Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Curtis Jones


liverpoolsno9
 Share

Recommended Posts

How many times a season do we see a defender slide in out of control and completely wipe out someone in possession only to be told it’s not even a foul (in fact it’s a great tackle) because the defender got the slightest touch on the ball first?  Curtis got a touch on the ball first so what’s the difference? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aws said:

How many times a season do we see a defender slide in out of control and completely wipe out someone in possession only to be told it’s not even a foul (in fact it’s a great tackle) because the defender got the slightest touch on the ball first?  Curtis got a touch on the ball first so what’s the difference? 

Yeah "he got the ball" seems to apply from pundits every single week except for this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, aws said:

How many times a season do we see a defender slide in out of control and completely wipe out someone in possession only to be told it’s not even a foul (in fact it’s a great tackle) because the defender got the slightest touch on the ball first?  Curtis got a touch on the ball first so what’s the difference? 

 

The badge on the shirt.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Carra_is_legend said:

Nice one, continue on the war path because keeping quiet or even extending an olive branch to these cunts will never work, it will only feed their ego even more. 

 

Keep calling them for it, keep appealing, shame the fuckers. 

 

I'm inclined to agree. We've little enough to lose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

They'll just use the last part - "endangers the safety of an opponent" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every slide tackle could be said to endanger the opponent. I think we’ll run two arguments - that he got the ball with the contact to the man being caused by inadvertently bouncing off the ball and that the VAR was used incorrectly because of the over-emphasis on the still shot and slo-mo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aws said:

Every slide tackle could be said to endanger the opponent. I think we’ll run two arguments - that he got the ball with the contact to the man being caused by inadvertently bouncing off the ball and that the VAR was used incorrectly because of the over-emphasis on the still shot and slo-mo. 

With the information we have the only way we could have a case is incorrect use of VAR. After all the ref initially gave a yellow.

 

If our club has any other info about D England we'll be faced with something else and much bigger.

 

I wouldn't rule that out complelety bearing in mind the explanation after the disallowed goal. "I thought he'd given it". Really? How's that even possible? Even if he had 10 double whiskys, was snorting cocain and watching Ryder cup while getting a BJ from a hooker, he'd known it was a disallowed goal he was checking.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aws said:

Every slide tackle could be said to endanger the opponent. I think we’ll run two arguments - that he got the ball with the contact to the man being caused by inadvertently bouncing off the ball and that the VAR was used incorrectly because of the over-emphasis on the still shot and slo-mo. 

Also the factor of a slight shirtpull on him which would affect timing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Not a chance. He's developed into a completely different type of player than I expected but I'd have him straight in the first 11 before the season I'd not of been arsed if he went out on loan. 

 

Anyway fuck the days of selling players to clubs with title ambitions.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Not a chance. He's developed into a completely different type of player than I expected but I'd have him straight in the first 11 before the season I'd not of been arsed if he went out on loan. 

 

Anyway fuck the days of selling players to clubs with title ambitions.

He's not ready for a step down yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...