I think Evans got away without a card because of the refs view of the incident, from where he was it looked more like Evans sat down into the tackle (if that makes sense) lifting his foot to make the challenge at the last second, whereas Shelvey left the floor very early and brought his foot down into Evans' knee.
He doesn't need an excuse. He can support who he wants, just like you. But I've not seen him calling people 'plastics'. I just thought it was a bit rich.
I bet all those Utd fans in Surrey are relieved they're officially not plastics any more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salfords Aye that probably played a part - Evans slid along the floor whilst Shelvey jumped in to the tackle. That was always going to make Shelvey look worse in the eyes of the ref. I think it also helped that Evans was injured and had to go off for treatment. With the Holden one against Bolton, and also Shawcross on Ramsey, it looked like the ref wasn't going to show a card until he realised the tackle had injured the opponent. If Shelvey had been the one to take a knock then maybe Evans would've been the one to see red.
Yes Lawro was wrong! It's no big deal, he is only a pundit and his opinion is as valid as mine our your's to be fair! He thought the referee got it right but the video evidence that Sky showed after the game showed that Evans did not make contact with the ball before catching Suarez! And with this in mind the other two on the panel were wrong too, but again, it's no big deal, we all make mistakes! The problem I have with this whole issue is twofold. Firstly, too many games are ruined imo by referees getting the major decisions wrong. I understand that they do not do this on purpose and only have the benefit of real-time in which to make these decisions. But in todays' technologically advanced age, surely it would be better if they were assisted with the use of video technology. This would ensure that most decisions are the correct ones and also provide consistency which would negate the whole 'referee is biased' claims that happen every week! Secondly, Halsey could easily have made his decisions yesterday the other way around, he could have sent Evans off, he could have gave the Suarez pen and he could have not given the Valencia pen, all three decisions were debatable and all three have been given/not given in the past. If this was the case, you would not be on here saying stuff like 'I am over it, no excuses we lost and I am taking it like a man'. You would almost certainly be on here moaning about the decisions and saying how **** Halsey is as a referee, just like the Liverpool fans are doing...that is to be expected by the way, so you don't have to deny it, we all know how football fans react, we all know United got the decisions in their favour yesterday, and we all know you would be crying about it if it went against United...no big deal, just the way it is!
No it wouldn't. If anything it would make it worse. Take the example of the decisions yesterday - as you say there are large numbers of people and pundits who have viewed the replay and highlights ad nauseum and still can't make their mind up whether they were penalties and red cards or not. If the refs had replays there would still be debatable decisions, but now the conspiracy nuts like Davidako and DDDDDD would be whining that the ref still made a decision they disagreed with even after seeing the replay and therefore must have been 'paid off' or some other ****. Take the Valencia penalty. I didn't think it was a penalty, several Utd fans didn't think it was a penalty and plenty of Liverpool fans didn't think it was a penalty. But the replay showed Johnson with his hands on Valencia's back and clipping his right heel. So what if the ref looks at that replay and still believes it was a pen? It would just give the bigots more fuel for the fire. Ditto with Evans - how long and how many replays from how many angles did it take for Sky to apparently show there was no contact? And how many replays before that indicated that Evans might well have made contact with the ball?
Bigots?!?!? You actually called people bigots for not agreeing with the gospel according to Man U. That is a serious siege mentality. Build them walls nice and high
The system seems to work fine in other sports, Rugby League, Union, American football etc. And as in those sports it is sometimes difficult to ascertain what is the correct decision but I think because the system is in place it takes away the element of bias and also just gives the referees a little extra help rather than relying on real-time. If it cannot be adjudged as to what the correct decision should be then so be it, a decision then will have to be made, but again, at least they tried to arrive at the right decision. Obviously there are still going to be mistakes getting made, but I would rather have an incident looked at again in slow motion than just saying '**** it, Lawro said it was a pen so it was...so there' or something along those lines!
It's an explanation, sometimes people do not understand you when you just say, 'you're a cunt' in response to another posters comments!!!
Awwwwwww And no, I called people bigots for claiming referees are biased and corrupt every time they make a decision in favour of Utd. Cue some more Actually in rugby union and league the replays are generally only used to determine whether or not something factual has happened, such as a ball being grounded or a foot going in touch. Much like the use of replays to make decisions on offside and whether the ball has crossed the line. I'm all in favour of that, as those decisions are generally pretty clear cut.
Bigot (n) "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices" QED. Or, as you may want to put it, Not quite what I was saying. As I said in the text, we were lucky to win. Evans could have walked, I'm still not sure whether Evans got the ball when challenging Suarez, and I had to view the Valencia one in super slow mo' before I could conclude that it was probably a penalty. Probably. But on the match thread on the Liverpool board there were a significant number of posters having a massive argument with UIR about how their view of the incidents had to be right because Gary Neville and the other Sky pundits said so. Then Lawro and the other BBC pundits disagreed and suddenly the views of the pundits didn't matter any more...
