posted Oct 1, 2008

I wish people would stop spouting the old 'big 4 get away with everything' line. Whenever one of them do anything, it is highlighted and gone over and over again. Could you imagine if Ronaldo or Drogba had kicked out like Guthrie the other week, we would be hearing about it until the middle of next year. Cahill gets away with quite a lot of tackles himself, as well as a lot of mouthing off.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

Liverpool fan here, and what a poor deciscion by the FA I think that the red card was uncalled for and Mike Riley is just proving himself to be a poor ref.

Feel sorry for Everton as Cahill does not deserve a 3match suspension at all

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

It was a very bad tackle, two footed lunge. He then showed a total disregard for the ref. Fully deserved his red card imo.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

Its seems that there are a lot of LFC supporters (as I am) who do not think that the tackle was worthy of a straight red.
But still you can read a lot of biast, undeserved slating of us on here from some of the Everton supporters.

Lets look at true situations here.

1 Cahill definetly caught Arbeloa 2-3 times just before Arbelo clipped his ankle

2 Arbeloa got a yellow for his actions, but Cahill got away with his

3 Cahill then started to go for Arbelo, to which Kuyt held him back, Seems Cahill likes to give it, but not receive it.

4 Cahill then rattled into Alonso, and by what everyone is saying on here, he went in with 1 foot, then swung his leg and caught Alonso with his follow through - this would seem like intent to hurt

5 The ref blows his whistle 3 or 4 times, and Cahill chooses to ignore him

6 The ref gives a straight red

The questions that the Everton Supporters should be asking, is why Cahill has ignored the ref, showing the level of dissent he did, especially knowing that all clubs have signed up to a respect the ref programme.

from this, Cahill is now missing 3 games, which he would have been a key player for the blues.

Intent usually would follow with a straight red.

But he did at least deserve two yellows, one for the tackle and one for the dissent.

The fact that the ref gave a straight red, meant that Everton were given the oportunity to appeal, which if it was two yellows, you cannot appeal - so the ref was more than favourable to Cahill in that instance.

I do agree with other comments that JT should have had the red stand, because he fouled with intent and it did prevent a goal oportunity, he had no intention of going for the ball - but JT's case has nothing in similarity to this one.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

Can I ask why the slating of Mike Riley? Surely if Cahill hadnt gone through on Alonso, clumsy late and potentially dangerous he would not have had to reach for his pocket.
I would be interested to know if any other referees, who do contribute certainly to the lower league boards have the opinion that it was a red card offence.
Riley is obviously a good ref or he would not be allocated the high-pressure games he is given ie Chelsea-Man Utd and Everton-Liverpool. The level of dissent shown to the man was enough for a red card as it is.
Maybe he should have issued the two yellows. I personally would have issued him with a red and as your previous contributor mentions, gives Everton the chance to appeal against it.
Maybe if these overpaid prima donnas started to respect the match officials then they might actually find that the officials show some leniency back.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

"Your right the tackle was no more than a booking, Riley was going for the yellow card, but after his refusal to come over to Mike after blowing his whistle 5 times, he decided he was sick of his attitude and give him the straight red. His sending-off was vindiacted, the method was just wrong."

And the method if the major issue. If it was two yellows which made the red its a one match ban. A straight red means a 3 match ban.

If the FA reviewed that tackle and deamed it worthy of a red card then I for one cannot see why Terry's red card was recinded. Its a complete joke, but I would not expect naything less from the FA who have proven once again they have not got a clue.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

Referee's have been diabolical this season. This comes as no surprise!

David Moyes gets sent to the stands for protesting a decision that not even the 'experts' can explain!
Then Tim Cahill gets banned for three matches for that challenge . . and I've seen far worse in Merseyside derby's which have been unpunished (kuyt's two footed lunge last year, and he ends up scoring the winning goal!)!

Shocking!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

There seem to be two different issues being discussed here. First Terry's rescinded card. There is no doubt at all that that was a bad decision and needs to be investigated. As a Liverpool fan I can't argue that the big 4 don't have some sway.

The other is Cahill's red. Irrelevent of Terry's it was not to be rescinded as you can not downgrade to a yellow, you can only say that no offence was commited. Maybe that rule needs looking into as well. The trailing leg landed below the knee, and we will see yellows given for worse and reds given for less this season. Yes, it did appear that Riley was to give a yellow until Cahill's reaction but that does not automatically follow that it is two seperate incidents, therefore two yellows. The argument Riley will use is that Cahill's attitude throughout the previous five minutes and after the tackle made him think about Cahill's intent and Cahill did come across as malicious, hence serious foul play. Yes he could have received to yellows, but the laws of the game are so extensive at some points and ambiguous at others (this from someone who did the referees course) that they do allow a straight red for the incident. Unfortunately some armchair refs feel that they don't and that is what causes this big argument.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 1, 2008

It's quite obvious that the FA would never rescind the red, I don't even know why we bothered appealing.

If Terry had done the same tackle then spat in Mike Riley's face before cutting his head off and eating the FA Chief Exec's children then that red would of course be overturned.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 3, 2008

Its so funny what the blinkers do to people !

Cahill is a thug and deserved the straight red, and the appeal was a joke.

Teryy was never a Red Card (and I do not like Chelsea at all) so that is why it was rescinded.

add comment | complain about this comment