Upsetter

I disagree Comparing the three incidents, Costa's "stamp" was by far the most innocuous. The contact he made with with Can looked to be far lighter - both in slow-motion and in real time than either Gerrrard or Skrtel. Furthermore, Costa has been credited with having eyes in the back of his head, having been deemed to have known exactly what he was doing. Gerrard and Skrtel on the other hand, showed clear deliberate intention - not merely according to the FA's ludicrous balance of probabilities criteria, but by their respective leg movements, the looks on their faces. Both Liverpool players were inarguably caught bang to rights deliberately stamping on an opponent's leg, with the clear intention to cause pain and possible damage.. I believe there is an an agenda at play here, not an anto-Chelsea conspiracy per-se, but a pro-Liverpool agenda that manifests it's nasty little self in various ways. one of which is the constant attempt to portray Diego Costa in a worse light than Luis Suarez. These are Liverpool fans after all,and there does appear to be a widely held delusion among Liverpool fans that "if it had been Luis they'd have thrown the book at him." Never mind that Suarez was a consistently nasty piece of work, who not only bit at least three of his opponents, but would also regularly gouge and scratch and stamp and rake his studs down an opponents leg. He was, and still is a master conman who "wins" free kicks and penalties by what is nothing more than cheating. To believe that Suarez was driven out of the country by "the London media" fits in perfectly with the always the victim mentality that is all too common among Liverpool supporters of all ages and from all backgrounds. None of which will let the chicken-sh*t FA off the hook if they fail to take action against Skrtel.

They're agreeing on MOTD that if Atkinson didn't see the Skrtel stamp, the FA have to take further action. Again, you can't fault them.

MOTD "Skrtel has quite deliberately so it seems stamped on David De Gea". Can't fault them for that at least.. The MOTD commentator also stated that you couldn't argue with the Gerrard sending off, but spoiled it somewhat by saying that: "He [Gerrard] paid the price for coming into the game too pumped up."

11 pages in and they've locked the match thread. All together: "Just because you're losing"

I'd love to claim it was the first but can't because it was just before my time. And so I'm going with the latest: finally beating Tottenham at Wembley. I can fully understand why so many people would opt for the 2005 win over Liverpool,, but taking everything into account, Tottenham are still The Enemy. Thinking about it, Tottenham fans actually have a lot in common with scousers. Bitter and spiteful, equally delusional and with a similar sense of entitlement. In Tottenham's case it's all the more farcical given their lack of silverware. And so when we kicked Tottenham out of the Champions League by actually winning the troph, it was well and truly the icing on the cake.

For anyone in doubt over the Southampton penalty award. Matic made contact with the ball, not just "some" contact, but a good contact. It was a quite excellent tackle. The Southampton forward, beaten to the ball, leaning towards Matic, arches his back and throws himself to the ground. If by some chance, The giveaway is in the arching of the back. Never a penalty. Even the Daily Mail during the course of their hatchet job of a match report stated that it was "unclear". And for all the talk of the Southampton's brilliant response to going behind, it was that dodgy penalty that gave them the impetus, and it was that same dodgy penalty that knocked us off our stride. This is what I was referring to above when I mentioned a certain mental fragility, a feeling of "oh no not again", a feeling reinforced when Ivanovic gets his heels clipped only for Mike Dean to dismiss our appeal with a decisiveness equal to the eagerness with which he awarded the Southampton penalty. Comparing the second half with the post-penalty decisions first half performance speaks wonders for the strenght of character, and for Jose's Mourinho's managerial ability, to turn a game where we looked to be falling apart at the seams, to a game in which we were massively unfortunate not to have come away with the three points. And it's the nature or this turnaround that fills me with confidence for the remainder of the season.

If anything, I think the first half performance - following the Mike Dean gifting Southampton a penalty, revealed a touch of mental fragility, The second half proved that we do have hidden reserves, that we (or should I say Jose) can turn things round, because on our second half performance we were hugely unfortunate not to come away with a win. Play like we did in the second half and we can do it, play like we did for most of the first half and we could blow it big time. It's been a long gruelling season in which we've been top of the league virtually from the off. Despite a dip in form, we're still six points clear of City in second, and we've still got a game in hand. In other words, we can afford a couple more slip ups, we can afford to relax occasionally. CIty can't, City need to go hell for leather, they need to win every single one of their remaining games. Not that it's impossible for them to do so, but on City's recent form, it does look a little improbable. And so, despite a plethora of dodgy decisions, despite the occasional upset, loss of form, suspensions and injuries (the normal wear and tear of a Premiership season), as far as this year's league title goes, we are still very much in the driving seat. Put it another way. At this stage of the season would you rather be in our position or in City's?

No excuses here, against 10 men we should have taken the game by the scruff of the neck and put it to bed long before David Luiz had the opportunity to equalise with that bullet of a header. Firstly, Ibrahimovic should not have been red-carded, David Luiz should have been given a straight red for taking out Costa, Costa was again denied a clear-cut penalty, and the referee was dishing out cards like confetti. That he also let so much go is a strong indication of how inconsistent was his decision making. Given this inconsistency, it would have been natural for the players at 0-0 and even more so at 1-0 up, to sit back and think to themselves: "Let's' just try and get though this one unscathed." If PSG weren't affected in this respect, it's because they had nothing to lose. Already down to ten men, that David Luiz should have walked, that Verratti was again amazingly fortunate not to have been awarded two yellows long before he was taken off would have been irrelevant. From their point of view, at the worst they would have gone out as gallant losers, having been unjustly forced to play the majority of the game a man short. Our players on the other hand would have been well aware, certainly after half time, that Ibrahimovic was harshly dealt with, and given the inconsistency of the referee could have been forgiven that this ref may have been tempted to make amends by sending off a Chelsea player or two, given half a chance. Ok we should have dealt with it, we should have been professional enough to see the game through. But we didn't and that's that. Out of the Champions League with a whimper. Maybe I should feel annoyed, upset, disappointed at exiting the competition. But for reasons that I find impossible to explain, I'm nowhere near as pissed off either at the defeat, or the manner of the defeat, as I'd have expected to be.

Sound advice to Mr Souleymane from an African gentleman by the name of Alex: Grow up and move on, i am African living outside my country also, i hv been asked to vacate my seat on a bus, taxis hv refused to stop for me but white skin passengers beside me, that did not kill my morale nor make me less human, i hv reported several of these incidents over the phone to the customer complaint dept. Of supervising org. But i refused to dwell to much on the incident. U might not like football, so going to stamford bridge might not interest you. But i believe the club are trying to show u what they are and stand for, not by the stupid few fans.

Looking at andy1y*do's page on YouTube, you have to laugh. Every other clip he describes as "football hooligans.". And every one of these clips features Tottenham (no doubt the same Ultra divs mentioned above) doing no more than singing some sh*te Tottenham song or other. Wannabe's and w**kers, the lot of them. https://www.youtube.com/user/andy1y*do/videos

With the first trophy of the season in the bag, it's natural enough to get a little excited, but with over a quarter of the league season still go to, it's far too early to start talking about the title. Similarly, we can't rely on anyone to do the job for us, which means that as things stand, and assuming that City don't slip up, our game in hand means that as things stand, we can afford to slip up twice, no more. But there is still over a quarter of the season to go (10 more games for City, 11 for ourselves), with the Champions League as a further complication, and so the permutations are considerable. In a nutshell, there's a long way to go yet, and the situation could well change with each passing week.

We've waited a long, long time for a win over Tottenham at Wembley, since 1967 in fact. And how fitting that the victory should come on March 1st, the 9th anniversary of the day Peter Osgood passed away.This cup win has to be dedicated to his memory surely? I hope it's ok to say, that not only is it the anniversary of the day Ossie died, but today would have been my father's 85th birthday, had he lived. Which on a personal note, makes this a very, very special day.

Not from me. I felt dirty enough actually wanting Liverpool to win! On the other hand, there are far worse things in this world than feeling a little grimey for an hour or three.

Not intended as an attack? Don't lie. Your entire post is nothing but an attack. The Mikek/Arteta incident was a 50-50, both players going from the ball. Scurrilous in your eyes? A claret and blue-eyed Northern muppet. Oh yes I've seen the "argument" that Barnes' third potential sending off of the same game was a "pass". I believe it emerged on Twitter and had been trumpeted by the blind, the stupid and the prejudiced ever since. And the ref had a shocker. Sean Dyche lost a lot of respect, not only from Chelsea fans, over his dismissive attitude to Barnes' performance. Why do you find Mike Riley embarrassiing in this instance? Several referees have apologised for decisions that went in our favour. And for any ref, retired or otherwise, to criticise a refereeing performance as strongly as Martin Atkinson's has been criticisised speaks volumes, as does the amount of times I've seen, read and heard comments such as: "I can't stand Chelsea but it was a shocking challenge". A wih hunt..Developed a bit of a lithp have we? There was no witch hunt you clown. IT WAS A SHOCKER from Barnes and a shocker from the ref. Get that simple fact through your thick Northern skull. Please. Premier League rules. It's down to the ref to stop the game. No mention of your players managing to waste half of the four minutes added time either. A Burnley player got fouled? By a Chelsea player. My my, now there's a novelty. That would be the same Costa who was booked for diving in the first game of the season, having clearly been fouled. Just as he was clearly pushed to the ground in the penatly box. Which according to normal rules of the game (meaning not as applied by Martin Atkinson) is a penalty. And whle we're talking about Costa, Jose's reference to Barnes as a criminal may just have something to to with the Sky Sports headline: "The Crimes Of Diego Costa", a contributory fact to him getting banned for three games following a far more innocuous incident than what you almost farcically describe as a "pass" from Ashley Barnes. I say "almost" because there is nothing remotely humourous about a challenge that could quite easily have broken Matic's leg Anything else you want to know?

I see that Gary Neville's been making a case for holding the tourament in Qatar, based largely on the fact that there has not yet been a World Cup held in the Middle East, and that world football doesn't revolve around the Premier League, that it is a World Game, and so the venue should not be limited to just Europe and South America. Speaking generally, Gary Neville may well have a point, but the argument is not a general one, it's about Qatar specifically. I find it impossible to believe that Qatar were awarded the World Cup for anything but purely financial reasons. Looking at the Middle East generally, there are any number of more suitable canditates. For reasons that have already been discussed in detail, both here and elsewhere, it's difficult to imagine a worse location than Qatar, which has no footballing history, no football infrastructure, but is intent on the creation of purpose built stadia using slave labour working in literally life-threatening conditions. Despite all this, it seems as if the tournament will be going ahead. My hope therefore is that the FA and other national football authorities worldwide will refuse point blank to have anything to do with the Qatar World Cup, leaving the final to be contested by footballing minnows viewed by record low attendances and that the stench of corruption and greed emanating from everything to do with the tournament will be enough not only to ensure the failure of the event, but to finally bring an end to Sepp Blatter's evil empire.

Seriously? I lost count of how many times Suarez got away with gouging, stamping, pinching and all manner of nastiness. Go on, tell me it was my imagination. During his Liverpool career Suarez was a consistently nasty piece of work. And yet he never once got sent off. Even when he sunk his teeth into Ivanovitch he stayed on the pitch, going on to score an injury time equaliser in the same game. "If it was Suarez he'd have had the book thrown at him", is qutie frankly the biggest load of bollocks it's ever been my misfortune to hear/ Your last line is every bit as farcical as the rest of your post. Costa didn't stamp on the player, he stepped on him while facing the other way. And there is a massive difference between stepping on someone and a deliberate stamp. To compare Costa's actions with that of Barnes is truly outrageous. I have no doubt that Barnes set out to deliberately hurt, not one, not two, but three different Chelsea players. For the third and final offence, not only was he not cautioned, but no free kick was awarded. And finally, Costa's snideyness? Costa was booked for alleged diving on his Premiership debut for what was as clear a penalty as the one that Atkinson failed to give yesterday; See, you can come here tellng Chelsea fans that they're paranoid, that it's all in their collective minds. Unfortunately we've seen it all before. We've seen it from Foy, we've seen it from Clattenberg. We've been blamed for referees running scared of silly schoolgirls. We've also seen Didier Drogba booked for diving, his offence being to allow his midriff to come in to contact with Jonny Evan's flailing foot. Cue much hilarity on the part of the commentators. Same old same old.