Do we ever get the benefit of the doubt on anything?

Refs know the media will come after them if they make a bad decision in our favour, and they don't want their mistakes highlighted, so they veer on the side of caution, or even worse, book our players, wrongly.

Has Costa been given the benefit of the doubt? Has it even been suggested there could be any doubt.

Of course Oliver said he would have shown red.

The media gave him absolutely no choice.

If we go on penalty incidents alone this season, let's look at wrong decisions, whether they be in our box or our opponents'.

There have been loads of wrong decisions, it's unprecedented I think.

Now how many wrong decisions (like last night's) have gone against us, i.e. we've been the victims of an injustice rather than the beneficiaries.

What do you think is the ratio, and what's your explanation for it?

I say refs are being influenced by the media, but those that think Jose has got it all wrong and is only saying it for effect, give us your explanation.

Sorry to quote my own post but take Liverpool last season, they got so many favourable decisions it was untrue, every time Suarez fell in the box they were awarded a penalty, it was comical.

Why?

The media were driving the agenda, and refs were influenced.

It happens folks. Sorry to burst your bubble.

quick question, how did skirtel evade any punishment for his elbow into the back of DC's head last week? It was pretty obvious from a video viewpoint, but nothing was said. In case people forgot the incident, take a gander

I didn't hear a thing from the media. Also why is the FA pushing this case so quickly? Doesn't it take like a weeks worth of investigation of an incident?

Personally I just think that there is a lot more liverpool and man United fans in the media.

Take last night as an example. The 2 pundits for the game are redknapp and Henry, one ex liverpool, one ex arsenal. The narrative of the half time analyse is that from Liverpool perspective. Most pundits struggle to hide there biased. Even in the commentary box quinn seemed desperate for gerrard to get a fairy tale ending.

So it becomes a snow ball effect, because sky have covered the match through liverpool tinted glasses, the papers report whatever narrative sky have pushed, and the f.a. act on whatever they are pressured into by the media.

I don't think there is any cloak and dagger type conspiracy, I just think sky or whoever is covering the match, should do better to provide unbiased coverage.

Theres always go on a be a few biased journalists, but I can live with that. When sky are monopolising football, they should be impartial.

If ruud gullit and Paul Scholes had been in the studio instead of redknapp and henry, I honestly don't think there would have been anywhere near as much focus, because at half time gullit would have been highlighting our injustices, and Scholes would have shown liverpool no sympathy.

Which is the exact opposite of how it was covered.

Common sense that has been a rarity in this thread this over the last few days

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by middleweight

The reason why it would be different is not the team itself, it is because Costa has a much worse reputation than Gerrard.

 

Gerrard is arse licked if you haven't noticed, his World Cup performances were shocking and not a word was said about it, he has always escaped criticism nothing new about that.

 

If Suarez did that he wouldn't have gotten away with it, again because of his reputation.

But why does Gerrard have a better reputation?  Costa is labelled a dirty diver, but is he more of a diver than Gerrard?  I think not.  Is Costa dirtier?  Has Costa been to court for assault? Gerrard has.  I really dont know the answer to this, but has Costa ever smashed his elbow into the back of another players head like when he did it to Micheal Brown (Portsmouth).... and Danny Welbeck (Sunderland, but side of the head to be fair)?  How about smashing someones nose in with a headbutt like when Gerrard did in Fellaini?  I mean these are just off the top of the head violent incidents on and off the pitch with Gerrard.  Not even bad tackles. just pure violent intent.

 

So I dont disagree that Gerrard has a better reputation I just ask you, why?

 

Do we ever get the benefit of the doubt on anything?

Refs know the media will come after them if they make a bad decision in our favour, and they don't want their mistakes highlighted, so they veer on the side of caution, or even worse, book our players, wrongly.

Has Costa been given the benefit of the doubt? Has it even been suggested there could be any doubt.

Of course Oliver said he would have shown red.

The media gave him absolutely no choice.

I think this is it.  Oliver cocked up a lot of call that game including a easily called penalty and what is being portrayed as 3 missed sending offs (Costa/Henderson/Lucas, though I wonder why Sktrel was unpunished for both running the length of the pitch to shove Costa during the Can row and his kick out at Costa after the alleged stamp on him) yet what is talked about and making head lines?   From a PR perspective, its better to make mistakes against Chelsea than in favor of.  I don't know whether it is a conscious decision, but the ratio of media talk between bad calls in our favour vs bad calls that go against us is deeply unbalanced.  We can get a single major call in our favor and its barrels of ink.  You can look back at games where we were robbed, like Foy at QPR or Dean at Aston Villa, by multiple major calls against and it doesnt even come close to getting an equal hearing.

 

Compare the penalties won in a measly 6 CL games vs  23 league games and even more domestic cup matches.  I think we have double the number of players booked for diving, when in fact fouled in the opposition box, than we have actual penalties.  Top scoring team with some of the best dribblers and attacking talent in the league.  Bottom half of the table in penalties won. Yet this isnt being talked of or questioned, its CFC dives.  So if you're a ref faced with a split/close call in your mind that you have to make in a rush, which decision is least likely to put your name in the headlines for the wrong reason?

 

I'm also in agreement with some of  what big blue said.  I believe this is the byproduct of a few vocal pundits/commentators whom other lazy journalists just feed off of and not some grand conspiracy ( Shame Jess Redknapp wasnt as effective for LFC on the pitch, maybe he would of won more than a single league cup).  Most likely because, as is known, many are either part of the LFC mob or are at least wise enough to know which side of their bread is buttered as this is a popular club to hate on for many "neutrals".  Almost fashionable, it would seem, in some quarters.

 

But then again I think it was a bit of a scandal that Dean was allowed to ref aforementioned Villa match given the impact it had between us and Liverpool in the title race with a couple matches left considering that he was dismissed from officiating a FA Cup final Liverpool was playing in due to an impartiality rule  (Dean is from Wirral).  So maybe I am just crazy though Dean certainly did a job worthy of conspiracy notions.

Do we ever get the benefit of the doubt on anything?

Refs know the media will come after them if they make a bad decision in our favour, and they don't want their mistakes highlighted, so they veer on the side of caution, or even worse, book our players, wrongly.

Has Costa been given the benefit of the doubt? Has it even been suggested there could be any doubt.

Of course Oliver said he would have shown red.

The media gave him absolutely no choice.

 

A case in point being this: at least two opposition managers have received a personal apology from the referees' chief after having a controversial decision go against them whilst playing us. Have we ever received such an apology? Did Benitez get one after Suarez got away with biting one of our players and then scored in the 10th minute of injury time? How about JM this season after Dowd missed two simultaneous fouls in the area against Man U (which were so egregious even Poll sided with us)?

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Englishman

When you see Liverpool players escaping punishment and possibly vertonghen (there is currently nothing being said in the media about him choking someone), plus you take in to account the fact that the FA have acted so quickly to punish Costa, it's hard to say that there is definitley no agenda against us.

I don't want to moan about the media and the FA and I can understand why people don't want this forum to start looking like RAWK, though there's no possibility of that, becuase RAWK is full of people who can barely string a sensible setence together, but we can't rule out the word agenda all together. As I mentioned earlier, neutrals hate us and people who work in the media hate us just as much, people who work within the media absolutely have an agenda. Do the FA? I'm not so sure, but there is no doubt that they do a pretty rubbish job and it's not as if they have escaped criticism in the past, they have been accused of being corrupt, all I know is what Costa did is wrong, you can't stamp on other players, but the FA are inconsistent and cr*p at doing their job. By all means punish Costa, but why are so many other players left unpunished?

quick question, how did skirtel evade any punishment for his elbow into the back of DC's head last week? It was pretty obvious from a video viewpoint, but nothing was said. In case people forgot the incident, take a gander

I didn't hear a thing from the media. Also why is the FA pushing this case so quickly? Doesn't it take like a weeks worth of investigation of an incident?

quick question, how did skirtel evade any punishment for his elbow into the back of DC's head last week? It was pretty obvious from a video viewpoint, but nothing was said. In case people forgot the incident, take a gander

I didn't hear a thing from the media. Also why is the FA pushing this case so quickly? Doesn't it take like a weeks worth of investigation of an incident?

Markovic took an obviously deliberate and violent action against Luis. Why hasn't he been charged? This whole thing is a farce. Oliver was a disgrace and the FA is a joke.

I've just seen the stamps for fhe first time and imo Costa was fortunate not to get sent off. It was wreckless and he really needs to stop making himself a target. If that was a rival player we wouldn't be defending them.

What does annoy me however is how the media influence punishment for the FA to dish out. Furthermore I've seen the likes of Yaya and Kun get away with worse. It's the inconsistency from the FA which annoy me. Oh and the Scouser in the black was an absolute joke.

Costa is just the striker we were looking for and what we were missing last season. He has been brilliant - a revelation. BUT we all knew before he signed there could be a flip side. His whole games is built around him being a fiery character and many of us voiced concerns before he signed about how many games he would miss through suspension.

 

The coaching staff and JT need to sort him out. Don't want him to become a lesser player but he needs to learn to walk away at times. We were lucky we weren't reduced to 10 men the other night pretty early in the game and although we all love the guy, that sort of behavior can't continue.

If I'm honest I think with neutrals and to certain figures in the media we're seen as this club who have an unlimited supply of money and throw it around and buy titles. Costa's 'stamps' are not career threatening or violent conduct. To compare Ronaldo punched someone on the weekend, yes punched. Which in my book is as crystal clear an example of violent conduct you'll see but he has received a 2 game ban which is ridiculous to say the least but even more so when you realise their 3rd game is against Atletico. Corruption occurs in every league.

I remember Toure slapping Mata which no-one made anything on and ofc Aguero which has been mentioned numerous times. The point is see I don't see how Costa's 'crimes' are as bad as centre backs letting the striker know they're there. Another thing is how have they proved intent as his natural stride would have led him to step there or thereabouts agreed he probably could have adjusted his footing but why should he? He's going for the ball. Why has the Markovic on Luis incident gone unmentioned? Henderson's red card? The penalty that wasn't given? (PS if refs are going to use a player's reputation against them then they shouldn(t be reffing the game) Howard strangling Costa? Howard handling the ball outside of his box?

Costa did what most of us would do when a player who elbowed you a week ago and had a penalty call given in his favour when it was a foul is shown as being a victim. Costa must be absolutely raging I don't think Costa has done much wrong since he came to Chelsea he plays with tenacity which I'm all for. If he doesn't show the defender he's willing then said defender will just dominate him. He plays a psychological game defenders are always assuming they can rile him and in doing so allow themselves to be booked for petty fouls etc. But this doesn't happen so much as Costa is deemed a diver and is scrutinised for a reputation that isn't a true reflection. Maybe I have my blue tinted glasses on but that is my interpretation.

P.s seeing Costa and Gerrard square up and Gerrard made to look like the boy in the playground who'd just got knocked out but wanted another round was great.

I've just seen the stamps for fhe first time and imo Costa was fortunate not to get sent off. It was wreckless and he really needs to stop making himself a target. If that was a rival player we wouldn't be defending them.

What does annoy me however is how the media influence punishment for the FA to dish out. Furthermore I've seen the likes of Yaya and Kun get away with worse. It's the inconsistency from the FA which annoy me. Oh and the Scouser in the black was an absolute joke.

 

Agree on the first point. The stamp/tread on Can was deliberate in my opinion but we could make a case for it being accidental. This is my opinion having played sport (as I'm sure many here have), that you don't have to look directly at someone's leg to stamp on it. You can make a pretty good guess where it is and leaving a sneaky foot in is hardly unheard of. The one on Skrtl I'm not so convinced of. I genuinely don't think he could place his feet safely anywhere else when he lands.

 

Let's face it, none of us can feign surprise given his track record. He's just got to learn from this.

 

The second part of your post I'm not quite so sure about. Aguero's stamp on Luiz did result in a bit of a media furore but he couldn't be punished because the ref actually gave a free kick for it. The same thing happened not long before with Callum McManaman who escaped a ban for the same reasons.

 

As for the whole 'media out to get us' thing (not you specifically), I still don't agree. We talk about a Liverpool bias but look at what happened with Suarez. Ostracised from the Writers' Award and pretty much hounded out of English football by a constant stream of negative media following his bite on Chiellini and banned for almost 20 matches by the FA for his incidents, it's hard to say he was treated favourably. 

 

Then you have United who carry a massive amount of sway, yet saw Moyes get buried by the media in this country. Arsenal under Wenger have also had a lot of questions raised about them in the media, and in the days of Petit and Vieira they very much had a tag of being 'dirty' so any incident or red card was blown up. 

 

Are there too many Liverpool voices in the media? Possibly but look at why they're there. Football exploded on TV with the advent of the Premiership in the early 90s, so the guys who were big names would've invariably been part of the successful teams of the 80s - Liverpool. You also had the likes of Andy Gray (Everton) and Gary Linker (Everton, Leicester and Spurs) retire and go into the media around that time, alongside your Hansens, Lawrensens and Souness (who has a dubious reputation amongst Scousers because he sold his heart surgery story to The Sun). Even now you'll see the likes of Neville, Henry Scholes and Carragher go into the media because they are recently retired 'big names'. 

 

Should we have more Chelsea faces in the media? Probably, but look at the players from our recent spells of success. A lot are still playing whilst a surprisingly high number went into management. You'll get Gus or Franco or Ruud on TV but equally others are still involved in the game. Ferrer and Minto do the Spanish stuff, Hoddle, Wilkins and Nevin crop up occasionally and even JT has had a 'try out' on Sky.

 

This post has gone on longer than I thought but I do understand why people think the media is against us. That's not unique to Chelsea fans and I expect if this agenda thing continues then we'll eventually start to identify individuals in the media that are 'anti-Chelsea' because that's how these things go.

 

What I'd ask is that people simply take a step back and ask themselves why there might be an agenda in the first place.  

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Blue Daze

I think if he did it once, an argument could be heard in defence. Twice? Well...

Sky sports has manufactured this Ban, it's as simple as that

Sky sports has manufactured this Ban, it's as simple as that

 

Behave. The incident happened, there was then a melee on the touchline. Any sports channel would've focused on that.

 

But yes it's all a massive conspiracy. I hear Sky Sports were filming the whole match just so they could manipulate the images and drum up a campaign against us.

 

'We're always the victim, it's never our fault' should be the motto of this thread.

During the FA cup tie with agruero was the word crime used.. Yes or no question, no need to elaborate

During the FA cup tie with agruero was the word crime used.. Yes or no question, no need to elaborate

 

Words like 'horror tackle', 'x-rated stamp' and 'horrific' were used in the aftermath but I don't have a transcript of the commentary that day so I can't say for certain.

For those who think "It's only us"

 

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-citys-mario-suffered-a-trial-680516

By us, it was not the focus at half time. There was not a yellow bar scrolling across the sky sport news scree.. It did not cover the back page of every daily the next day... If you are telling me that it received even 50% of the scrutiny that Costa got I'm calling you a liar.

It doesn't help that Costa looks like a thug and agruero looks like butter wouldn't melt.. But if you don't think sky's ports influence the way news moves in the UK your deluded

So your stating those terms were used, then admit you don't know if they were. Good going blue daze.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by dkw

Has anyone seen the pictures of Can and Mary Shelley's Martin Skytels* injuries, as they must surely have some pretty nasty stud marks on them after Costa's vicious assault.

 

The Fiver always used to describe Oliver Khan this way, but I think it suits Skytel just as well.

 

Anyway I don't have a problem with the inevitable ban, pointless even having a personal hearing, its more the reporting and the fast tracking of it that annoys me.

We will just have to take it on the chin, and hopefully take JM out of the firing line for a bit, let Steve Holland do the pressers for the so called "title decider" and keep everything as bland as possible.

 

And remember if we lose we are still two points ahead of City, hold on to that thought.

We wont be losing this on Shelly, the guys will be so up for it!!

Sky sports has manufactured this Ban, it's as simple as that

 

Well if we are going to now introduce 'trial by video' with the so called 'pundits' as huge and jury then lets do it for every thing that is highlighted by the TV camera's, elbows in the face, the odd head but etc; if this is the way of the future Liverpool might have 6 players a week sat in the stands every week. 

For those who think "It's only us"

 

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-citys-mario-suffered-a-trial-680516

 

Think that's a mistake. It says Balotelli received a ban for a stamp following use of TV evidence.  

 

When did Balotelli play for Chelsea?

 

 

By us, it was not the focus at half time. There was not a yellow bar scrolling across the sky sport news scree.. It did not cover the back page of every daily the next day... If you are telling me that it received even 50% of the scrutiny that Costa got I'm calling you a liar.

 

 

Actually those words were used by reporters in the media, but I won't call you a liar for that.

 

What would be the point in covering it when the story ended there and then? There was zero chance of a charge because the ref had dealt with it in the match whereas the Costa story was going to (and has) run for a few more days, in the run up to the biggest game of the season.

 

It doesn't help that Costa looks like a thug and agruero looks like butter wouldn't melt.. But if you don't think sky's ports influence the way news moves in the UK your deluded

 

Sky has it's own sports channels so of course it influences it, but I'm saying that isn't just limited to us.

 

So your stating those terms were used, then admit you don't know if they were. Good going blue daze.

 

I stated those terms were used in the aftermath, but that I didn't have a transcript of the commentary. Thought that was pretty clear but hey ho.

 

Those terms were used AFTER the match but I don't have a full trans...I don't have a list of all the words used in the commentary (because Barak specifically asked for what words were used DURING the match) of that game.

 

Does that clear it up?

I'm not sure there is a conspiracy, its just poor/lazy journalism, we are a bit of a pantomime villain of a club, and I for one quite enjoy it. I would hate to think the FA are influenced by it, but they are only human (well some of them are anyway)

 

At half time Sky showed Mourinho getting in the refs ear in the tunnel, Phil Dowd reminded Mourinho that the camera's were on him, and Squeaky Redknapp started on about it....I wonder if they, the FA, decided to show the rest of the Football community that the cannot be bullied by the Chelsea manager, the way they were by Ferguson for years, who knows. It does concern me when they are not consistent, but I think that is more because they are inept and stupid than deliberately corrupt, however I could be wrong about that.

 

The fact is we are box office and fairly or unfairly we will always come under more scrutiny than certain other clubs. City suffered to some extent, when Mancini was in charge and all his woes with Ballotelli were reported on with glee in certain sections of the media. The new money tag still offends fans of clubs who were new money I the 1930's, (that's History apparently, so it doesn't count)  so it plays well with other fans clubs when we get in trouble.

 

If it really bothers us we should all simply stop buying the product, I'm not sure what a mass boycott of Sky Sports and various papers, would do to their revenues, not much I would hazard so it would probably be an empty gesture, plus I don't really fancy listening to the game on the radio, which if anything is worse...Turning off the punditry is probably the best bet to help my blood pressure, unless we keep winning of course then its turn the sound up, crack open another bottle of wine and enjoy.