1 Sep 2014

Transfer Mockery: Top boss contradicts Liverpool over deal for 'superb' £11m attacker

For many Liverpool fans, the collapse of Loic Remy's proposed transfer to Anfield remains a massive disappointment, and the prevailing media view appears to be that the 'superb' France striker failed his medical. No one at LFC, however, has specifically referenced a failed medical, and Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho has cast further doubt on that particular reasoning.

According to the Liverpool Echo, LFC scrapped the proposed £11m deal as a result of 'concerns' arising from Remy's medical'.

However, when asked about the deal Brendan Rodgers made no reference to any medical issue, and offered the following explanation:

"It's very simple we have made a decision as a club not to go ahead. It's unfortunate for the player. We are disappointed for the player but there’s nothing more to be said"

LFC haven't publicly acknowledge the alleged failed medical (and that's hardly surprising), but it's reasonable to assume that the club's private reason for abandoning the deal is - as leaked by the Liverpool Echo - related to a medical issue.

Well, Remy has now signed for Chelsea, and according to Mourinho, the striker has no medical issues whatsoever. He told reporters:

"We have a fantastic doctor and I trust him completely. They will identify any problem. The information we have from specialists in different areas is that he does not have a problem."

In my view, the Chelsea move makes an absolute mockery of Liverpool's failure to complete the deal:

* If Remy is healthy enough for Stamford Bridge, then why is he not healthy enough for Anfield?

* If underlying issues exists that's serious enough to derail a transfer, Chelsea's doctors and specialists - who are just as qualified and experienced as LFC's - would've found it, no?

* Clearly, there's no issue with Chelsea obtaining insurance for Remy.

It's ridiculous, really. Chelsea have pulled off one of the bargain transfers of the summer, and it's a deal that Liverpool could've - and should've sealed.

It just doesn't compute: if Remy has a serious medical issue then why have Chelsea signed him on a long-term deal? If someone can explain that to me, then I'm all ears (!)

Mario Balotelli is a (potentially) great signing, but having the Italian and Remy would've immeasurably improved LFC's squad.

We'll probably never know the truth behind the Remy collapse, but in my view, it's increasingly hard to believe that the deal fell through due to medical reasons.

N.B. Any posts containing negative unsubstantiated gossip about Remy will be deleted.

Author:



106 comments:

  1. We might already know the reason Liverpool decided not to sign Remy but whether some people will believe it is another matter.


    As a famous person one noted what other clubs do is irrelevant to what Liverpool does

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do you always see an elephant instead of a fly?! It is over, give it a rest and Balotelli is much better than Remy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There are quite a few players who passed medicals at clubs and then dropped dead on the pitch from a heart condition club doctors had missed. Or what if Rémy had signed a four year deal and spent three years on the sidelines with a back issue? Time will tell who was right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Agreed, but how is it that Chelsea can claim he has no medical issue only a couple of weeks after Remy allegedly failed due to medical reasons? It doesn't compute.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm fed up and deflated with what happened to Remy, but didn't Doni have a heart problem or something

    ReplyDelete
  6. maybe we pulled the plug on Remy when we were sure we could get Ballotelli.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well clearly he does have medical issues which are already well documented . What might be in question is whether there has been any deterioration or Liverpool's attitude to risk versus Chelsea's. Both decisions could be right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good point. That may be a possibility. I personally doubt it, but it's possible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm confused. You state yourself at the beginning of your article that nobody at Liverpool has ever stated that Remy failed a medical and then base your entire argument that it was a "mockery" on medical/insurance reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Agree but I feel even time might not provide any definitive answers, The circumstances now are different to what they might have been had he signed for Liverpool. Also just because a risk does not materialise does not necessarily mean taking the chance was right it might just be that your luck held.

    ReplyDelete
  11. could be simple matter of being extra cautious. LFC dont want a risk, even if it might be 0.001 % that heart defect that Remy has could make him collapse on field.

    with Suarez antics damaging LFC brand some, a player signed with full knowledge of heartissue drops dead cant be good for image.

    Chelsea just dont have other image than being a toyclub for rich playboy, dont have to worry about traditions or damaging a brand.

    everything else than my assesment of Chelski is pure speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Most logical answer here ha.
    With sturridge and lambert already on the books, and the rumours of talks supposedly ongoing with balotelli for months, maybe the remy deal was to push through balotelli. Or the just decided not to get remy because progress picked up with balotelli. Same with etoo.
    Rather have balotelli than remy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The club's mouthpiece, the Liverpool Echo, stated that the deal collapsed for medical reasons. Harry Redknapp - Remy's boss until his move to Chelsea - has also slammed LFC for the alleged medical reasoning (Remy would've been informed of the reason, and he's almost certainly discussed it with Redknapp)

    Reading between the lines, it's reasonable to assume that 'medical reasons' is the private company line.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The rumored leaked reason for the transfer not going through which maybe or may not be true, seems to be the most logical explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why are people saying Remy failed his medical at Liverpool? As far as I am aware nothing regarding a failed medical has been mentioned by Liverpool. All Rodgers said was they decided not to go ahead, he didn't give the reason why they decided not to go ahead but everyone assumes it was a failed medical.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The premise for this article is inconsistent. If as you stated yourself, 'Rodgers made no reference to any medical issue', then how can Chelsea's confidence in Remy's fitness be a contradiction to Liverpool's stance? Sensationalism?

    ReplyDelete
  17. B Rodgers should have signed L Remy(27) but i think the fact we are struggling to get F Borini(23) Off the books was the main reason B Rodgers did not sign him. But that could come back and haunt us in the future, when we face Chelsea.


    As i personally feel L Remy(27) is a class quality finisher and a better finisher than D Costa(25), D Drogba(36), D Sturridge(24) and M Balotelli(24). And in a better side than Newcastle and QPR who will play to his strengths he would guarantee 20-30 goals a season.


    B Rodgers should still ship out these 6 / Six players today:


    B Jones(32) GK S Coates(24) CB G Johnson(29) RB L Leiva(27) DM


    O Assaidi(25) RW / LW F Borini(23) FD


    And bring in these three players by transfer deadline tonight:


    1: Romero(27) Of Sampdoria Or T Krul(27) Of Newcastle for £2-£12M GK


    2: C Tiote(28) Of Newcastle for £5-£8M DM


    3: M Reus(25) Of B Dortmund for £22-£28M RW / RWF / LW / LWF

    ReplyDelete
  18. Both medicals probably produced the same results. But LFC decided the risk was more than he was worth, and Chelsea didn't. Its that simple. Remy will get less playing time at Chelsea anyway so thats even less of a risk of non-cardiac injuries that he might have a problem with.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think if Liverpool were signing him, we would be looking for a player who would play for us for the next 4/5 years and if there was any hint of a heart issue, then that is an obvious risk to the plan. However, for Chelsea, he's going to spend most of the time on the bench and probably be gone after a year or two and therefore the element of risk to Chelsea is minute. So, I don't think it's a case of Chelsea pulling one over us. That's my view. But it's speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I get the feeling that it would've been either Remy or Balotelli, and I think I prefer Balotelli.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree kinda, but here's what I think about your choices:


    OUT:
    Jones - sure
    Coates- needs playing time, worth a loan since Agger left. ONLY if we bring in someone though.
    Johnson - NO. I mean, yes he needs to go ASAP, but its not possible yet. We only have manquillo on loan. If his deal becomes complicated and not possible, suddenly we're left with just Flanno. Not a good situation. We should let him go the same window we buy Manquillo permanently.
    Leiva - Yes, but again only if we bring someone in the other way.
    Assaidi - little impact on squad whether he stays or goes.
    Borini - Same as Assaidi.


    IN:
    Romero - good keeper, check :D (Valdes is also rumored, which I wouldn't mind)
    Tiote - Not the player I would go for, but solid all the same. I'd rather keep Lucas honestly though.
    Reus - Still a bit of a dream, but hey, if we can make it happen, sure why not. Problem is we have too many players in his position. Could be problematic for Sterling, Marko, and Coutinho.

    ReplyDelete
  22. From my point of view, I thought it was one or the other in terms of Balo or Remy after the news about Balotelli broke and we eventually signed him. Yes, health reasons have been mentioned by the papers, but maybe the club held out for a player perceived as more reputable, or simply, better.


    Either way, I'm not fussed. Remy was probably a good deal at the price, but I think Balotelli can have a better impact for us. Can't see how both could be signed and sustained within the squad with Lambert already at the club.


    Remy is 3rd choice in a lone striker system at Chelsea. You won't see much of him again. He is a replacement for their former 3rd choice, Torres.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well looking at super Mario i would say it is one of the smarter moves Liverpool made this window amen.

    ReplyDelete
  24. totally offtopic hjere. Did Man Utd just land Falcao Btw?

    if so, itll definetly strenghten their attack. but still puzzles me to no end. its their defence and midfield that needs to be overhauled.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Looks like it but the way they are playing its going to take more than him.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think based on what we now know, it would be reasonable to assume Balotelli is the reason Remy isn't a Liverpool player... He's younger, better and has won plenty... simple really. Sorry Remy, but we got a better offer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. if they sign Vidal AND a world-class centre half today i will shit myself, otherwise... Meh. theyre completely unbalanced

    ReplyDelete
  28. Would make sense seeing that we were supposedly in talks with Balo for 3 months.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Don't like to wish injury on any player, but if he does his cruciate on the way down the stairs from Woodwards office, I'll have a sly chuckle...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Chelsea use Russian doctors.... LFC used American...Now I don't want to make any assertions here but.....

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why would it be so hard for BR and Liverpool to say Remy failed his medical? Because there is more to the story! And obviously they don't want us to know!

    ReplyDelete
  32. because medicals are confidential perhaps.....

    ReplyDelete
  33. I respectfully have a two issues with this article:


    1. When did we start comparing ourselves to Chelsea? We are two very different clubs, with different transfer policies and different beliefs. With Chelsea's bottomless pit of cash (which we don't have, Suarez money aside), it could easily be argued that Chelsea are in more of a position to "gamble" on Remy's health. What Chelsea consider acceptable is not necessarily a yardstick for what Liverpool should consider acceptable. And frankly, I'm surprised you think this is the case.


    2. You say that having Balotelli and Remy would have immeasurably improved our squad. This came as a shock to me (regardless of whether it is true) simply because you have on countless occasions explained the need for balance in the LFC striking department - a balance needed to keep the players happy. Would having Remy and Balotelli (as well as Sturridge, Lambert and Borini) not distort this balance? It seems very contradictory.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hang on a minute... You don't want others making rash and untrue statements, and then you say that about the Echo.... really think you should read some Echo articles before you start claiming they speak for LFC... Judging their previous transfer articles over the si=ummer, it's clear they know as little as we do...

    ReplyDelete
  35. First sorry for my english. I am first time here and i had to register to give my original idea. I'm going crazy about Remy situation because i think he failed the medical because he did it in US, in Boston with Red Sox doctors and Rodgers could not say no to our owners. I go further and suppose if we got Remy we would not buy Balotelli and in that we would wait for Falcao till last day!!! Rodgers mentioned he eventually have to wait till deadline day to wait if Falcao's Real Madrid deal collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  36. oh i didnt wish injury for him either, but he has just beaten his existing cruciate one. might have lost a yard of pace and mobility. i hope he doesnt deliver for Mancs

    ReplyDelete
  37. That's better than my English. Welcome

    ReplyDelete
  38. So, press speculation and the opinion of Honest 'Arry? OK then.

    ReplyDelete
  39. where on earth will they find the cash to pick up Vidal, id say Juve wants atleast 40mil maybe more now that they saw how much Di Maria was worth. and World Class Centre halves aint cheap either, nor do they grow on trees.



    perhaps they can afford over 200 mil in one window. who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  40. He might have rejected Pay as you play sort of contract.

    ReplyDelete
  41. its a sickener but atm i dont think money is any object to them, don't forget they've just signed a 750M shirt deal with Adidas and thats just one endorsement! IMO they're frantically throwing money at it now becuz they'll be terrified of not making the Champs League next yr, (a) beacuse the money is going to double (b) the longer you're out of it the harder it is to sign that level of player, which they're already seeing now with the money and wages they're having to pay to get the likes of Di Maria et al in.
    However, if they go 3+ years out of it their brand will really suffer and then we cud really see them start to struggle financially with the stock market share value and the massive club debt. but it would take a slump of a few years because of the revenue streams they have worldwide.... Cud happen tho, just takes the wrong manager/managers, lets hope they go the way of AC Milan

    ReplyDelete
  42. They need a new defence, and someone who can win the ball in midfield.
    Still a way off I think.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Real reasons why Remy didn't sign for Liverpool. In my opinion:
    1. Rodgers didn't like Remy when they met.
    2. Rodgers thought Balotelli was a better deal.
    3. The club doctor told him there was a serious change of heart problems in Remy
    4. All of the above

    ReplyDelete
  44. How can say any negative unsubstantiated gossip about Remy will be deleted when your entire piece is made from unsubstantiated gossip !!!!


    You are using the Liverpool Echo as your proof when most of their article are nothing but pure guess work. The Echo is no different then most media outlets.. randomly pick a name out of hat.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Chris Bascombe (Telegraph) who was in America during preseason said that Remy went to three different hospitals during those medicals. Three different opinions and he is convinced it is medical grounds. Different clubs have different criteria. Leroy Fer failed a medical at Everton yet is now playing for QPR as well as playing for Norwich last season. There is nothing to take from Chelsea not being bothered about their 2nd 3rd choice striker.

    Does it not matter that neither Spurs nor Arsenal who are in greater need of a striker tried to get him?

    ReplyDelete
  46. F!ck it let's wish injury on all their players and a plague on all their houses.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Seconded.

    Apparently he went to three different hospitals Andor.

    ReplyDelete
  48. so the players that could move :




    coates
    LUCAS
    suso
    assaidi ( he is injured so that may scupper any deal)
    borini


    i would not mind if lucas stayed as i think we only have two real dms
    , i really like
    suso and borini really talented but cannot see them playing games


    assaidi and coates i dont like them

    ReplyDelete
  49. I don't think we would have signed Remy AND Balotelli

    ReplyDelete
  50. Football isnt that disimilar from a business, with players being the commodities.
    From what I have read, it seems apparent that Liverpool just didnt fancy him that much! If they did, then they would have ignored/over looked most things as "grey area".
    Point is, Chelsea simply wanted him more to replace the outgoing strikers, Etoo/torres etc.
    Thats my gut feeling anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  51. ha ha ha Brilliant!!!! Loved that comment!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Looks like Coates and Assaidi going on loan geez we cant sell anyone unless its for a lot less than they are worth Suarez aside.
    It does not look like there is any new signings.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am worried sick about R Falcoa at United - he will be sensational -I am backing him for prem top scorer now - better than Suarez - we still have time to Gazzump - go B R do it

    ReplyDelete
  54. I agree, but when one medicoal found something all others just focused on that issue. And in which condition Konoplyanka passed the medical in January. The deal collapsed for other reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If not Falcoa must get a striker in cause Borini is crap

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think it's already agreed mate. He is not better than Suarez. Not as an all-round player.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Wouldn't worry too much a long injury lay off new club new league team struggling it may take him a while lets hope anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  58. True about Kono but we know it was other reasons. With this Chris Bascombe thinks it was medical. He is a decent journo and was following the story whilst out there in America at the time. That is as close to first hand as we will get I think.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Unrelated.. Shaw vs Moreno? Hehe..

    ReplyDelete
  60. everton siging tom cleverly

    ReplyDelete
  61. Better than Suarez? Please. Falcao hasn't made an assist in 60 or so games.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I love Ian Ayre
    he saved us from this mayhem and apart from sanchez and possibly michel vorm he has delivered every one of rodgers top targets


    but made up for that by getting the next best thing in balotelli for such a good price


    hopefully one keeper

    ReplyDelete
  63. Agreed ... we'll probably never know the answer. The unmentionable rumours seem like a plausible answer but it's totally unfair speculation to put on a player. Or maybe it is just code. I think the Echo is not quite as much on the inside as you'd suggest, I don't think they had the first clue about Balotelli. The reality is that the club have refused to say anything and as much as that fuels some degree of debate it's actually only us that are talking about it still. Everyone else has moved on and good for Remy that he has found a club that wants to take him on.

    Liverpool had their reasons. They wouldn't make a decision like that lightly and it's just a question of each club having their own set of standards and their own motivations. Whatever the reason I feel confident that it was an important one and made in good faith. Remy could have come here but as it stands we've come away with a player just as good. In my view we couldn't have had both Remy and Balotelli here, it wouldn't have fit and I think right now our balance of strikers is reasonably good. Having Remy on board would only make sense if we have injury problems and it would have rendered Lambert totally redundant. Origi will round out the squad next year and everyone should be relatively happy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. we need a new goalkeeper if mignolet gets injured we are screwed




    sergio romero should be first choice


    maybe we could sign arthur boruc

    ReplyDelete
  65. They have no midfield, it's a bit of a joke. They've signed three international left backs and the rest of their stars are attacking players. There is a massive gap in the centre of the park for United and unless Vidal is also going there I can't see them solving that problem. They can have all the forwards they like - it won't make any difference if they can't get them the ball or defend goals at the other end. It's an impressive line up but it will be after Christmas before they start playing well together, if at all. By then their season will be worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Interesting ... and they would have sent him to the very best. It's one thing to have the Chelsea doctor give him a once over, it's another thing entirely to have him sent to a series of US specialists for a specific concern. Who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  67. nic - no assists in 60 for Falcoa - WOW -that makes me feel relieved - CHEERS MATE

    ReplyDelete
  68. That was my case at first. One serious medical in US failed and the other in last moment in Ukraina is passed. Who can say that Liverpool have a consistent criteria?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Sorry Andor I don't see the connection? Other than the fact that medicals were done why would this make you think they are not following the same criteria? Truth is we cannot know for sure but you would expect so and nothing in those two deals that fell through would suggest otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Exactly. Perhaps we want something a touch more in depth. Truth is FSG did talk about players earning too much and not playing etc. Perhaps they want to be pretty stringent. Perhaps it is the medical teams advice not to consider players with certain factors. We really don't know but that Bascombe thing was enough to convince me it was a medical issue of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Diego Cavalieri our former reserve keeper had to retire due to heart problems.Maybe our medical team detected a similar issue in Loic Remy and that's the reason the plug was pulled on the deal.
    Recently we've seen Muamba collapse on the pitch with a heart problem.Marc Vivien Foe died from a cardiac arrest.If Chelsea are happy roll the dice on a player having a similar breakdown or loss of life for the sake of extra goals, that's on them.If Remy failed a medical.I trust the clubs judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Your headline states clearly that Liverpool have been contradicted, not the Liverpool Echo. You should, at the very least, change your headline. You have no idea what the real reasons were for LFC rejecting Remy. You are speculating.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I think it is simple ... Liverpool had caught news of falco and ballotelli ... ballotelli, is younger and in certain ways a far better player. In addition ballotelli can be sold for decent returns, he is of the age 24. Where as I think Remy is 28/29.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'm not worried, until they have some players who can win back the ball and keep it, I think we will be ok.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Ken, possibly because he had failed medicals before. So naturally, if LFC say the deals off, after going to the trouble of flying him to America and immediately after his medical, it's not un reasonable for everybody to think he failed the medical, add to that the lack of a refutal from LFC to a belief that could damage the players future, then it seems cojecture or not pretty reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I don't know the reason...

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sorry, but what planet do you live on?
    That is a pretty warped way to look at the world - unless you are some marketing executive. How on earth could a tragic event like that reflect badly on a football club?
    I am pretty sure that the club and all involved would have receive nothing but sympathy if that scenario were to happen; unless I am severely underestimating how cynical the world has become..?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Because doctors, like everyone else, have differences of opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ah the heart condition, thought I was missing something

    ReplyDelete
  80. jamie whats your thoughts on this .. Balotellis agent claimed liverpool were intouch weeks ago about a move .. roughly same time remy ''failed'' his medical ... coincidence or just getting our moneys worth

    ReplyDelete
  81. I am happy it didn't happen. If we had gotten Remy, you can be sure that Mario would not have been with us. It was a strict either or policy imo. Either we placed our eggs in the Remy basket or we waited for something more to develop with other options. It all turned out for the best imo and we move forward now. At Chelsea Remy will be 3rd choice one would have to think. they can afford to pay crazy wages for three strikers. with us, we don't want to.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I thought everyone read far too much into the Remy situation. Rodgers / FSG are entitled to do what they want regarding flying players wherever for medicals. That said, the media like nothing more than speculation, exaggeration and fabrication. If he was at 3 different hospitals for his Liverpool medical, he probably didn't meet our standards.

    Fitness wise, being Chelsea's 3rd choice probably won't wear down his heart as much as if he had signed for Liverpool. Different clubs have different ideas, standards and requirements for different players.

    The real loser here, is Remy, how many players rot at Stamford Bridge?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Why is there zero trust in LFC's decision making?


    The club has its reasons, and it probably didn't release them as a favor to the player, whatever the reason it is.

    I've heard various unsubstantiated rumors, and provided that any of them could be true, I understand why the club would reject him and why they wouldn't want to release the information as it could hurt his career.


    Whatever the reason, and whatever the risk, Chelsea was willing to take it on. Liverpool wasn't.


    Why does that have to be an indictment of Liverpool?

    ReplyDelete
  84. He impeded his progress? Yes.


    But did he impede his progress so much that he would be forced to fall due to the pressure of the contact? No.


    And that is the problem with the foul/rule. If Allen doesn't go to ground there, then a foul would not be called. But if he goes to ground, then he's accused of diving.


    Again, I don't like the enforcement of the rule. A foul should be a foul regardless of where it happens.


    There needs to be some sort of adjustment to the enforcement of the rule/foul.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Is dier's deliberate hand out trying to hold back joe allen a form of gamemanship? Probably, he hope that this touch is not so obvous as pulling shirt. U are just narrow and one sided.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Problem is Jaimie you have a go at Will for
    Making assumptions but all you have done in this article is make assumptions. Your article is IMO overly harsh on Allen there was contact although minimal he broke no rules. As a Liverpool fan I feel it was correct if soft. And I'm sure spurs fans think its harsh but annoyed with Dier for making the ref make a choice

    ReplyDelete
  87. The consensus with Spurs fans, and this was my immediate reaction, was that Dier 'gave the referee a decision to make'. He shouldn't have done. At the same time, that strength of touch happens hundreds of times, literally, in a game. It is nowhere near as bad as the constant pulling and pushing and grabbing of shirts. But the vast majority of the time those pulls and those tugs and pushes and grabs go unpunished. And then a pretty soft touch, really, is given as a penalty and could totally alter the flow of a game. For the record, I still think your lot would have won, as Liverpool were really on the game, our lot were going through their amazing bollock shrinking routine, and Liverpool are never more dangerous than when they are in front and get to play on the break. That said, we will never know because Fat-Boy Dowd made a poor decision.


    The argument about a slight touch being enough to put a player in full flight off balance is one I use myself. I know because I was a sprinter and played on the wing before my knees buggered up :( In this case, Allen was hardly in full flight and having watched it several times from several different angles I really do think that the touch game him the excuse to go down.


    But, as most of us agree, maybe it is the case of either everyone do it or no-one do it. But I'm a bit of an old codger - I believe all the hard but fair challenges are being eradicated from the game, but all this dodgy sheeeeite is being normalized, and it annoys the beejaysus outta me (like obstructing the ball with no intention of playing it for about 15 yards is now 'guiding it out of play' - it's not, it's bluddy obstruction'!).

    ReplyDelete
  88. Didn't see a Spurs player complain, including Dier he knew he'd made a mistake. Soft one, and I wish it didn't happen but that is the game, there isn't a single player in the world that would have stayed on there feet there.

    ReplyDelete
  89. IIts obvious many people have not played the game.
    Dier impedes Allen and had the potential to gain a recovery advantage by spinning his shoulder. Had Allen not got down and just stopped and appealed he wouldnt have got a penalty. Had Allen continued Dier would have recovered and got a challenge in. He fouled Allen to recover. A player has to go down to get what is justice.

    Minimal contact but enough to get a recovery challenge. Simple

    ReplyDelete
  90. get a life. Dier should have never handled a player in the pen box as soft as it may have been. It is simply a penalty .....full stop

    ReplyDelete
  91. Why is it not as bad as pulling a shirt? Pulling a persons actual person is more forceful than a shirt. Moreno got yellow carded for a shirt pull. Dier got nothing.

    Allen was not in full flight but was accelerating away. Something you know is about momentum and that was disturbed. NOT ENOUGH FOR HIM TO GO DOWN, but perhaps enough to have stopped him crossing which he was about to do.

    For the record the foul on Ade could and probably should have been a pen too. I can sort of see why it wasn't as it looked more like a mutual tussle but that is no real excuse as there should have been consistency.

    As for the obstruction it used to be a pet hate of a mate of mine. I argued for it as I was a defender and he was a striker. But I know what you mean if that is done in another context then it is a foul.

    ReplyDelete
  92. As much as I hate to agree with Jk I have not choice as in my opinion he is correct in this instance. If an opposing player would have been "severely attacked like Joe Allen" and a penalty given i would have been livid.

    ReplyDelete
  93. And how do you know he shouted out 'in pain' for that matter? It was a foul whether Allen made the most of it or not and the ref made the right decision.
    It doesn't matter anyway, we were so much on top.

    ReplyDelete
  94. David,
    Not to be a priss but Moreno started in the 18 yard box, ran to the side line, won the tackle and ran the length of the pitch and blasted in a great strike without hesitation or shuffling his feet. They did a graphic on his run and it was 117 yards which is more than the length of the pitch and he made everybody look like they were standing still. Needless to say I was more than delighted, just ask my neighbors (who are half deaf)

    ReplyDelete
  95. I'm giving my opinion. In my opinion it was a very slight contact. It 'may' have affected his momentum, I agree that it is possible. He gave the referee a decision to make, I agree with that. From a purely phlegmatic point of view, I can understand why Allen threw himself down. But the fact is, as you accept, the contact was in no way enough to make him fall over (not to mention the cry of pain - LoL). That's my opinion after watching it several times from several angles. The bottom line is, if that was given as a penalty against Liverpool you and the vast majority of Liverpool fans would be absolutely livid.


    It is not as bad as pulling a shirt for the simple reason that he didn't pull his actual person. It really was a very light contact - you can tell that just looking at it.


    The difference between me and your mate and you, is that you are seeing it as a slight block when the ball is near the touchline. We are seeing it where the actual 'block' starts yards away from the touchline. The player has zero intention of touching the ball and yet uses his body to prevent another player from playing it. When I was a lad that was the very definition of obstruction. It isn't protecting the ball, because protecting the ball is when you are in control of it and fully intending of either playing it yourself or keeping it covered until a team mate does. One foot from the touchline, okay, but five, ten, fifteen yards? And the player trying to legitimately play the ball that the other player has no intention of playing getting penalised...c'mon. If the defending player can back in and push and tug to prevent someone from legitimately play a ball he himself has no intention of playing then the attacking player should be allowed to swing him off the pitch by his fecking bollocks...in my opinion, of course :)

    ReplyDelete
  96. Diiers attempt to grab joe allen distracted him, made him.turn back slightly and lost his stride and balance so he fell - true or false, the video could say both versions so allen should get benefit of the doubt. One thing that is clear is that dier at least attempted to grab him and was wrong to do so

    ReplyDelete
  97. thexcuriousxwanderer1:15 am, September 02, 2014

    That's being very unfair Jaime. I think we have gone over the definition of "cheating" using the oxford dictionary (the same one which you have used) and the same one you have ignored in our last discussion.

    Allen was hampered in the penalty box, and by the rules of the game he should be allowed a penalty. The contact in the box was enough to throw him off balance, though probably not enough to bring him down like that, I will give you that. The question here is: should he go down for the penalty, or should he try to stay on his feet and be disadvantaged even though he deserved one according to the rules of the game? This is a problem with the way refereeing is done ... unfortunately the penalty is very often not given unless the person goes down.

    I think the most you can say here is that the penalty is soft, but according to the rules of the game there is nothing wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Have to disagree here. If it had been the other way around I would be fuming at our defender for giving the player the opportunity to go down when he was going nowhere, and giving the ref an easy decision to make.

    ReplyDelete
  99. And Lamela who clearly used his arms to stop Allen in that instance and connected with Allen's head multiple times escaped without a card, I've seen that given a red many times.

    ReplyDelete
  100. How is it obvious that many people have not played the game when most are saying that he had every right to go down because he was fouled (which is exactly what you are saying)?

    ReplyDelete
  101. I don't think he cried out in apparent pain. I think he probably cried out to the ref in frustration at being obstructed?
    Its a foul. If he stays on his feet he doesn't get the foul which forces players to go to ground. That's the way the game is these days.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Jaimie, a foul is still a foul even if the contact is not sufficient to bring a player to the ground. According to FIFA rules, holding an opponent constitutes a foul and Eric Dier did hold Allen. Therefore technically, a penalty should be awarded.


    Simulation occurs when a player feigns injury or pretends to have been fouled. Since a foul was committed, Allen is not guilty of simulation or diving.


    I support your strong stand against cheating, but I think you often confusing gamesmanship with cheating. What Allen did was legal within the rules of football and since rules form the basis of what is considered 'dishonest' and 'unfair', Allen did not cheat. I think you have a case to accuse him of unsportsmanlike behaviour but not cheating.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Allen turned his head looking for someone to cross the ball to...a hand came from behind...a clear foul. Someone who is trying to dive don't normally look for teamate to pass or cross..

    ReplyDelete
  104. Whats the conclusion then? Is it a foul or an act of cheatin?

    ReplyDelete
  105. The best reply I hv heard so far...

    ReplyDelete