Again I don't fully understand this fast tracking, who decides which incidents are worthy of fast tracking, whats the criteria, is it only if a big game coming up etc.

Football is pussified these days, and the players the same. You can't even roughen someone up without there being punishment of a player.

Again I don't fully understand this fast tracking, who decides which incidents are worthy of fast tracking, whats the criteria, is it only if a big game coming up etc.

Every single decision, for players, is made before the next fixture, there is no criteria. It just so happened that the incident occurred during a busy period.

People claiming Costa has merely replaced Suarez in the eyes of the press are wrong.

 

Sure, Suarez attracted a lot of negative press, but biting opponents and having claims of racial abuse made against you are big stories and can hardly be ignored.

 

How many times did we see Suarez be a bit naughty with his studs? As Carragher said yesterday via twitter, Costa may have been naughty but Suarez used to do it all the time.

 

Did you ever see the panellists in the Sky studio focusing on it and demanding a red?

 

Never.

 

Suarez was never sent off in his time in England, I think I'm right in saying. Isn't that incredible? Sure, he got lengthy bans for biting and for racially abusing someone, but what has just happened with Costa, a retrospective 3 game ban, never.

 

Why?

 

Because, when it comes to treatment off the press, Chelsea are in a different category altogether, and only the most deluded fool would say otherwise.

 

Torres was never sent off for Liverpool, three times for Chelsea, incredibly. Image counts, and it's the media who present that image.

 

Without any doubt whatsoever, the media would be focusing on Michael Oliver, if the team in red had been in blue and vice versa. Instead they're focusing on Costa, to a ridiculous degree.

 

There was no stamp. Whether we think he meant it is irrelevant. He doesn't look down, he doesn't break stride, he doesn't land with greater force. It's a guessing game and it's based on reputation, not just the reputation of Costa, but the reputation of Chelsea, as presented by the media.

 

Sure, we might think he meant it, but we don't know, for sure. Strangely the media do. Jamie Redknapp never once even entertained room for doubt. This is what we get. One rule for us another for others. One rule for Costa another for Suarez.

 

We're the bad guys, we have been since Roman arrived, that's clear, we're the most hated team in England. Liverpool have a lot of goodwill towards them from the media, a lot of friends, a lot of very favourable press, for reasons to do with prestige, their place in English folklore, their standing. Sure, their fans may say they get a raw deal from the press, but they should try walking in our boots for a mile. Then they would see what a raw deal was. Prior to the Suarez-Evra incident, hardly a bad word had ever been written about their club. Ever.

 

Some people may argue but here's the proof, and it's irrefutable ..

 

Last season the media drove a campaign to get Liverpool to win the league. Sure, I can understand their motivation, we all can, we're not idiots. There are plenty reasons why a neutral may want to see them win the league, I understand it, and may not want to see City or Chelsea, sure, we get it, but were the media fair and honest in their reporting, or were they selective with the facts? They had an agenda, to see Liverpool win it and they drove it as far as they possibly could.

 

The result? Refs were influenced, to an incredible degree. Yes that's right it happens folks. Sorry if you still believe in the tooth fairy. Welcome to the real world. They got decision after decision after decision. We all witnesed it. Let's not argue the fact. The media know their power even if some of you don't.

 

So, we come to my final question, to those of you who believe there can't possibly be an agenda against Chelsea. I've asked it before but had no response. Let's see if you can do better this time ..

 

Why have we had so many bad decisions go against us this season, regarding penalties or sendings off. Is it merely a coincidence? Ivanovic was sent off at Old Trafford Henderson wasn't at Stamford Bridge. Coincidence? We've had players booked for diving for blatant pens. Coincidence? We've been denied more blatant pens than I can ever remember in a single season, for any side.

 

I agree with Jose, there's a campaign by the media and refs are influenced, just as they were with the pro-Liverpool campaign last season. Bad decision in our favour you will get crucified and no ref wants that, so we suffer. Everyone's watching wanting us to lose, as they were on Tuesday, and the referee knows that, and it plays its part. He doesn't want to be a figure of scorn.

 

But if this is paranoia, then the question is, what's the reason for all the bad decisions?

 

It's a very simple question and yet nobody can give me an answer.

 

That's the most telling thing of all.

I still don't see definitive proof he's deliberately stamped on him.

But as we know, the FA don't need proof.

I had a quick look on the FA website today, they had a little section on football v homophobia, in a nice fetching pink font...!!!

 

They really couldn't find their collective arses with... both hands

Every single decision, for players, is made before the next fixture, there is no criteria. It just so happened that the incident occurred during a busy period.

 

It's a recent thing Im guessing. In 2012 Invavoic got his ban 3 days later, After we played another fixture.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Stim

People claiming Costa has merely replaced Suarez in the eyes of the press are wrong.

 

Sure, Suarez attracted a lot of negative press, but biting opponents and having claims of racial abuse made against you are big stories and can hardly be ignored.

 

How many times did we see Suarez be a bit naughty with his studs? As Carragher said yesterday via twitter, Costa may have been naughty but Suarez used to do it all the time.

 

Did you ever see the panellists in the Sky studio focusing on it and demanding a red?

 

Never.

 

Suarez was never sent off in his time in England, I think I'm right in saying. Isn't that incredible? Sure, he got lengthy bans for biting and for racially abusing someone, but what has just happened with Costa, a retrospective 3 game ban, never.

 

Why?

 

Because, when it comes to treatment off the press, Chelsea are in a different category altogether, and only the most deluded fool would say otherwise.

 

Torres was never sent off for Liverpool, three times for Chelsea, incredibly. Image counts, and it's the media who present that image.

 

Without any doubt whatsoever, the media would be focusing on Michael Oliver, if the team in red had been in blue and vice versa. Instead they're focusing on Costa, to a ridiculous degree.

 

There was no stamp. Whether we think he meant it is irrelevant. He doesn't look down, he doesn't break stride, he doesn't land with greater force. It's a guessing game and it's based on reputation, not just the reputation of Costa, but the reputation of Chelsea, as presented by the media.

 

Sure, we might think he meant it, but we don't know, for sure. Strangely the media do. Jamie Redknapp never once even entertained room for doubt. This is what we get. One rule for us another for others. One rule for Costa another for Suarez.

 

We're the bad guys, we have been since Roman arrived, that's clear, we're the most hated team in England. Liverpool have a lot of goodwill towards them from the media, a lot of friends, a lot of very favourable press, for reasons to do with prestige, their place in English folklore, their standing. Sure, their fans may say they get a raw deal from the press, but they should try walking in our boots for a mile. Then they would see what a raw deal was. Prior to the Suarez-Evra incident, hardly a bad word had ever been written about their club. Ever.

 

Some people may argue but here's the proof, and it's irrefutable ..

 

Last season the media drove a campaign to get Liverpool to win the league. Sure, I can understand their motivation, we all can, we're not idiots. There are plenty reasons why a neutral may want to see them win the league, I understand it, and may not want to see City or Chelsea, sure, we get it, but were the media fair and honest in their reporting, or were they selective with the facts? They had an agenda, to see Liverpool win it and they drove it as far as they possibly could.

 

The result? Refs were influenced, to an incredible degree. Yes that's right it happens folks. Sorry if you still believe in the tooth fairy. Welcome to the real world. They got decision after decision after decision. We all witnesed it. Let's not argue the fact. The media know their power even if some of you don't.

 

So, we come to my final question, to those of you who believe there can't possibly be an agenda against Chelsea. I've asked it before but had no response. Let's see if you can do better this time ..

 

Why have we had so many bad decisions go against us this season, regarding penalties or sendings off. Is it merely a coincidence? Ivanovic was sent off at Old Trafford Henderson wasn't at Stamford Bridge. Coincidence? We've had players booked for diving for blatant pens. Coincidence? We've been denied more blatant pens than I can ever remember in a single season, for any side.

 

I agree with Jose, there's a campaign by the media and refs are influenced, just as they were with the pro-Liverpool campaign last season. Bad decision in our favour you will get crucified and no ref wants that, so we suffer. Everyone's watching wanting us to lose, as they were on Tuesday, and the referee knows that, and it plays its part. He doesn't want to be a figure of scorn.

 

But if this is paranoia, then the question is, what's the reason for all the bad decisions?

 

It's a very simple question and yet nobody can give me an answer.

 

That's the most telling thing of all.

   Davey, but   - There's always those who can't see it.

People claiming Costa has merely replaced Suarez in the eyes of the press are wrong.

Sure, Suarez attracted a lot of negative press, but biting opponents and having claims of racial abuse made against you are big stories and can hardly be ignored.

How many times did we see Suarez be a bit naughty with his studs? As Carragher said yesterday via twitter, Costa may have been naughty but Suarez used to do it all the time.

Did you ever see the panellists in the Sky studio focusing on it and demanding a red?

Never.

Suarez was never sent off in his time in England, I think I'm right in saying. Isn't that incredible? Sure, he got lengthy bans for biting and for racially abusing someone, but what has just happened with Costa, a retrospective 3 game ban, never.

Why?

Because, when it comes to treatment off the press, Chelsea are in a different category altogether, and only the most deluded fool would say otherwise.

Torres was never sent off for Liverpool, three times for Chelsea, incredibly. Image counts, and it's the media who present that image.

Without any doubt whatsoever, the media would be focusing on Michael Oliver, if the team in red had been in blue and vice versa. Instead they're focusing on Costa, to a ridiculous degree.

There was no stamp. Whether we think he meant it is irrelevant. He doesn't look down, he doesn't break stride, he doesn't land with greater force. It's a guessing game and it's based on reputation, not just the reputation of Costa, but the reputation of Chelsea, as presented by the media.

Sure, we might think he meant it, but we don't know, for sure. Strangely the media do. Jamie Redknapp never once even entertained room for doubt. This is what we get. One rule for us another for others. One rule for Costa another for Suarez.

We're the bad guys, we have been since Roman arrived, that's clear, we're the most hated team in England. Liverpool have a lot of goodwill towards them from the media, a lot of friends, a lot of very favourable press, for reasons to do with prestige, their place in English folklore, their standing. Sure, their fans may say they get a raw deal from the press, but they should try walking in our boots for a mile. Then they would see what a raw deal was. Prior to the Suarez-Evra incident, hardly a bad word had ever been written about their club. Ever.

Some people may argue but here's the proof, and it's irrefutable ..

Last season the media drove a campaign to get Liverpool to win the league. Sure, I can understand their motivation, we all can, we're not idiots. There are plenty reasons why a neutral may want to see them win the league, I understand it, and may not want to see City or Chelsea, sure, we get it, but were the media fair and honest in their reporting, or were they selective with the facts? They had an agenda, to see Liverpool win it and they drove it as far as they possibly could.

The result? Refs were influenced, to an incredible degree. Yes that's right it happens folks. Sorry if you still believe in the tooth fairy. Welcome to the real world. They got decision after decision after decision. We all witnesed it. Let's not argue the fact. The media know their power even if some of you don't.

So, we come to my final question, to those of you who believe there can't possibly be an agenda against Chelsea. I've asked it before but had no response. Let's see if you can do better this time ..

Why have we had so many bad decisions go against us this season, regarding penalties or sendings off. Is it merely a coincidence? Ivanovic was sent off at Old Trafford Henderson wasn't at Stamford Bridge. Coincidence? We've had players booked for diving for blatant pens. Coincidence? We've been denied more blatant pens than I can ever remember in a single season, for any side.

I agree with Jose, there's a campaign by the media and refs are influenced, just as they were with the pro-Liverpool campaign last season. Bad decision in our favour you will get crucified and no ref wants that, so we suffer. Everyone's watching wanting us to lose, as they were on Tuesday, and the referee knows that, and it plays its part. He doesn't want to be a figure of scorn.

But if this is paranoia, then the question is, what's the reason for all the bad decisions?

It's a very simple question and yet nobody can give me an answer.

That's the most telling thing of all.

Fantastic read and very well said sir

A nice read Davey but I don't share your "everyone against us" sentiments. Just as arguing that Costa didn't mean to do it is naive and blue tinted.

 

Just as you were complaining earlier in the season when our 1-1 vs Saints wasn't on first on MOTD... Despite there being a 3-2 between Newcastle and Everton and Burnley coming back from 2-0 down to draw against City. Not to mention Arsenal's game was an exciting 2-1 against West Ham too.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by RichardCFC

 

Why have we had so many bad decisions go against us this season, regarding penalties or sendings off. Is it merely a coincidence? Ivanovic was sent off at Old Trafford Henderson wasn't at Stamford Bridge. Coincidence? We've had players booked for diving for blatant pens. Coincidence? We've been denied more blatant pens than I can ever remember in a single season, for any side.

 

I agree with Jose, there's a campaign by the media and refs are influenced, just as they were with the pro-Liverpool campaign last season. Bad decision in our favour you will get crucified and no ref wants that, so we suffer. Everyone's watching wanting us to lose, as they were on Tuesday, and the referee knows that, and it plays its part. He doesn't want to be a figure of scorn.

 

But if this is paranoia, then the question is, what's the reason for all the bad decisions?

 

It's a very simple question and yet nobody can give me an answer.

 

That's the most telling thing of all.

 

We also had Ramires blatantly dive and win us a penalty against West brom. We had Kaboul wrongly sent off by Michael Oliver in the Spurs game last season. We had a slightly suspect (from what I recall) sending off in our favour at Palace. We got away with Cahill not being sent off at home to Hull when he absolutely should have.

 

Bad decisions happen in football. Reputation plays into the perception of refs which is why I think Costa got that booking against Burnley, but I also believe that we're as guilty of that. Most of the people I've spoken too think the stamp on Can was intentional because that's what they've come to expect of Costa.

 

The notion that there's a specific media agenda against this club is simply something I've seen no proof of and you can use that to call me whatever names you want over the internet. You can write long diatribes about how we're always the victim (sorry, but I've started reading these whines in a Scouse accent) but until you start actually naming names and coming up with a reason for this agenda then you're going to lack a bit of credibility.

 

Doesn't mean you won't get people agreeing with you, but that's not proof of you being right.

So, we come to my final question, to those of you who believe there can't possibly be an agenda against Chelsea. I've asked it before but had no response. Let's see if you can do better this time ..

Why have we had so many bad decisions go against us this season, regarding penalties or sendings off. Is it merely a coincidence? Ivanovic was sent off at Old Trafford Henderson wasn't at Stamford Bridge. Coincidence? We've had players booked for diving for blatant pens. Coincidence? We've been denied more blatant pens than I can ever remember in a single season, for any side.

I agree with Jose, there's a campaign by the media and refs are influenced, just as they were with the pro-Liverpool campaign last season. Bad decision in our favour you will get crucified and no ref wants that, so we suffer. Everyone's watching wanting us to lose, as they were on Tuesday, and the referee knows that, and it plays its part. He doesn't want to be a figure of scorn.

But if this is paranoia, then the question is, what's the reason for all the bad decisions?

It's a very simple question and yet nobody can give me an answer.

That's the most telling thing of all.

Every side can say they have had decisions go against them and I'm willing to bet we have had the same amount as teams around us, just that we don't watch other teams week in week out (why would we?) so it looks like we are getting a rough deal. I remember watching Spurs a few games back, can't remember who against perhaps Spudulike can help me out here, it was the worst ref performance I've seen all season. Everything went against them, compared to that game ours was nothing.

Any examples of these bad decisions in our favour resulting in outrage? And how is it different from when the same happens to other teams? For what it's worth, there's also been outrage when we've had poor decisions against us, how does that fit into all this?

Wait a sec, you mean to say there are people out there who want to see big teams lose to lesser sides? And this only happens to us? Well thats just unacceptable, definitely a conspiracy.

So many great points on here and I have a lots of thoughts …… kind of therapy I suppose to write them down J

 

As Gordon pointed out earlier in this thread you can’t really, when looking at these incidents point to other teams incidents or past incidents. It has an irrelevance as much as the inconsistency is hugely frustrating. You can only look after what is in your control, two wrongs don’t make a right, what’s good for the goose, cry wolf, an eye for an eye, it evens its self out over the season and every other saying there is to use…. Wasting your breath (or key board time) basically.  

 

The pundit/media campaign….. yes Jose is spot on  (as always!),  the comments just don’t fit the crime. Conspiracy is a bit hard but these things tend to snow ball and it is pathetic. This what annoys me.  These ex-players seem sometimes not to have an original thought of their own. If intentional (no one can prove that) then it is a bit naughty, if an accident then it is careless…but,  a disgrace and comparing to Suarez for example. Come on ! prats.

 

As for the challenge I agree with the majority. Although I can see why some say it looks intentional.  I don’t think it can be proved that it was at all so he might get some leniency but because of the snow ball effect in the media I think it might just sway the jury (whoever that is)

 

As for the fast tracking comments. I can’t find it on the internet but there was, I am afraid new guidelines from the FA last year over criticism that decisions take ages to resolve so the guideline is  within the week I think. (more if it is more complex or warrants it) I just think this is the highest profile case since then (well certainly to us) so I am sorry all, it is not being fast tracked just to favour City.

 

Despite my comment on looking at other teams incidents and challenges above there is one area that bothers me and that is the treatment that our strikers get and the protection that the refs give. Costa was knocked all over the park so they have provoked a reaction maybe. Exactly the same happened with Drogba, he has this reputation as a diver and it was wrong. Yes he would go down easy at times but this was after he had been kicked off the park for the first 20 mins because the defense couldn’t handle him or his reputation. As he was not getting any protection from the ref he takes the law of the game into his own hands and played up, and who can blame him. I think the same has happened with Costa and he needs to calm down a tad that’s all. Basically they have to be told they cannot rely on the refs and stay as squeaky clean as they can.

 

As for Saturday, we have done well without Costa and we will do again. Drogba maybe past his best but he is a master at getting himself up for big games. Also we have an abundance of quality going forward… we can’t use that as an excuse for not beating City at home, like us they are not exactly on fire at the moment either.

 

One thing is for sure, the genius that is Jose has written his team speech Tuesday night,  siege mentality, the world is against us. Brilliant.

 

Bring it on !

 but until you start actually naming names and coming up with a reason for this agenda then you're going to lack a bit of credibility.

 

The high infestation of ex liverpool in the media and punditry. Coupled with catering to the 'largest fanbases' being United and Liverpool, putting down Chelsea is easy clickbait for the masses.

 

The end.

People claiming Costa has merely replaced Suarez in the eyes of the press are wrong.

 

 

Who here has said that by the way? 

 

 

Torres was never sent off for Liverpool, three times for Chelsea, incredibly. Image counts, and it's the media who present that image.

 

 

Proof of absolutely f**k all unless you can find specific issue with his red against Swansea for example. The United one was a bad call by Clattenburg, but in his time at Liverpool I don't think he's got off lightly.

 

The irony of all this is that you write posts in the manner of the worst tabloid journo. You don't use facts, you use emotions, appealing to someone's sense of perceived injustice rather than actually providing substantive arguments. That's why it reminds me so much of a RAWK argument. You'll never go short of an audience for such stuff but in terms of having proper informed discussions that can actually lead to revealing hidden truths or even affecting change, it's utterly useless.

 

Like I said, 'always the victim...'.

spot on Blue Daze excellent post

 

we have had as many dubious decisions given our way as not that's football . If I am honest the free kick we scored from looked very soft and had an element of the player looking for the foul ..........

 

the information overload society we live in throws as many positive slants as negative .

 

Journalists  / Pundits are given the same direction cause controversy and get people talking about you /the newspaper !!

 

even in the days of the only football coverage being 4 pages in the back of the newspaper we have all read match reports of games we attend and wondered what game/city the jurno was at as it was nothing like the game I watched ....

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Tea Bar Boy

The high infestation of ex liverpool in the media and punditry. Coupled with catering to the 'largest fanbases' being United and Liverpool, putting down Chelsea is easy clickbait for the masses.

 

The end.

 

Who commentated on this match? Quinn wasn't it, ex-Arsenal and Sunderland.

 

Who was in the studio? Redknapp and Henry. One an ex-Liverpool player and one an overpriced 'star name' who they shoehorn into everything.

 

That's one in three, perhaps lacking a Chelsea presence but hardly infested.

 

It's simply a regurgitation of Jose's point from last season and it's ridiculous. I outlined why I believe the punditry landscape to be made up as it is a page or two back. The media wants big names and these tend to come from the big clubs, but who exactly has retired recently from our club and looked to make a name in the media?

 

Gullit, Hoddle, Ballack, Nevin, Butch, Wisey, Franco and Gus all pop up to varying degrees. Then you've got LeBouef, Desailly, Burley (twat), Cundy, Ferrer, Minto and a few others out there. Even JT had a go at it last season. It's a really spurious argument to make but it's an interesting one. 

It's a recent thing Im guessing. In 2012 Invavoic got his ban 3 days later, After we played another fixture.

I'm sure there are exceptions in rare circumstances, I can't remember the details of that incident, but as far as I can remember it's been that way. I'll try find the article if possible.

Actually there was a huge outcry when the Ramires decision went for us...Steve Clarke even got a grovelling letter of apology form the Mike Riley (I think)

 

btw I seem to have lost the ablility to use the quote button

twice now Riley has apologised to teams who have had poor decisions against us. I look forward to our apology over not getting the penalty when Skretl brought down Costa, it must surely already be in the post.

Lets hope Costa gets sent for some nice warm weather training, while the inevitable ban is in force, even better if the club come out and say "Diego suffered a slight tweak against Looneypool, so this a good opportunity for him to relax and get back to full fitness"

 

I think that would be a good response instead of kicking off at the FA.

Who commentated on this match? Quinn wasn't it, ex-Arsenal and Sunderland.

Who was in the studio? Redknapp and Henry. One an ex-Liverpool player and one an overpriced 'star name' who they shoehorn into everything.

That's one in three, perhaps lacking a Chelsea presence but hardly infested.

It's simply a regurgitation of Jose's point from last season and it's ridiculous. I outlined why I believe the punditry landscape to be made up as it is a page or two back. The media wants big names and these tend to come from the big clubs, but who exactly has retired recently from our club and looked to make a name in the media?

Gullit, Hoddle, Ballack, Nevin, Butch, Wisey, Franco and Gus all pop up to varying degrees. Then you've got LeBouef, Desailly, Burley (twat), Cundy, Ferrer, Minto and a few others out there. Even JT had a go at it last season. It's a really spurious argument to make but it's an interesting one.

1 in 3 was directly liverpool, the other 2 played for a main rival. How is that ever going to result in a balanced coverage.

I think you are right that a lot of players from our recent history have gone into coaching, so there isn't a great deal out there. However for a semi final of this magnitude, in the middle of the week, I think sky could've gotten an ex chelsea pundit.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with the lack of chelsea pundits in the media, if the F.a. and their officials were strong enough not to be influenced by what is in the media, but the fabregas booking for diving proves just how much of a weak organisation they actually are.

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by big blue

Here's the Observer editorial asking for Terry to be sacked, but not Suarez, funnily enough.

 

Asking for Chelsea's sponsors to abandon them, but not Liverpool's funnily enough.

 

This was on the basis of an FA verdict, rather than the court verdict, which acquitted him.

 

So, if we're going on FA verdicts, Suarez committed the greater crime, he got double the ban, but The Observer, funnily enough, only ask for Terry to be sacked.

 

Why?

 

I'm sure Blue Daze can answer this.

 

They also want Cole punished by his club. Cole didn't even have a charge to answer, unlike Suarez, he had no opportunity to defend himself against the accusations, unlike Suarez, he wasn't banned, unlike Suarez, and he wasn't found guilty of a racially-related offence, unlike Suarez, yet The Observer don't ask for Suarez to be punished.

 

That's right folks, there's no agenda against Chelsea whatsoever ..

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2012/oct/06/editorial-john-terry-ashley-cole-chelsea-england

 

I'm sure Blue Daze is going to find us the Observer editorial asking for Suarez to be sacked ..

 

Just after he's found one solitary column condemning the appointment of Ryan Giggs as Team GB captain.

 

Chelsea are treated the same as other clubs.

 

You heard it here first.

twice now Riley has apologised to teams who have had poor decisions against us. I look forward to our apology over not getting the penalty when Skretl brought down Costa, it must surely already be in the post.

Anthony Taylor apologised to Jose for incorrectly booking Fabregas for diving.