Liverpool - Football's Drama Queen

[Red Chilli]

Without rules, sporting competitions are worthless. My view is if you know the rules, you should follow them.

[Rich]

So the rule is to leave the decision to a biased organisation?

[Shaggy]

Sporting competition is worthless when the champions of any given sporting competition don’t have the right to defend their title. The rule was a farce, and it’s now been changed accordingly after our situation highlighted it.

[Red Chilli]

So the rule is to leave the decision to a biased organisation?

That was the rule, it has since been adapted.

[Red Chilli]

Sporting competition is worthless when the champions of any given sporting competition don’t have the right to defend their title. The rule was a farce, and it’s now been changed accordingly after our situation highlighted it.

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?

[Rich]

So sod the interests of fairness and sporting competition, instead stick to a rule which wasn't thought about thoroughly enough, leaving this particularly ridiculous situation (for all involved!)

[Shaggy]

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?

Now who's being ridiculous?!?

[Red Chilli]

So sod the interests of fairness and sporting competition, instead stick to a rule which wasn't thought about thoroughly enough, leaving this particularly ridiculous situation (for all involved!)

How is it fair to change the rules RETROSPECTIVELY.

It's ****ing stupid.

Fine change the rules prospectively, but not retrospectively. It leaves them open to valid accusations of bias.

[Red Chilli]

Now who's being ridiculous?!?

It was to highlight the stupidity of changing the rules retrospectively.

Totally ridiculous.

[Rich]

But the rules were an ASS! As shown by the unique situation which occurred.

I admire your ability to stick to your guns, but blimey, you are wrong!

[disco]

OK, this fred is far too long

Yes, it does seem that we've had to challenge a few odd rules recently, but any rational fan - of any team - would realise that they for the very reason that the rules were completely stupid in the first place AND the change should benefit other teams in the future.

All the big clubs have had rules bent/changed/not enforced to go their way, but it's a bitter Chelsea fan who is hypocritically pointing out ours, while trying to dismiss Chavski's misdemeanours to some how give his mindless rant some weight.

[Shaggy]

It was to highlight the stupidity of changing the rules retrospectively.

Totally ridiculous.

But it's not remotely stupid when the rule is a complete and utter ass. Your example was ridiculous.

Rules are changed/updated for a reason.

[Red Chilli]

But the rules were an ASS! As shown by the unique situation which occurred.

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

Changing them retrospectively is unfair.

[disco]

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.

[Red Chilli]

But it's not remotely stupid when the rule is a complete and utter ass. Your example was ridiculous.

Rules are changed/updated for a reason.

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.