Liverpool - Football's Drama Queen

[disco]

Fine, CHANGE THEM PROSPECTIVELY. That is the right thing to do.

Changing them retrospectively is unfair.

Thought so

[Red Chilli]

And, to clarify things, Liverpool REQUESTED that the rules should be changed. Uefa, FIFA, whoever, didn't have to agree.

Why else would rules ever change?! Persumably, you would have preferred it if Maschereno didn't join, we didn't defend our cup etc. but in future it would have been allowed?

That seems mightily perverse to me.

At no point have I said I would have preferred it that way. Typical internet trick of putting words into people's mouths.

I'm EMBARRASSED by the whole thing. Of course I was delighted we got to compete but I was embarrassed that we were allowed to do it in blatant contravention of the rules.

[Red Chilli]

Thought so

:whatever: If you can't comprehend my posts then what's the point in commenting on them?

[Shaggy]

Shaggy, can you not see the distinction between changing rules prospectively and retrospectively?

If you can't then there's no point in replying to you.

Yes of course I can but sometimes you have to act for the sake of credibility – amongst other things. Can you not see that the competition would have lost every ounce of its credibility had the champions not been in the competition to defend their title? If not there's no point in replying to you.

That is, quite clearly, not sport. The only way for that rightful eventuality to occur was to change the rules – retrospectively. Everybody can see that.

[disco]

At no point have I said I would have preferred it that way. Typical internet trick of putting words into people's mouths.

I'm EMBARRASSED by the whole thing. Of course I was delighted we got to compete but I was embarrassed that we were allowed to do it in blatant contravention of the rules.

Well, you've agreed that you'd want the rule changes to apply Prospectively. Please point out how my post is 'putting words into your mouth', because I've simply interpreted what I thought you would prefer.

[disco]

:whatever: If you can't comprehend my posts then what's the point in commenting on them?

Calm down mate, 'Thought so' was because your post about prospective rule changes came after my supposition that this is what you meant.

It was laughing at my own 'ah, I've worked out what Red Chilli means', not at you

[Red Chilli]

Well, you've agreed that you'd want the rule changes to apply Prospectively. Please point out how my post is 'putting words into your mouth', because I've simply interpreted what I thought you would prefer.

I have never said I preferred it if we hadn't competed, in fact quite the opposite.

Your post implied that I have, which, is putting words in my mouth from my point of view.

[Red_Polo]

Now you're being ridiculous.

We're talking about a sporting competition here, not law.

We knew the rules, we didn't qualify, so we went to UEFA with our begging bowl. Sad and pitiful if you ask me.

It's an analogy to highlight how ludicrous it is to say that following rules always leads to fairness no matter what the rule is.

Qualifying rules should be simple and clear. You do this - you get this. The precedent was if you win the CL you get to play in the group stages, regardless of your league position.

[Red Chilli]

It's an analogy to highlight how ludicrous it is to say that following rules always leads to fairness no matter what the rule is.

Qualifying rules should be simple and clear. You do this - you get this. The precedent was if you win the CL you get to play in the group stages, regardless of your league position.

Unfortunately that is where the problem lies.

I do not agree that there was a precedent, at no point have any country been allowed to enter 5 teams, one more than they were allocated. Had the FA let us in instead of Everton, then they would have followed the precedent.

[Red_Polo]

So say we're winning 1-0 in the final and a chelsea player picks the ball up, runs the length of the field and throws it in the net.

It's ruled out, but weeks later UEFA decide to allow the goal and award the game to Chelsea. Is that fair?

No because it's handball

Also you are missing the point by providing an example of changing the rules in a way which damages others. We already had a place reserved in the sodding group stages!

[disco]

I have never said I preferred it if we hadn't competed, in fact quite the opposite.

Your post implied that I have, which, is putting words in my mouth from my point of view.

Ah, ok.

Apologies, I should have said 'you wouldn't be embarrassed'.

Although, if you think rules shouldn't be changed retrospectively then surely for consistency you should believe that we shouldn't have defended our trophy etc.?

[Red_Polo]

Unfortunately that is where the problem lies.

I do not agree that there was a precedent, at no point have any country been allowed to enter 5 teams, one more than they were allocated. Had the FA let us in instead of Everton, then they would have followed the precedent.

I never said the precedent was followed exactly, in fact I complained that it wasn't. We should've been in at the group stages and Everton should've been complaining because the rules were unfair, and then they should've been allowed to enter too. Stupid to not allow a country 5 representatives. If you can do it on one odd occasion you can do it on the next odd occassion.

[Red Chilli]

Ah, ok.

Apologies, I should have said 'you wouldn't be embarrassed'.

Although, if you think rules shouldn't be changed retrospectively then surely for consistency you should believe that we shouldn't have defended our trophy etc.?

We shouldn't have been let in after the FA made their decision.The FA made the wrong decision in my opinion and we should have defended it in the same way Madrid did. I'm delighted we were, not that it made any difference ultimately, but I'm embarrassed about the way it came about and if rival fans accuse us of bias I can't argue with them.

[disco]

We shouldn't have been let in after the FA made their decision.The FA made the wrong decision in my opinion and we should have defended it in the same way Madrid did. I'm delighted we were, not that it made any difference ultimately, but I'm embarrassed about the way it came about and if rival fans accuse us of bias I can't argue with them.

Why is it bias though mate, IMO all the decisions would have been made for any team

[Red Chilli]

Why is it bias though mate, IMO all the decisions would have been made for any team

It's bias because they made the decision retrospectively. You can't argue with that can you? You get a rule change retrospectively which benefits you and no-one else.
Isn't that bias?