FA Favouring the Big Boys

[trousers]

lol, I do laugh at hypocrisy of some of our fans.....had that been Bournemouth against Saints and Mings had stamped on Gabbys head we would all be calling for blood and a lifetime ban for a player

 

Which reminds me... Why on earth didn't Vardy get retrospective action for his 'deliberate' stamp on Virgil's foot? The inconsistency of the powers that be is baffling.

[Shroppie]

lol, I do laugh at hypocrisy of some of our fans.....had that been Bournemouth against Saints and Mings had stamped on Gabbys head we would all be calling for blood and a lifetime ban for a player deliberately stamping on another players head....and yes i watched the game and i have no doubt at all Mings knew exactly what he was doing. Zlatan was just as bad and he knew as soon as he elbowed Mings that he was likely to get sent off.

Both deserve the bans and i have no problems with Mings being a longer ban for what he did.

 

And please don't get me started on Barca, they did what they had to do and one could easily argue PSG could easily of have had a couple of players sent off. Again had that been Saints achieving that monumental come back not one of you would be complaining and you all would be celebrating madly and accusing opposition fans of sour grapes.

 

I'm glad i can enjoy both my teams!...

 

And before any of you ask how i can support two teams....its purely down to the fact i'm a Southampton lad that grew up with a Spanish father who supported Real Madrid...so obviously i supported the team he hated....lol

I wasn't going to respond to this but it's nagging at me so I will.

 

There may be hypocrisy on the part of some fans, but not in my case. I am Saints to the core and support them fervently but that doesn't transcend fairness.

 

If the stamp had been on Gabby's head, and the circumstances were identical, I would not have been baying for blood and a lifetime ban as I disagree fundamentally on intent. I think it was probably accidental. Certainly far more accidental than Vardy on VVD.

 

I would have considered Gabby stupid and deserving of whatever he got if he'd retaliated. Ibrahimovic committed a pre-meditated attack. His ban is too lenient.

 

And as for Barcelona. Although that result will go down in folklore, for me it has damaged their reputation, and that of the football authorities. They won by cheating, with the assistance of the officials.

 

How would I have reacted if it had been Saints instead of Barca? Well, firstly, it wouldn't have happened. There isn't the same overriding urgency to see Saints progress at all costs. Secondly, of course I would have been deleriously happy but, and this is what you probably won't get, I would still have been thinking "Great, we won, but I can never condone a Saints player diving and cheating, and it tarnishes the result"

 

So I can't agree that Barca "did what they had to". Yes they did brilliantly to make the tie close, but didn't have to cheat. For me it's unacceptable to think that trying to win by cheating is part of the modern game. The game is poorer for that attitude and cheats need to be punished. Why not retrospective action for that added-time blatent dive? Doubt we'll ever see that, unless of course, there is a case where a "big" club loses as a result of something similar.

 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Dr. Kucho]

lol, I do laugh at hypocrisy of some of our fans.....had that been Bournemouth against Saints and Mings had stamped on Gabbys head we would all be calling for blood and a lifetime ban for a player deliberately stamping on another players head....and yes i watched the game and i have no doubt at all Mings knew exactly what he was doing. Zlatan was just as bad and he knew as soon as he elbowed Mings that he was likely to get sent off.

Both deserve the bans and i have no problems with Mings being a longer ban for what he did.

 

And please don't get me started on Barca, they did what they had to do and one could easily argue PSG could easily of have had a couple of players sent off. Again had that been Saints achieving that monumental come back not one of you would be complaining and you all would be celebrating madly and accusing opposition fans of sour grapes.

 

I'm glad i can enjoy both my teams!...

 

And before any of you ask how i can support two teams....its purely down to the fact i'm a Southampton lad that grew up with a Spanish father who supported Real Madrid...so obviously i supported the team he hated....lol

 

If that was Saints I would be happy we had progressed to the next round. However I would have zero pride in the way it was done. Neymar and Suarez dived, kicked and tried to get other players booked all game. It was disgusting to see that attitude at the top level of football, at any level its unacceptable.

 

You can say whatever you want, but UEFA needed Barcelona to progress and the ref certainly helped with some supicious decisions. Barcelona have a far greater fan base around the world and having them move on to the next round means a lot more tv viewers around the world and more revenue for UEFA. And we all know UEFA has little to do with football and a lot more to do with money.

[The9]

Still don't understand the difference in bans for Mings and Ibrahimovic. Both were dangerous, both lead to a hard blow on the head (whether intentional or not is irrelevant, it's dangerous play) - I think we just see elbows to the head a lot more often than boots to the head. Personally I don't think Mings standing on Ibrahimovic's head was deliberate, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened and is worthy of a ban.

 

Of course, if we had video refereeing, we wouldn't be having this conversation - one or t'other of them would have been sent off before the Ibrahimovic elbow occurred (I think Ibrahimovic was on a yellow when he judo-threw Mings to the ground? If not then Mings would have been off for the stamp).

 

The difference in the bans is [EDIT] not due to Mings contesting the charge, but due to the severity of the incident. FWIW I still think that shows a problem with the disciplinary process AND a problem with the balance of evidence, but that's by the by. Makes sense to encourage people not to contest charges but I can't believe for a second that the evidence we've seen is sufficient to support the charge against Mings - yet they've upheld it anyway.

 

If it was accidental as you suggest (and I agree with that) then I don't know why you think it's worthy of a ban, or why video evidence would have seen Mings sent off for a stamp you've just said was accidental.

 

I would imagine the argument for that goes down the road of what is reckless or dangerous - but as he was falling over, Mings had to put his foot down SOMEWHERE irrespective of what was in front of/under him at the time and the question then is to what extent players are expected to protect themselves and their opponents when a collision may be inevitable?

Edited 10 March, 2017 by The9

[The9]

Which reminds me... Why on earth didn't Vardy get retrospective action for his 'deliberate' stamp on Virgil's foot? The inconsistency of the powers that be is baffling.

 

Because no-one outside St Mary's cared that he'd done it, the ref didn't mention it in his report, and any FA reps watching MotD probably would have though Van Dijk just twisted awkwardly because they didn't even replay it. Oh, and also Vardy plays for England so he gets Shearer/Lennon incident level protection.

[The9]

There's a bigger issue here about the ref not seeing Zlatan's blatant elbow and the overreaction to Surman's light push as well, seriously, what did he think he was looking at?

[stevegrant]

The difference in the bans is due to Mings contesting the charge, not due to the severity of the incident.

No it isn't. The original statement on Monday when both players were charged specifically said that "the FA has submitted a claim that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for the misconduct committed by the Bournemouth defender is 'clearly insufficient'".

[The9]

No it isn't. The original statement on Monday when both players were charged specifically said that "the FA has submitted a claim that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for the misconduct committed by the Bournemouth defender is 'clearly insufficient'".

 

I skim-read that already once in this thread, it appears it fell out of my head. Edited original to say the opposite, still doesn't change my argument.

 

What that suggests to me is that they were going to propose a draconian punishment that they could reduce based on the difficulty of proving intent - which I suppose they might have done anyway, as we don't know they didn't plan on banning him for 9 matches...

 

Obviously that's a fudge and a half but they've decided to ban him based on no clear proof anyway.

[doddisalegend]

Mings still protesting his innocence and Howe backing him.

 

 

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39228950

[The9]

Mings still protesting his innocence and Howe backing him.

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39228950

 

They should refuse to play their next 5 matches and see how much crap they can cause, that would be bloody hilarious. Apart from the one against us...

[stevegrant]

They should refuse to play their next 5 matches and see how much crap they can cause, that would be bloody hilarious. Apart from the one against us...

He's made such a difference to their lineup after all... 5 starts, 0 wins.

[5string]

My opinion:

Both Mings & Zlatan probably meant their actions.

Zlatan's was worse because I think he pre-meditated it, whereas Mings just took an opportunity in the moment.

Both deserved long bans for shocking behaviour on the field. I mean, who does that? ...apart from The9 (post 23)

Zlatan's ban should have been longer than Mings's.

 

FA opinion/reasoning (possibly):

Intent is hard to prove in both these cases.

A stamp is worse than an elbow.

Stamp offence gets longer ban than elbow offence.

 

Barcelona:

PSG were pathetic.

Barcelona played well, even though I thought they'd given up after PSG scored. Neymar's free kick gave them hope again.

Officials did ok, except for that late penalty & 5 added minutes (should have been 2 or 3).

[eelpie]

Which reminds me... Why on earth didn't Vardy get retrospective action for his 'deliberate' stamp on Virgil's foot? The inconsistency of the powers that be is baffling.

 

This was the first thought I had when I first heard that Bournemouth were complaining about the punishment dished out to Mings. Leicester aren't a big club, but they are champions. Did Saints ever complain to the FA that Vardy got off scott-free for a deliberate stamp on our player?

[Graffito]

This was the first thought I had when I first heard that Bournemouth were complaining about the punishment dished out to Mings. Leicester aren't a big club, but they are champions. Did Saints ever complain to the FA that Vardy got off scott-free for a deliberate stamp on our player?

 

I was very surprised it wasn't highlighted, analysed or even commented on by MoTD. They generally make a big issue of such incidents. Surely Lineker has no editorial influence? Must admit I didn't see the stamp in real time and I was more or less in line with it. Nevertheless, it was there to see on replays.

[East Kent Saint]

UEFA are now going to sideline Barca's ref !!

[twopintsnilnil]

Because no-one outside St Mary's cared that he'd done it, the ref didn't mention it in his report, and any FA reps watching MotD probably would have though Van Dijk just twisted awkwardly because they didn't even replay it. Oh, and also Vardy plays for England so he gets Shearer/Lennon incident level protection.

 

I thought incidents could only be reviewed if they were not seen and dealt with by the referee or officials at the time. "Dealt with" will also include the referee deciding that he saw the incident at the time and either judged it not to be an offence, or it was an offence and was punished it with a free, card, etc. The ref didn't give a free kick, and presumably reported that he didn't see the elbow - therefore it can be reviewed. The foul on VvD was punished by the ref at the time with a free kick - therefore no review. Those are the rules, and I think they've followed them. Neither cock-up or conspiracy I'm afraid.

[Whitey Grandad]

I thought incidents could only be reviewed if they were not seen and dealt with by the referee or officials at the time. "Dealt with" will also include the referee deciding that he saw the incident at the time and either judged it not to be an offence, or it was an offence and was punished it with a free, card, etc. The ref didn't give a free kick, and presumably reported that he didn't see the elbow - therefore it can be reviewed. The foul on VvD was punished by the ref at the time with a free kick - therefore no review. Those are the rules, and I think they've followed them. Neither cock-up or conspiracy I'm afraid.

 

Correct

[doddisalegend]

Marcos Rojo escapes FA charge for Eden Hazard 'stamp'

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/fa-cup/chelsea-1-manchester-united-0-marcos-rojo-escapes-fa-charge-for-eden-hazard-stamp/ar-AAom1r0?li=AA572I&ocid=spartandhp

[John Boy Saint]

Marcos Rojo escapes FA charge for Eden Hazard 'stamp'

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/fa-cup/chelsea-1-manchester-united-0-marcos-rojo-escapes-fa-charge-for-eden-hazard-stamp/ar-AAom1r0?li=AA572I&ocid=spartandhp

That is amazing, in the context of the game where the Man U players were taking turns to take Hazard out, that was 10 times more obviously deliberate than Mings on Ibrahimovic.

The other thing is Referees have the power to book players for talking at them too much in protest, and have done this season. Nathan Redmond has been done at least twice this season. I think the new rule was designed to stop the ref getting crowded and Harangued...... Yet we saw Man U crowding the ref in the EFL Cup Final, and on Monday night Man U did it to the point where they are up on a charge from the FA for haranging the referee, which will no doubt result in a fine of insignificant value compared to the wealth of Man U. Yet Michael Oliver (who always looks officious) had the perfect weapon in his pocket and the rule book to back him up: all he had to start doing was taking names and they would have backed away very quickly...... If the yellows added up to 5+ they would have been fined too.

[redkeith]

That is amazing, in the context of the game where the Man U players were taking turns to take Hazard out, that was 10 times more obviously deliberate than Mings on Ibrahimovic.

The other thing is Referees have the power to book players for talking at them too much in protest, and have done this season. Nathan Redmond has been done at least twice this season. I think the new rule was designed to stop the ref getting crowded and Harangued...... Yet we saw Man U crowding the ref in the EFL Cup Final, and on Monday night Man U did it to the point where they are up on a charge from the FA for haranging the referee, which will no doubt result in a fine of insignificant value compared to the wealth of Man U. Yet Michael Oliver (who always looks officious) had the perfect weapon in his pocket and the rule book to back him up: all he had to start doing was taking names and they would have backed away very quickly...... If the yellows added up to 5+ they would have been fined too.

 

I think that when Saints bring the eight year olds in for training they start them off with simple passing and movement, whereas United just get theirs to surround anyone with a whistle or a flag, everty time the ball goes out of play.

[Shance]

Can't believe Rojo got away with that. That's his third (at least) straight red card he has gotten away with this season. The excuse was that the ref had seen it. He didn't even give a foul. So Michael Oliver blatantly gave Utd a free pass there. Disgraceful.

[benjii]

Yeah, but it balances all the times the refs are out to get Man U. I bet on balance Man U are really hard done by. Poor old Man U.

 

 

As an aside, I enjoyed Conte's post-match comments that Man U have the best squad in the league. Nice subtle way of sticking the boot into Mourinho.

[The9]

I thought incidents could only be reviewed if they were not seen and dealt with by the referee or officials at the time. "Dealt with" will also include the referee deciding that he saw the incident at the time and either judged it not to be an offence, or it was an offence and was punished it with a free, card, etc. The ref didn't give a free kick, and presumably reported that he didn't see the elbow - therefore it can be reviewed. The foul on VvD was punished by the ref at the time with a free kick - therefore no review. Those are the rules, and I think they've followed them. Neither cock-up or conspiracy I'm afraid.

 

While this is correct, there's a very large grey area around what you're considering "dealt with" - he sees a collision and gives a goal kick (I don't think it was a free kick, and as it turns out that is the crux of the matter), but doesn't see Vardy stand on Van Dijk. Not seen, not dealt with. The ref of the Man U v Bournemouth match clearly saw there was a collision between Mings, Ibrahimovich and Rooney, and gave a corner when the ball went out soon after, but he doesn't see Mings stand on Zlatan, yet Mings gets retrospective punishment. What's the difference? That Zlatan elbowed Mings in a completely separate incident? That it's higher profile because it's Man U?

[The9]

Marcos Rojo escapes FA charge for Eden Hazard 'stamp'

 

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/fa-cup/chelsea-1-manchester-united-0-marcos-rojo-escapes-fa-charge-for-eden-hazard-stamp/ar-AAom1r0?li=AA572I&ocid=spartandhp

 

That is bloody ridiculous compared to the Mings decision too. Absolutely no consistency compared to the Mings ban - though where there is consistency - Zlatan didn't get suspended for his stamp on Mings either.