Liverpool FC Forum

[red till i die!!]

I don’t think he is as fast as he was before the injury. I remember that year he came when he was never beaten one on one for years but now he is beaten on one v ones a lot more regularly. I still think he is a rolls Royce defender but if is not 100% into it then his performance won’t show  it, and I think that is the case as he is not the same player. I just feel we need to step back to move forward and selling him and Salah would go along way in buying some up and coming superstars with a hunger and an intensity to succeed, as that is what we are missing.

Had we built from a position of strength then it wouldn’t be the case, we didn’t though and moving forward we will have to take big steps. Remember we didn’t want to sell Coutinho but as it happened it was great for the team. That was another case of taking a step backwards to move forwards.

Totally agree about the pace Kazza but think he has the smarts to compensate. I get what you are saying about stepping back to go forward as well.

The thing is he is still the better option out of Matip and Gomez. Konate is starting to look like another Matip as well so in this case I would say parting with Virgil would be 2 steps back.  We can sell Mo but again he is the fittest out of all our forwards. If the plan would be to replace him with someone like Gvardiol then sell but not to cash in and give Klopp some kid instead.

Chances are we will only make about 2 changes that are decent in the summer. I'd hate for us to be relying on Gomez, Matip & Konate plus a new CH to bed in.

[kazza]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11910581/Virgil-van-Dijk-makes-noise-says-Netherlands-rages-Marco-van-Basten.html

[redshade]

New captain and Trent is VC.

https://youtu.be/nlyM-Jnlh8Y

[kazza]

It was never a red card, should have been a foul and yellow but he did abuse the ref so will the FA make an example of him? It may be more than a three match suspension

[kazza]

Charged with improper conduct, no doubt more games missed will be added to the suspension. They’ll throw the book at him to make an example of him, especially after the MacAllister red was changed. My guess is 4 games.

[redshade]

Refs and officiating has become a joke these days. So pot games Virgil may miss Villa, West Ham, wolves and Spurs.

[kazza]

Refs and officiating has become a joke these days. So pot games Virgil may miss Villa, West Ham, wolves and Spurs.

It was never a red but he should have been more professional and kept his mouth shut. I remember thinking at the time this will lead to an extended ban and if I thought it then so did millions of others, except him of course. You could see Klopp was trying to get him off the field because he knew.  Should have been more a captain!

[damjan193]

It's ridiculous if they ban him for so many games though. John Terry got 4 for racially abusing Antont Ferdinand ffs. It's not like talking back to refs is a new thing either, I've seen many go unpunished. 1 game for the red and 1 for the improper conduct or whatever they call it should be enough.

[Eagle]

Why would it be a 4 game ban? They'll just had an extra game to the one he already has to serve. So he'll miss Villa at home and then Wolves away straight after the international break.

[red till i die!!]

It was never a red card, should have been a foul and yellow but he did abuse the ref so will the FA make an example of him? It may be more than a three match suspension

Do you not think he denied him a goalscoring opportunity? He was last man as well so rules say he's off.

[kazza]

It was never a red card, should have been a foul and yellow but he did abuse the ref so will the FA make an example of him? It may be more than a three match suspension

Do you not think he denied him a goalscoring opportunity? He was last man as well so rules say he's off.

I think he played the ball and he got the man first, a foul and yellow but not a red. How can you send a player off for trying to play. As for a one on one with Allison, it’s hardly a gimme. I understand about the last man point, but it’s not like it was an open goal, he still had to beat the best one on one keeper and Van Dyke would have been covering the goal. A chance yes but not a certain goal. If it was a ManUre player, Neville would have said it shouldn’t have been a red card. People quote and requote those pundits (not saying you are) but it’s just their opinion, and their opinion very often depends on the team they played for. My opinion anyway.

[red till i die!!]

Whether he sticks it past Allison or into row Z is irrelevant Kazza as the rule states if you deny a player a goalscoring opportunity and your the last defender then it's a red card. If he does it inside the box then it might be a yellow and a pen. Double jeopardy rule or something comes into effect in that situation.

It doesn't matter what anyones opinion of it is either as that's why there is rules. It's one of the easiest decisions to give a Ref.  Happens loads of times every year Mate and in fairness he should have took it on the chin for what it was instead of making it worse for himself.

Now my opinion is    He got caught and rushed the challenge while isak was just to quick with the turn and he went through him. He's lost a yard of pace and you have to expect this kind of thing to happen as a result of that.

[Eagle]

You're getting into the territory of every time a CB fouls the forward you can argue it's a red card. Technically the forward is always going to have a goal scoring chance if he beats the CB so if there isn't a clean challenge then it's a red card? This isn't Isak being in behind and van Djik making up 10 yards and pulling him back. It's subjective so I get both arguements but that's not the sort of scenario we've seen the goal scoring chance rule applied to much in the past. We should be seeing far more red cards going forward if that's now the threshold.

[kazza]

You're getting into the territory of every time a CB fouls the forward you can argue it's a red card. Technically the forward is always going to have a goal scoring chance if he beats the CB so if there isn't a clean challenge then it's a red card? This isn't Isak being in behind and van Djik making up 10 yards and pulling him back. It's subjective so I get both arguements but that's not the sort of scenario we've seen the goal scoring chance rule applied to much in the past. We should be seeing far more red cards going forward if that's now the threshold.

The red card rule was first brought in as defenders were stopping goal scoring chances with a dirty foul (a foul that has no intention of the ball but made only to stop an attack). Be it a trip, wrestle or a pull of the shirt but what would be deemed a professional foul and that should certainly be red carded as it is cheating.

Then there is a foul that happens as you try to get the ball, it’s bound to happen as it is a dynamic contact sport. It’s a foul and depending on the severity and could or could not be carded, I’d say that is the spirit of football. Telling a defender he must get the ball and if he didn’t then he would get an immediate red card will fundamentally change how football is played. Football is about attacking but also about defending. How many great last ditch tackles would we ever see if the defenders think they will be sent off and subsequently be suspended for multiple games.

It’s all subjective but should be about common sense.

[red till i die!!]

You're getting into the territory of every time a CB fouls the forward you can argue it's a red card. Technically the forward is always going to have a goal scoring chance if he beats the CB so if there isn't a clean challenge then it's a red card? This isn't Isak being in behind and van Djik making up 10 yards and pulling him back. It's subjective so I get both arguements but that's not the sort of scenario we've seen the goal scoring chance rule applied to much in the past. We should be seeing far more red cards going forward if that's now the threshold.

If he's the last man then it's a red because if he didn't foul him then he was through.  A CB fouling a striker outside of that is a yellow unless it's a high or wreckless challenge. Without that rule any attacker that gets through gets lifted out of it as any player is going to do it for a yellow card. The red card is the deterrent.

Worrall got sent off in the manure v forest game in a very similar position for tugging on the rabbit. Loads of stuff in the game gets misinterpreted by different referees but this decision rarely does. It's one of the easiest decisions you can give him.

You're getting into the territory of every time a CB fouls the forward you can argue it's a red card. Technically the forward is always going to have a goal scoring chance if he beats the CB so if there isn't a clean challenge then it's a red card? This isn't Isak being in behind and van Djik making up 10 yards and pulling him back. It's subjective so I get both arguements but that's not the sort of scenario we've seen the goal scoring chance rule applied to much in the past. We should be seeing far more red cards going forward if that's now the threshold.

The red card rule was first brought in as defenders were stopping goal scoring chances with a dirty foul (a foul that has no intention of the ball but made only to stop an attack). Be it a trip, wrestle or a pull of the shirt but what would be deemed a professional foul and that should certainly be red carded as it is cheating.

Then there is a foul that happens as you try to get the ball, it’s bound to happen as it is a dynamic contact sport. It’s a foul and depending on the severity and could or could not be carded, I’d say that is the spirit of football. Telling a defender he must get the ball and if he didn’t then he would get an immediate red card will fundamentally change how football is played. Football is about attacking but also about defending. How many great last ditch tackles would we ever see if the defenders think they will be sent off and subsequently be suspended for multiple games.

It’s all subjective but should be about common sense.

If that is all left down to the referees then you will see nothing but inconsistencies like you do with penalties. Football is a contact sport but only in certain situations mate. How many times has one been awarded for something like brushing a leg or hand gently on the back. 90% of them are the player just falling over and its as clear as day but because he touched him it's a penalty.  Far to many grey areas there as the rule isn't clear and its left to the refs. Common sense is not something everyone has Kazza and the ones who do surely have different interpretations of what that is. Who is to say he didn't take him out in order to stop us from going 2 behind. No way Isak dived either.

The club won't appeal it as they have no case and while it sucks he got sent off it is what it is. The real talking point imo should be what he did after.  We got lucky with trent not going off and again everyone knows throwing the ball away is a card. If it wasn't lads would be holding on to the ball and most certainly throwing it away every single time killing momentum to slow you down.  This is the way the game used to be and while I do think a lot of the new rules suck but honestly lads, I think these are the few good ones that came in.