|
Post by mondeoman on Mar 26, 2014 10:14:17 GMT
How the hell did his forearm smash on Zabeleta not warrant a red card, it was'nt just a foul it was premeditated assault, one rule for the shit another rule for other teams, if a Stoke player had done that there would be a media witch hunt by now with screams of 10 match bans and Stoke thugs etc, absolutely disgusting the total lack of reaction from the press and F.A.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 10:23:10 GMT
but it wasn't a Stoke player was it? in other words, fine to question the decision in general but to go on about Stoke in relation to it? completely unnecessary and utterly irrelevant really
the only witch hunting that goes on nowadays is Stoke fans constantly trawling through every match that is played and being convinced that every decision that happens in games that don't effect us at all seemingly have to be linked to us so we can whine and moan when in reality you have no idea whatsoever what would have happened if it WAS us.
hysterical, paranoid and, most importantly, completely nothing to do with us whatsoever
|
|
|
Post by mondeoman on Mar 26, 2014 10:24:29 GMT
Yes it is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 10:47:34 GMT
how is it something to so with us?
because you've taken a game that doesn't involve us at all and you've arbitrarily decided that definitely, 100% wouldn't have been the decision if we were playing? tenuous isn't the fucking word mate!
fuck it then, i'm starting a thread about what may have happened if a Stoke player had discovered proof of the existence of the higgs bosun and will follow it up with "If Ukraine had been Stoke City then the Russians would have bombed the Brit by now because everyone hates us"...apparently they have something to do with us as well now cos i've decided so there!
|
|
|
Post by kn1ghty on Mar 26, 2014 10:58:35 GMT
Have you two got previous?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:04:14 GMT
no mate, just fed up of all this "Is that was us then it would have been different" bollocks. no-one knows that for a fact at all and taking a game that has nothing to do with us and desperately trying to shoehorn us into the matter is just that...desperate!
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 11:12:34 GMT
no mate, just fed up of all this "Is that was us then it would have been different" bollocks. no-one knows that for a fact at all and taking a game that has nothing to do with us and desperately trying to shoehorn us into the matter is just that...desperate! Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Mar 26, 2014 11:17:18 GMT
I agree with the OP. Yes the game had nothing to do with Stoke, but the governing body of our game has taken retrospective action against Adam recently. Will they take retrospective action against Fellaini and if not, I would like to know why not. Not paranoia, simply attempting to understand their logic and/or adherence to their own laws of the game.
|
|
|
Fellaini
Mar 26, 2014 11:24:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Mar 26, 2014 11:24:44 GMT
no mate, just fed up of all this "Is that was us then it would have been different" bollocks. no-one knows that for a fact at all and taking a game that has nothing to do with us and desperately trying to shoehorn us into the matter is just that...desperate! Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal. Don't talk such sense man, you're just being paranoid comparing comparable situations and making perfectly reasonable, educated assumptions based on previous incidents and the subsequent action taken against them.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 26, 2014 11:26:41 GMT
no mate, just fed up of all this "Is that was us then it would have been different" bollocks. no-one knows that for a fact at all and taking a game that has nothing to do with us and desperately trying to shoehorn us into the matter is just that...desperate! Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal. totally different two cases - mistaken identity and a straight red
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:37:12 GMT
no mate, just fed up of all this "Is that was us then it would have been different" bollocks. no-one knows that for a fact at all and taking a game that has nothing to do with us and desperately trying to shoehorn us into the matter is just that...desperate! Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal. they are different things though mate.....you can't appeal against a yellow but you can appeal against a red so to compare Fellaini's incident to the Gibbs/Ox incident is daft as they are 2 separate things governed by separate rules. the whole "The ref saw it" part is completely irrelevant to both incidents. he saw the red card incident with Arsenal and clubs can appeal against them so Arsenal did. the ref saw the Fellaini incident and you can't appeal against a yellow or try and have it increased. the rules may need looking at i agree but they aren't comparable under the present rules at all whether you like those rules or not (and the rules were drawn up before we joined the Prem so i'm pretty sure they weren't put in place just to discriminate against us) as has been pointed out time and time and time again re: the Adam red....Violent conduct DOES NOT have to involve intent so they haven't "read the mids of Stoke players" at all. Violent conduct covers several different offences (not all of which are even red card offences) and not all of them necessitate the presence of any intent at all. so, as i said, this IS shoehorning us into a matter that isn't relevant whatsoever to us just for an excuse to slag off the FA by those that clearly don't actually understand the rules or how they are implemented and how the disciplinary system actually works....but apart from that, you're spot on
|
|
|
Fellaini
Mar 26, 2014 11:38:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Mar 26, 2014 11:38:21 GMT
Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal. totally different two cases - mistaken identity and a straight red Both given by a Referee who's decision to punish can be rectified by being rescinded afterward if it's wrong, but can't be rectified by being appropriately extended if it's wrong. Isn't it about time we had someone with two brain cells to rub together amend these bag of shit rules?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:40:14 GMT
Actually it does bear comparison because the FA have already shown they can read the minds of Stoke players in issuing retrospective bans, but won't be doing the same in the case of violent conduct involving a Man Utd player. It's not paranoia. Those are comparable facts. And, before you say 'the ref took action so the FA can't do anything about his decision', I believe they have only just overturned a decision by a ref involving Arsenal. Don't talk such sense man, you're just being paranoid comparing comparable situations and making perfectly reasonable, educated assumptions based on previous incidents and the subsequent action taken against them. even though they're not comparable at all if you actually know the rules and what Violent conduct involves;it isn't just one offence mate, there are several different types of Violent conduct so unless you know the specific part of the Violent conduct rule they've broken (which you don't as the FA don't release that info) then you have no idea whether you can just compare them like for like whatsoever...but then again, why do we need facts when we can just presume shit without any basis in fact and then just accuse people of being corrupt and having favoritism eh?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:41:22 GMT
totally different two cases - mistaken identity and a straight red Both given by a Referee who's decision to punish can be rectified by being rescinded afterward if it's wrong, but can't be rectified by being appropriately extended if it's wrong. Isn't it about time we had someone with two brain cells to rub together amend these bag of shit rules? the ref rescinded the Arsenal red card simply because you can't actually give a red card for what happened under the current rules of the game. it really really is that simple mate
|
|
|
Fellaini
Mar 26, 2014 11:52:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Mar 26, 2014 11:52:16 GMT
Both given by a Referee who's decision to punish can be rectified by being rescinded afterward if it's wrong, but can't be rectified by being appropriately extended if it's wrong. Isn't it about time we had someone with two brain cells to rub together amend these bag of shit rules? the ref rescinded the Arsenal red card simply because you can't actually give a red card for what happened under the current rules of the game. it really really is that simple mate How can I put this? I AM AWARE OF THE GAMES FUCKING LAWS. What I am saying, is that they are wrong. Simple. You talk about 'facts' and then reference a law that is open to conjecture and opinion with regards to punishment, that falls within the power of a governing body that time after time, use their power with bias and favouritism of the top clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 11:54:34 GMT
I agree with the OP. Yes the game had nothing to do with Stoke, but the governing body of our game has taken retrospective action against Adam recently. Will they take retrospective action against Fellaini and if not, I would like to know why not. Not paranoia, simply attempting to understand their logic and/or adherence to their own laws of the game. well if you're presuming that they're being inconsistent with the 2 examples you state then you obviously aren't aware of the actual laws yourself then Adam could have retrospective action taken because the ref didn't see it at the time the ref DID see the Fellaini incident and gave a yellow, because of that they can't take any further action by their own laws of the game. you may not be happy with those rules (as many aren't and i'm notr either) but that's a case of needing a rule change and nothing whatsoever to do with them being inconsistent as they are absolutely, 100% ARE adhering to their own laws of the game as they currently stand (and have stood for quite a while and before we even got promoted and were implemented like this on many many occasions before we were here in the Prem so this idea of it all being against us is rubbish)...unfortunately it's becoming increasingly obvious recently that very few people on here are actually aware of what those rules are.
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Mar 26, 2014 11:58:20 GMT
All this, the Ref saw it so no action can be taken, is a load of Bollox, and needs changing from next season on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 12:04:25 GMT
the ref rescinded the Arsenal red card simply because you can't actually give a red card for what happened under the current rules of the game. it really really is that simple mate How can I put this? I AM AWARE OF THE GAMES FUCKING LAWS. What I am saying, is that they are wrong. Simple. You talk about 'facts' and then reference a law that is open to conjecture and opinion with regards to punishment, that falls within the power of a governing body that time after time, use their power with bias and favouritism of the top clubs. i can't disagree with the fact that they need looking at because it can lead to issues but to state "If it was us it would have been different" as in the OP, is ridiculous. we have nothing to base that on at all. if the ref had spotted the Adam incident he may well have given a yellow and that would be that, end of story. the ONLY reason the panel got involved in that was because it hadn't been spotted. if the Fellaini incident hadn't been spotted then i can 100% guarantee that they would definitely look at something like that, to say they wouldn't is ludicrous. people who are trying to compare this with the Adam incident are basically saying that last night's ref must also be in on the conspiracy against us as well and the only reason our ref didn;t penalise Adam at the time was simply so they could get the panel involved and punish us as harshly as possible....do you realise how that makes people sound when they come out with shit like that? it's fucking ridiculous mate. we had a red given against us is one matter. what happened last night with Fellaini is a completely different one involving a completely different ref and fuck all to do with us. it happens to shit loads of other teams as well, to say it's just us is paranoia in the extreme; it's been happening for years before we were here and will continue to happen for years after we've gone...the differenece is that other teams deal with what happens to them in matches they are involved in instead of going mad about other unrelated decisions that happen in games that are unrelated to us...in other words, they take it on the chin and move on. the club have (they were unhappy at the time but haven't mentioned it since), it's a shame we can't act with a bit of dignity and just get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 26, 2014 12:05:10 GMT
MMLC seems to be on a crusade against any Stoke fan who feels hard done by the authorities/media.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the authorities and the media may look on us less favourably compared to other teams. This could also be the case with other smaller less glamorous teams.
Compare the Adam and the Toure incidents recently. One was treated very strictly - with little evidence to suggest it was anything more than a player accidently standing on an opponent, while the other could not be interpreted as anything other than an off the ball kick at an opponent. One was treated favourably. One was treated strictly.
Take the Fellaini incidents from a couple of seasons ago where he head-butted, elbowed and punched Ryan in separate incidents (www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2249181/Marouane-Fellaini-headbutt-Ryan-Shawcross-cost-games.html). Firstly, there was the scandalous application of the rules from the authorities that allowed Fellaini to get away with two of those incidents because apparently the ref observed them and thought it was acceptable behaviour on the football field. Secondly, there were sections of the media that implied it was almost OK for Fellaini to react how he did (www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2249133/Martin-Samuel-Marouane-Fellaini-wrong-lets-grips-real-problem.html, www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2251907/Martin-Keowns-boot-room-Marouane-Fellaini-headbutt-wrong-sly-Ryan-Shawcross-defence.html - just as two examples). Would they have reacted similarly if it had been Ferdinand or Terry on the end of the assaults?
You can also add in the ongoing bringing up of the Ryan-Ramsey thing by journalists and TV. Yes I know you consider this to be all down to Stoke fans - but the reality is the media are keeping it going. When was the last time that Petre Cech's head protection and original injury got mentioned by the media for comparison?
MotD seem to love to highlight poor challenges by our players in their post match analysis, without doing similar pieces on comparable and worse challenges by other team - I guess, because it fits in with the narrative they want to present to the nation of us being the pantomime villains.
There is evidence that rules are sometimes applied more strictly to some teams than maybe to others, and coming down on anyone who highlights the discrepancies by the media and authorities as "hysterical, paranoid" doesn't help further this debate.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 26, 2014 12:18:05 GMT
|
|
|
Fellaini
Mar 26, 2014 12:18:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Mar 26, 2014 12:18:31 GMT
How can I put this? I AM AWARE OF THE GAMES FUCKING LAWS. What I am saying, is that they are wrong. Simple. You talk about 'facts' and then reference a law that is open to conjecture and opinion with regards to punishment, that falls within the power of a governing body that time after time, use their power with bias and favouritism of the top clubs. i can't disagree with the fact that they need looking at because it can lead to issues but to state "If it was us it would have been different" as in the OP, is ridiculous. we have nothing to base that on at all. if the ref had spotted the Adam incident he may well have given a yellow and that would be that, end of story. the ONLY reason the panel got involved in that was because it hadn't been spotted. if the Fellaini incident hadn't been spotted then i can 100% guarantee that they would definitely look at something like that, to say they wouldn't is ludicrous. people who are trying to compare this with the Adam incident are basically saying that last night's ref must also be in on the conspiracy against us as well and the only reason our ref didn;t penalise Adam at the time was simply so they could get the panel involved and punish us as harshly as possible....do you realise how that makes people sound when they come out with shit like that? it's fucking ridiculous mate. we had a red given against us is one matter. what happened last night with Fellaini is a completely different one involving a completely different ref and fuck all to do with us. it happens to shit loads of other teams as well, to say it's just us is paranoia in the extreme; it's been happening for years before we were here and will continue to happen for years after we've gone...the differenece is that other teams deal with what happens to them in matches they are involved in instead of going mad about other unrelated decisions that happen in games that are unrelated to us...in other words, they take it on the chin and move on. the club have (they were unhappy at the time but haven't mentioned it since), it's a shame we can't act with a bit of dignity and just get on with it. I think the OP was making the point of last nights incident going lightly punished by a favourable referee towards the big clubs, as opposed to seeing players of smaller/more unfashionable/non bribing clubs, being sent of for similar or lesser actions. It does happen in football, it just seems to coincidentally happen more regularly when the 'big boys' are involved. He used Stoke as an example in this instance, and I don't think he was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 12:20:04 GMT
MMLC seems to be on a crusade against any Stoke fan who feels hard done by the authorities/media.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the authorities and the media may look on us less favourably compared to other teams. This could also be the case with other smaller less glamorous teams.
Compare the Adam and the Toure incidents recently. One was treated very strictly - with little evidence to suggest it was anything more than a player accidently standing on an opponent, while the other could not be interpreted as anything other than an off the ball kick at an opponent. One was treated favourably. One was treated strictly.
Take the Fellaini incidents from a couple of seasons ago where he head-butted, elbowed and punched Ryan in separate incidents (www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2249181/Marouane-Fellaini-headbutt-Ryan-Shawcross-cost-games.html). Firstly, there was the scandalous application of the rules from the authorities that allowed Fellaini to get away with two of those incidents because apparently the ref observed them and thought it was acceptable behaviour on the football field. Secondly, there were sections of the media that implied it was almost OK for Fellaini to react how he did (www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2249133/Martin-Samuel-Marouane-Fellaini-wrong-lets-grips-real-problem.html, www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2251907/Martin-Keowns-boot-room-Marouane-Fellaini-headbutt-wrong-sly-Ryan-Shawcross-defence.html - just as two examples). Would they have reacted similarly if it had been Ferdinand or Terry on the end of the assaults?
You can also add in the ongoing bringing up of the Ryan-Ramsey thing by journalists and TV. Yes I know you consider this to be all down to Stoke fans - but the reality is the media are keeping it going. When was the last time that Petre Cech's head protection and original injury got mentioned by the media for comparison?
MotD seem to love to highlight poor challenges by our players in their post match analysis, without doing similar pieces on comparable and worse challenges by other team - I guess, because it fits in with the narrative they want to present to the nation of us being the pantomime villains.
There is evidence that rules are sometimes applied more strictly to some teams than maybe to others, and coming down on anyone who highlights the discrepancies by the media and authorities as "hysterical, paranoid" doesn't help further this debate.
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. there is a major differene in saying "How the hell was the Fellaini incident only deemed worthy of a yellow?" and "If it would us then it 100% would have been different and therefore i'm going to moan about something that hypothetically might have happened if it had been one of our players" isn't there? i have no problem whatsoever with people questioning the rules at all (i do myself and if you have reasd my posts you would see that i have said that i think they need changing) but the main problem on here is people not knowing what the actual rules are at the moment. if they did then they wouldn't be saying "Why did they retrospectively punish Adam but they won't with Fellaini" or "Adam's red was for Violent conduct therefore they must be saying he did it intentionally" etc. in the first place. even the toure incident being compared to Adam's can't actually be done without knowing which part of Violent conduct they were being stuck with...it's quite conceivable that Toure's could be considered to be "Reckless" which means a yellow is the maximum sanction by the FIFA and FA laws of the game and they can't retrospectively issue a yellow. it's also quite conceivable that Adam's could have been deemed "Excessive force" which can be a red and needs no intent whatsoever, unless we know then we can't just compare them because WE think they look more or less the same, the rules as they are set out are far more complex and detailed than that and because of that i have clearly said in the past i personally want more transparency so we can see exactly what offence within the "Violent conduct" section has been deemed to have been broken as then we CAN compare incidents and see if there are inconsistencies.i'm not saying for one second (and never have) that the laws are right and that i agree with them, simply that people are comparing things and acting as if they are factually the same incident with the same laws being broken when we quite simply have no idea whether they are or not and also the fact that these "Laws" that some posters say they are being inconsistent with are, in general, not even the actual laws of the game in the first place but an inaccurate misinterpretation by that poster of what they think are the laws. with the Oxelade-Chamberlain incident they HAVE adhered to the laws of the game because you cannot be sent off for what he did, with being able to retrospectively punish Adam they HAVE adhered to the rules because the ref didn't see it and there was a complaint made about it , with not being able to retrospectively take action against Fellaini they ARE adhering to the rules because they can't take retrospective action to give a further punishment if the matter has been dealt with by the ref already. whether those rules need changing is a valid point and i'm all in favour of it but that isn't what is being talked about here. it's people thinking they are being corrupt by not adhering to the rules when the reality is that they ARE adhering to the rules, it's just that people on here aren't aware of what those rules are; saying the rules need changing is one thing, saying they're breaking the rules to discriminate against us is another and completely inaccurate in this case as this thread is purely based on a 100% hypothetical situation where the OP has himself decreed what WOULD apparently happen if that hypothetical situation arose....as i said earlier, that is seriously tenuous to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 26, 2014 12:21:24 GMT
I blame that cunt Wenger.
H
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 12:24:12 GMT
I agree with the OP. Yes the game had nothing to do with Stoke, but the governing body of our game has taken retrospective action against Adam recently. Will they take retrospective action against Fellaini and if not, I would like to know why not. Not paranoia, simply attempting to understand their logic and/or adherence to their own laws of the game. well if you're presuming that they're being inconsistent with the 2 examples you state then you obviously aren't aware of the actual laws yourself then Adam could have retrospective action taken because the ref didn't see it at the time the ref DID see the Fellaini incident and gave a yellow, because of that they can't take any further action by their own laws of the game. you may not be happy with those rules (as many aren't and i'm notr either) but that's a case of needing a rule change and nothing whatsoever to do with them being inconsistent as they are absolutely, 100% ARE adhering to their own laws of the game as they currently stand (and have stood for quite a while and before we even got promoted and were implemented like this on many many occasions before we were here in the Prem so this idea of it all being against us is rubbish)...unfortunately it's becoming increasingly obvious recently that very few people on here are actually aware of what those rules are. And the big flaw in your argument is that the ref saw Oxlade-Chamberlain's handball, then gave a red. So the FA overturns it because they've concluded no goal would have come of it, in spite of the fact that Oxlade-Chamberlain's intention was to stop a goal and all of the officials who saw the incident saw it that way too. They won't overturn the Fellaini yellow, however, 'because the ref saw it'. He intended to elbow the guy square in the face because he was looking at him the whole time but in this case intent is irrelevant. They do decide to take action against Charlie Adam however because 'the ref didn't see it' but they can tell from looking at it exactly what Charlie Adam was thinking. Here Adam's 'intent' is the only possible reason for giving the red so they've guessed, basically. The muddled approach to this invites the idea that it's one rule for the likes of Arsenal and Man Utd and one for everybody else.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 26, 2014 12:24:53 GMT
Is there a line of thought in the game that it is in no ones interests for the top players to be sent off or suspended as it is the top players who attract the millions of overseas fans.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 12:30:10 GMT
well if you're presuming that they're being inconsistent with the 2 examples you state then you obviously aren't aware of the actual laws yourself then Adam could have retrospective action taken because the ref didn't see it at the time the ref DID see the Fellaini incident and gave a yellow, because of that they can't take any further action by their own laws of the game. you may not be happy with those rules (as many aren't and i'm notr either) but that's a case of needing a rule change and nothing whatsoever to do with them being inconsistent as they are absolutely, 100% ARE adhering to their own laws of the game as they currently stand (and have stood for quite a while and before we even got promoted and were implemented like this on many many occasions before we were here in the Prem so this idea of it all being against us is rubbish)...unfortunately it's becoming increasingly obvious recently that very few people on here are actually aware of what those rules are. And the big flaw in your argument is that the ref saw Oxlade-Chamberlain's handball, then gave a red. So the FA overturns it because they've concluded no goal would have come of it, in spite of the fact that Oxlade-Chamberlain's intention was to stop a goal and all of the officials who saw the incident saw it that way too. They won't overturn the Fellaini yellow, however, 'because the ref saw it'. He intended to elbow the guy square in the face because he was looking at him the whole time but in this case intent is irrelevant. They do decide to take action against Charlie Adam however because 'the ref didn't see it' but they can tell from looking at it exactly what Charlie Adam was thinking. Here Adam's 'intent' is the only possible reason for giving the red so they've guessed, basically. The muddled approach to this invites the idea that it's one rule for the likes of Arsenal and Man Utd and one for everybody else. it's not a flaw in my argument at all if you know the rules. they rescinded the red because you can appeal against a red card at any time and they were always going to rescind it because by the laws of the game you CANNOT be sent off for what he did (a sending off can ONLY be given for a deliberate handball if a) it prevents a goal or b) it prevents an obvious goalscoring opportunity, whether the player thought it was going in or not is 100% irrelevant under the current rules of the game), they won't overturn Fellaini's yellow because you can't appeal against a yellow or ask for it to be increased under the current rules of the game.Adams' red never needed to have any intent by the laws of the game either, if it was Excessive force (which comes under the Violent conduct banner) then no intent is needed whatsoever ( ireally really don't know why people seem to focus solely on "Intent" in everything as a lot of the rules regarding fouls and Violent conduct don't have intent as being necessary at all) i appreciate you may not like those rules,i don't either as it happens, but they are the rules whether you like them or not. a flaw in the laws of the game i completely, 100% agree mate (and as i have said, i don't and have never said i actually agree with the rules...why do people keep intentionally missing that part of my posts i wonder?) but not a flaw in my argument in any way
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Mar 26, 2014 12:48:24 GMT
He is a dirty bastard. Go get him Hughes!
|
|
|
Post by nononsense on Mar 26, 2014 13:09:00 GMT
Does anybody believe that Alex Ferguson would have paid 25 million for Marouane bloody Fellaini ?? I think not. Possibly one of the top 3 most over rated players in the Prem !
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Mar 26, 2014 14:28:45 GMT
MMLC
The reason why people are focussing on 'intent' is that it is the only reason Charlie Adam was suspended. So it was applicable in that case but not in others, and the way the FA adjudicates appears to be completely arbitrary, except that Fernando Torres (Chelsea) and Marouane Fellaini (Man Utd) get away with clear cases of violent conduct whereas Charlie Adam (Stoke) and Andy Carroll (West Ham) are banned for incidents that could easily be accidental. There's a clear pattern and it's not paranoid to suggest it. Did you see what Graham poll said about Alex Ferguson and referees last week?
|
|
|
Post by superpej on Mar 26, 2014 14:49:49 GMT
MMLC does not answer UKCstokie's point that at the end of the day what people are responding to here is a perception of prejudice.
No amount of explanation of the rules of the game will cause these feelings to go away particularly as UKCstokie shows they have a degree of justification. In this light the grow up and get over it argument is not appropriate.
As I have said before rules are about a lot more than what is written in the rule book. What is says in the rule book can be used to justify a range of decisions which are often made with prejudice.
So with the Adam suspension we have
Ref does not see the incident and/or does not include it in his match report.
Wenger/ Arsenal lodge a complaint - no axe to grind obviously
Immediately after the match Phil Thompson on SSN and Alan Shearer on MOTD start a witch hunt IMHO
FA decides within the rules that there is a case to answer - obviously being impartial and following their own rules alone. But don't disclose under which section of the rules they are operating.
Adam gets banned - surprise surprise
Coates and Hughes come out and suggest unfairness and appeal
Appeal fails.
Even without comparison with other incidents which UKCstokie cites this process lacks transparency and is therefore wide open to charges of manipulation and prejudice.
In these circumstances Stokies do right to complain.
|
|