 GMT
Moyes on about making an appeal. If they win said appeal, I give up. The bloke is a cheat! Some people may not agree, but with regard to the Burnley lad that got done, Tarkovsky or whatever, I think Murray made a meal of that one. Another cheat IMHO! If he does and fails Lanzini's ban should be doubled and Moyes should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. In my eyes it was a dive,but the problem we have is a manager and pundit said on Sunday mornings goals show it was a pen.What would of MH said if we had been given it.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 18, 2017 18:37:52 GMT
If he does and fails Lanzini's ban should be doubled and Moyes should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute. In my eyes it was a dive,but the problem we have is a manager and pundit said on Sunday mornings goals show it was a pen.What would of MH said if we had been given it. If they banned the fuckers for speaking out in support of cheats it might make them think twice in future.
|
|
|
Post by simple on Dec 18, 2017 18:38:09 GMT
I find Moyes' argument regarding 'going against the ref' as missing the whole point - it about fooling to ref in the first place. Yes, Scott got it wrong but only because he was deceived by the cheating git. If VTR had been available he would have consulted it, changed the decision and booked Lanzini. Just because this is retrospective it makes no difference. I'd just love a manager to be honest for once (hate to say this but give Klopp his due that on reflection he agreed that Liverpool got lucky with the Mingolet decision). For the rest of Moyes' comments then they are just poor excuses of a manager trying to justify the actions of one of his players. As a number of people have said if the authorities are really serious about sorting this out properly, then the player would be banned for a significant period, made to pay a substantial fine (a couple of months wages - they can all afford it) and the team they played for docked points. It would stop overnight. As for the game, well we had a guest with us who is a West Ham fan and his view was that the decision changed the game entirely with a fairly even contest up to that point. It’s been going on for years managers including ours will tell There players to go down,remember there was very little replays and no slow mo 20 years ago. Maybe the FA fine the manager and give them a ban as they are responsible for There players.
|
|
|
Post by cr4zyd4ve on Dec 18, 2017 18:49:20 GMT
I find Moyes' argument regarding 'going against the ref' as missing the whole point - it about fooling to ref in the first place. "From my point of view, they are going against the referee, whoever the panel were." Genius statement from Moyes, of cause they are going against the ref. They are trying to, all too late for us, go a very small way to correcting the ref's mistake. Idiot!! That is the point of the panel, surely...
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Dec 18, 2017 18:59:29 GMT
I have lost a lot of respect for Moyes over his comments regarding this incident.
It was a dive and he knows it.
Hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 19:00:28 GMT
3 points away to another team who they are in a relegation battle with by way of cheating, job done and manager probably happy.
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Dec 18, 2017 19:04:12 GMT
Why is it a yellow if spotted during a game, but a red if spotted retrospectively?
Utter madness.
Cheating should be a red no matter when it's seen.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Dec 18, 2017 19:06:55 GMT
Why is it a yellow if spotted during a game, but a red if spotted retrospectively? Utter madness. Cheating should be a red no matter when it's seen. If it was spotted during the game the penalty would not have been given. I suppose that is their warped logic.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Dec 18, 2017 19:07:48 GMT
Moyes has made a complete tit of himself...maybe he should just ask Lanzini if he is a cheat...and see if he has the balls to admit it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 19:08:03 GMT
Legend, once a stokie always a stokie.
|
|
|
Post by hughjarse on Dec 18, 2017 19:29:21 GMT
Wet sham to contest charge ! Wtf...????
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Dec 18, 2017 19:46:03 GMT
Legend, once a stokie always a stokie. Is this idea workable?
|
|
|
Post by LiverpoolStokie on Dec 18, 2017 19:46:24 GMT
I suspect that its not the case, but if appeals against a red are refused then the suspension can be extended if the panel consider it to be an unwarranted appeal so this should be similar. If Lanzini is expected to appeal then it suggests to me that he believes it is legitimate to dive or is just prepared to lie to save his own face and reputation. If the appeal is upheld the FA may as well not bother with taking such action.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Dec 18, 2017 19:50:44 GMT
Legend, once a stokie always a stokie. Is this idea workable? As it happens we do play them again this season but were this the second game who knows when we might play them again? Last time we fell out of the top flight we were nearly a quarter of a century getting back. By which time Lanzini won't be playing, he'll be at home with his Horlicks!
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Dec 18, 2017 20:06:53 GMT
I don't really see how it damaged us really. We'd most likely have lost the game if you're honest Ffs!
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 18, 2017 20:18:38 GMT
As it happens we do play them again this season but were this the second game who knows when we might play them again? Last time we fell out of the top flight we were nearly a quarter of a century getting back. By which time Lanzini won't be playing, he'll be at home with his Horlicks! Just dock West Ham three points and award them to Stoke. Job done cheating eradicated forever.
|
|
|
Post by hammered on Dec 18, 2017 20:41:16 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it.
But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets.
Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse.
Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes?
0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to.
While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 18, 2017 20:46:15 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? for his lack of class and ungratefulness, his career was going downhill, ge was maligned, Hughes got it going again and Ryan as captain helped him along.
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Dec 18, 2017 20:53:59 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? I just can't agree with that - the pen changed everything as when you are short on confidence then that sort of decision going against you is huge. Your team cheated to win a game of football - you won't be the first and you won't be the last.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Dec 18, 2017 20:57:10 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? Apart from the fact that pieters made no challenge and if anything slid alongside to block a potential shot, I'd say moyes spectacles are pretty special. Ryan and hughes abused arnie because hes a c**t. Pretty simple really. He was once our c**t who your fans religiously abused when we played you. Now hes your c**t who will be religiously abused by our fans when we play you. Such is football and football fans
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Dec 18, 2017 20:58:41 GMT
Wearing Moyes specs, Lanzini (being a bit lightweight) took to the air to avoid the inevitable clattering he was likely getting from Pieters who trying to withdraw from the challenge was never getting the ball, just Lanzini a couple of milli seconds later!! A probable foul and how the Ref at full speed saw it and called it. But it was a dive, most WHU accept that and actually feel a bit dirty we benefited from it - although if we were one of the big clubs we'd just nod and move on. Lanzini will get whatever he gets. Did the Pen change the outcome? Well the match kicked off with you attacking, making most of the play and WHU on the counter. It played out the same throughout the game. Even at 0-0 you had lots of the ball but didn’t create much till the Shawcross header off the post, which was unlucky even more so when Shaqiri's own fake theatrics allowed the play for Lanzini's run. Following the Pen you still had 71 mins to change the outcome but didn’t get Adrian’s gloves dirty. WHU scored twice more and wasted other good chances to make it worse. Did the tactics of Moyes including putting on a couple of finishers towards the end stretching tired defenders outwit the emotionally unstable and increasingly Arnied Hughes? 0-3 was the score – the Pen changed nothing other than give Hughes something to cling to. While we’re at it why did Shawcross and Hughes lose it with Arnie? You can't defend the dive. Moyes' defence of him afterwards was equally disgusting. He wasn't tired or trying to avoid a clattering, he started going down before contact then fell into Pieters even though Pieters was pulling out. A spin then completed the theatrics. I'm not saying we're never guilty of it, I'm always shouting at Shaq for going down too easily but please just accept it for what it is - your player cheated, you won a penalty. Did it change the result? Well the stats say not, however there is an argument to say that our already fragile players heads dropped after the (wrong) decision was given. The next 2 goals were scored with the game stretched as we were chasing it. The truth is we'll never know. I'm sure West Ham fans will be understanding when you're done out of a decision that costs you later in the season.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2017 20:58:53 GMT
The ref should be charged too
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Dec 18, 2017 21:02:29 GMT
The ref should be charged too I sit in block 1 so was side on to it, and even from my position could see that it wasn't a foul. The ref was closer and had a better angle. I'm still stunned as to how he gave it. He'll still get paid though and will carry on... The focus is on the cheating player, deflecting it from the incompetent ref.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Dec 18, 2017 21:09:34 GMT
The ref should be charged too the player has been charged with deceiving a referee, he's now got an excuse for being shit. regarding your footnote, the mist has been here all day
|
|