Bad tackles this season

Skoorb

Alert Team
#1
The MEN litany of horror tackles this season......

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-bad-tackles-fouled-14216141

The condoning by some I have seen elsewhere of these sorts of challenges against whoever they might have been committed is just ..........mind boggling. The standard "It's a man's game" through to "It's England, what does he expect" from a professional (sic) manager (Warnock)
 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#2
The precedent has been set with the Diving Panel (or whatever) to review occasions when a player has deceived a match official. This takes place AFTER the game and can result in a subsequent ban.

Given that they are reviewing incidents after the game has finihsed and which ergo cannot affect the result BUT which can be seen to correct obvious errors by a match official during the game in question I have to ask ........why cannot decisions such as the yellow card which Mason issued to Bennett for his awful foul on Sané be the subject of a similar process?

Doesn't help City, won't help Sané directly BUT ensures that an obvioius mistake is rectified and that the correct punishment is applied. Bennett's suspension could be upgraded to 3 matches and so managers and players might actually think twice before the set out to deliver a few 'naughty' tackles and so players might be better protected. It certainly wouldn't do any harm.

In a similar vein the challenges by Cook (Bournemouth) on Jesus; Kane (on Sterling); Alli (on De Bruyne) & Puncheon (De Bruyne) could all have been correctly designated as red card offences and their teams had to suffer the consequences of longer bans.

The CORRECT decision would be enforced.

:017: :017:
 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#3
In other news meanwhile....if you spit at someone (a despicable act and deserves a long ban) you get a six match suspension :007:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42860274
 

BamaEngineer

Vital Champions League
#5
Skoorb - 29/1/2018 03:33

In other news meanwhile....if you spit at someone (a despicable act and deserves a long ban) you get a six match suspension :007:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42860274
A sign of how the world is now. Feelings are more important than physical violence.
 

Rising

Alert Team
#6
I think the (in my view) over-the-top punishment for spitting was brought in because of the albeit remote possibility of passing on something nasty like HIV, but I might be wrong.

 

Bluedub

Alert Team
#8
Horrendous tackle, good on Brahim though for picking himself up and getting on with it, these foreign lads, they're all pussies.

Watch Fernandinho get a ban now for trodding on that Polish cnuts's leg ( I'm not even going to attempt to spell his name)
 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#9
You bet.

Just waiting for it to gather a head of steam and for Sky to have it on a permanent loop à la the Ballotelli ("He could have killed 'im") incident with Parker against Spurs. Only a matter of time once the rag supporting hacks get their teeth into it.

I fully expect Bobby 'Crap' Madley to say that he didn't see it but if he did he would have sent him off. That's what they all do when confronted with something of this nature.
 

Rising

Alert Team
#10
Normally, the FA announce retrospective charges on a Monday or Tuesday (after weekend games) so I don't know how it works with midweek games. I'm assuming they would have to announce today (Thursday) and give the offending player/club until 6pm tomorrow to accept or not, ahead of the weekend fixtures.

 

Colin Is The King

Vital Football Legend
#11
Like the pair of you, I'm expecting some action on Fernie.
If Madley had some sort of backbone, he'd admit he saw it, and there would be no case to answer. That was the reaction of the Sky commentators on first viewing - that changed on the second angle.
At least that would be a rest for the man.
 

Colin Is The King

Vital Football Legend
#12
Skoorb - 29/1/2018 15:32

The precedent has been set with the Diving Panel (or whatever) to review occasions when a player has deceived a match official. This takes place AFTER the game and can result in a subsequent ban.

Given that they are reviewing incidents after the game has finihsed and which ergo cannot affect the result BUT which can be seen to correct obvious errors by a match official during the game in question I have to ask ........why cannot decisions such as the yellow card which Mason issued to Bennett for his awful foul on Sané be the subject of a similar process?

Doesn't help City, won't help Sané directly BUT ensures that an obvioius mistake is rectified and that the correct punishment is applied. Bennett's suspension could be upgraded to 3 matches and so managers and players might actually think twice before the set out to deliver a few 'naughty' tackles and so players might be better protected. It certainly wouldn't do any harm.

In a similar vein the challenges by Cook (Bournemouth) on Jesus; Kane (on Sterling); Alli (on De Bruyne) & Puncheon (De Bruyne) could all have been correctly designated as red card offences and their teams had to suffer the consequences of longer bans.

The CORRECT decision would be enforced.

:017: :017:

To my simple way of viewing it, there's a contradiction.
The argument against upgrading yellow cards is that the game shouldn't be refereed again - yet this is the ethos behind the diving panel :059:
 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#13
Not the only ones to notice

http://www.espn.co.uk/football/club/manchester-city/382/blog/post/3368106/guardiola-right-to-complain-as-citys-rough-treatment-becoming-a-joke

Although the video is mostly about how Fernandinho should get banned for stamping on the WBA player. Did he mean it? Maybe, maybe it was accidental but I expect no quarter from the FA when they choose to punish this after Madley will say he didn't see it.
 

kennyclementstache

Vital Football Legend
#14
In the wider context of the PL are there more dangerous fouls affecting other clubs - we don't have a monopoly on skilful players; Hazard, Rashford, Mane, Martial and Sanchez for instance.

In some ways I can understand why opponents are doing it - if we are having 80 or so percent of possession then perhaps opponents act out of frustration at not being able to play with our ball. As a commentator said recently we 'loan' the other side the ball.

Not for one moment condoning these fouls, think they are disgraceful and officials really need to clamp down on them and start sending players off.

 

Tudor

Alert Team
#15
Should City Consider Criminal Proceedings?

Football is a physical sport, we all know that. I mean, it comes with the territory doesn’t it. Having said that several WBA player challenges last night at the Etihad stepped over the line, and in my opinion some of the deliberate lunges and subsequent City player clatters came close to becoming criminal offences.

http://www.manchestercity.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=589630

The future

If the match day referee’s cannot cope with similar thuggery then they should be reprimanded.

Obvious tackles that cause a player to require medical treatment and the offending player is seen to show clear intent of assault should be dealt with by the full letter of the law.

Dirty ********

RANT OVER!
 

kennyclementstache

Vital Football Legend
#16
Tudor - 1/2/2018 12:23

Should City Consider Criminal Proceedings?

Football is a physical sport, we all know that. I mean, it comes with the territory doesn’t it. Having said that several WBA player challenges last night at the Etihad stepped over the line, and in my opinion some of the deliberate lunges and subsequent City player clatters came close to becoming criminal offences.

http://www.manchestercity.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=589630

The future

If the match day referee’s cannot cope with similar thuggery then they should be reprimanded.

Obvious tackles that cause a player to require medical treatment and the offending player is seen to show clear intent of assault should be dealt with by the full letter of the law.

Dirty ********

RANT OVER!
One for Lee Dixon of Dock Green?

 

Skoorb

Alert Team
#20
What remains bizarre is that when players have clearly been injured and requiring treatment by medical staff on the pitch, it is they who are required to get off the pitch and wait on the sideline for permission to return to the play. This means that the side offended against is left a player light for perhaps only seconds but nevertheless the team that has committed the foul gain another advantage.

I know that this rule was introduced many years ago at FIFA's behest I believe during a World Cup to try and prevent players feigning injury in order to break up the rhythm of play and disrupt the opposition. Whilst this was a legitimate aim as play acting was rife it now seems ridiculous that when there is an obvious injury that there is no leeway given to the referee to use their judgement in these matters. Against WBA when both Walker and Diaz were on the receiving end of bad fouls it was their side that was left a man down after the incident rather than the offending team.

Perhaps both players should be sent to the touchline in such instances.