• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying

Spursalot said:
He's partially right, but going over the top is a tackle gone wrong. Tackling is part of the game, people are going to make mistakes trying to do it. There is no part of the game where you can accidentally bite someone.
Click to expand...

Tackles can be made with bad intentions too though. Roy Keane instantly comes to mind.
 
vkn17 said:
Tackles can be made with bad intentions too though. Roy Keane instantly comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I like to apologize in advance if my analogy offends anyone.

That's like saying guns kill people. The person doing it is at fault and a tackle just happened to be his "weapon" of choice. In the case of Haaland he had set out to injure him.
 
Jordinho said:
I like to apologize in advance if my analogy offends anyone.

That's like saying guns kill people. The person doing it is at fault and a tackle just happened to be his "weapon" of choice. In the case of Haaland he had set out to injure him.
Click to expand...

Eh?

"He's partially right, but going over the top is a tackle gone wrong." I interpreted that as players that go over the top is not intentional. Yes, Keane set out to injure Haaland - intentional tackle.
 
Jordinho said:
I like to apologize in advance if my analogy offends anyone.

That's like saying guns kill people. The person doing it is at fault and a tackle just happened to be his "weapon" of choice. In the case of Haaland he had set out to injure him.
Click to expand...

Famous Eddie Izzard sketch "They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people"
 
Liverpool have really, and I mean really, blown an opportunity to repair the damage of previous issues as well as damage control this situation. They should've immediately said he would not play for the rest of the season, they should've made absolutely sure they stressed that he was going for counseling, and they should be sending him to counseling (this is beyond 'anger management' issues - angry people would hurt or punch people, Suarez repeatedly does stupid things)...they need to stop being enablers of his behaviour. Time and time again they leap to his defence (Carragher and Gerrard have embarrassed themselves) and all it does is leave the bloke tinkling in the wind even more and thinking it's OK if said-tinkle repeatedly hits people around him. I personally think he might be a bit 'touretty' or some such condition. He needs more than standard help, and I would suggest that the club should've immediately snaffled him away until August.
 
vkn17 said:
Eh?

"He's partially right, but going over the top is a tackle gone wrong." I interpreted that as players that go over the top is not intentional. Yes, Keane set out to injure Haaland - intentional tackle.
Click to expand...

But tackles are allowed, biting is not. If someone uses tackling as a means to another end than winning the ball they should be punished and usually are. The severity of the damage caused shouldn't matter, it's the act that is punishable.

Some players are reckless tacklers, like Clattermole who has and will continue to injure opponents on occasions despite suffering long term injuries himself. He's just stupid and more should probably be made of cases like him, but the rough, hard tackling midfielder has always been a part of the game.

A cynical, cheating, diving taco like Suarez is a new thing and a special case. Every time he does something it will be blown up even more because he has previous. Other players who get into one-off situations of poor behaviour will be let off far more eaily.
 
Jordinho said:
But tackles are allowed, biting is not. If someone uses tackling as a means to another end than winning the ball they should be punished and usually are. The severity of the damage caused shouldn't matter, it's the act that is punishable.

Some players are reckless tacklers, like Clattermole who has and will continue to injure opponents on occasions despite suffering long term injuries himself. He's just stupid and more should probably be made of cases like him, but the rough, hard tackling midfielder has always been a part of the game.

A cynical, cheating, diving taco like Suarez is a new thing and a special case. Every time he does something it will be blown up even more because he has previous. Other players who get into one-off situations of poor behaviour will be let off far more eaily.
Click to expand...

I was just commenting on the tackling, I don't think biting should be allowed either and agree with the rest of your post.
 
vkn17 said:
Eh?

"He's partially right, but going over the top is a tackle gone wrong." I interpreted that as players that go over the top is not intentional. Yes, Keane set out to injure Haaland - intentional tackle.
Click to expand...


I meant it as the majority of over the top tackles are just mistimed. Yes some tackles are clearly malicious, and they should be punished accordingly.


However that doesn't really relate to biting very well.

If A famous person bites anyone there is going to be a huge media thing about it. That's just the price of fame. He's supposed to be a 'role model'.
 
Spursalot said:
I meant it as the majority of over the top tackles are just mistimed. Yes some tackles are clearly malicious, and they should be punished accordingly.


However that doesn't really relate to biting very well.

If A famous person bites anyone there is going to be a huge media thing about it. That's just the price of fame. He's supposed to be a 'role model'.
Click to expand...

That's all I meant. I wasn't trying to relate it to biting.
 
People and Pool don't understand, the issue with the brick that Suarez does is the response they choose.

The whole racist incident would have died very quickly if the club and Suarez had said, yes, he did it (with the caveat of cultural differences), he understands that can't be done in England, has apologized, been punished and contributed $$ to some anti-racism campaign. The denials, defense, refusal to shake hands all just made a circus out of it and hurt player and club's image.

Someone above posted the right response, the club should have just imposed a ban on him immediately after latest incident, at least claimed to have him see counseling and do a public apology.

The problem is Pool are desperate to regain a position in football and Suarez is the only real hope in a team full of aging players and overhyped/overpaid mid level pros
 
Liverpool's Luis Suarez is banned for 10 matches by the Football Association for violent conduct following an incident with Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic in Sunday's fixture at Anfield.



Boom. 4 this season, 6 next.
 
stinkfoot said:
Does it not carry over to another team like with Joey Barton?

Edit: Or was that just because he is on loan?
Click to expand...


I'd assume not, as Suarez's ban at Ajax didn't carry over to the Premier League.


To put that into context, Liverpool's first six games this season were five Premier League matches and the third round of the League Cup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back