- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
due to the response, i've decided to invest my total winnings into tonights game. Going big!!
due to the response, i've decided to invest my total winnings into tonights game. Going big!!
he was the dirtiest bastard that ever crawled onto a british football field... he ended the careers of a few players
'it wasn't done with any malicious intent' maybe not because subconsciously a player would never want to do that but the choice he made in the way he cowardly challenged for the ball, made it happened-guilty 100% scumbag , he deserves to get called out for it and punished.You need to take off the spurs tinted glasses. Whilst I agree that Sterlings challenge should have probably warranted a red card, I have absolutely no doubt it wasn't done with any malicious intent. It was just a player challenging hard for the ball and Sterling's foot went over the top of it. I was more annoyed he wasn't booked for this obvious dive on the penalty rebound
Mark Clattenburg at the Daily Mail said it should have been a red.See you say that but the ref didn't agree. VAR didn't agree. The pundits who both played the game at the highest level didn't agree. It was borderline. I can understand people think he was a red or not quite but stonewall implies it couldn't be anything other than a red. That is clearly not the case.
Mark Clattenburg at the Daily Mail said it should have been a red.
Bang on. If Aurier has committed an identical offence everyone would say he’s reckless and it’s a straight red. Sounds actually tried to suggest that the view that Sterling isn’t that kind of player should influence the decision, which is pure bullshit. You should be judged on each incident on its own merits, and that was a dangerous tackle and hence a clear red