|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 22:52:49 GMT
Didn't see that
Surely he she receive a ban
If it was a Stoke player we all know that would happen
Lets see
|
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Apr 26, 2014 22:56:29 GMT
He should get a 3 game ban, however Spurs are a big London club so I would expect the FA to take no action at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 22:57:22 GMT
He should get a 3 game ban, however Spurs are a big London club so I would expect the FA to take no action at all. Very true.! |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 26, 2014 22:57:38 GMT
He'll definitely get a ban.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 26, 2014 22:58:27 GMT
Doesn't really matter now it should have been spotted in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Apr 26, 2014 23:00:15 GMT
A 3 game ban doesn't help us much though,does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoeofalsager on Apr 26, 2014 23:00:41 GMT
What was with that camera angle though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 23:31:42 GMT
Why would Adebayor get a ban? Clearly Ryan smashed his face into his elbow  |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Apr 26, 2014 23:45:10 GMT
How can anyone expect a corrupt governing body to sanction a ban for a London club's guilty player?
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 26, 2014 23:50:58 GMT
Let's be honest here - not one person in the stadium spotted it at the time until it became clear that it was Ryan who had gone down and his face was swelling a little bit. There was no reaction from the supporters at that end of the ground, the linesman was on the far side and the referee was miles away, plus the ball had already gone.
I don't think there's any doubt that Adebayor had revenge in mind for that Arsenal games years ago and when he got sent off playing for Man City.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Apr 26, 2014 23:51:41 GMT
Very similar to Wilko's on Balotelli a couple of seasons ago.
Difference is that even Trevor Francis said there was nothing in Wilko's 'elbow', where as even MotD viewed today's elbow as an 'open and shut case'.
Be very surprised if the FA do anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 27, 2014 6:38:55 GMT
He should get a 3 game ban, however Spurs are a big London club so I would expect the FA to take no action at all. Unlike Chelsea getting 3 people brought up on charges this week, Ramires 4 game ban 1 of them? |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Apr 27, 2014 6:54:02 GMT
Retrospective bans are no good to the team that has been offended. In fact it can help rivals more. Don't know what FA can do though. Shawcross sent off, advantage Spurs. Adebayor retrospective ban, advantage West Ham and Villa. Where's the justice in that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 27, 2014 6:54:28 GMT
He'll definitely get a ban.
Will he? The FA won't review it if the ref says he saw the incident. The ref gave a foul (I think?) so presumably the ref saw the incident even if he obviously didn't see it properly. If he didn't "see" the incident, why give a foul? I don't think it is cut and dried as to whether the FA will review it. If they do, then I'm sure there will be a 3 game ban. |
|
|
|
Post by padders01 on Apr 27, 2014 7:10:40 GMT
Let's be honest here - not one person in the stadium spotted it at the time until it became clear that it was Ryan who had gone down and his face was swelling a little bit. There was no reaction from the supporters at that end of the ground, the linesman was on the far side and the referee was miles away, plus the ball had already gone. I don't think there's any doubt that Adebayor had revenge in mind for that Arsenal games years ago and when he got sent off playing for Man City. I did as it was right in front of me (Block 17) Disgusting elbow and should have gone for it. MOTD angle was terrible, fingers crossed there is one from the Q Railing |
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Apr 27, 2014 7:38:31 GMT
He'll definitely get a ban.
Will he? The FA won't review it if the ref says he saw the incident. The ref gave a foul (I think?) so presumably the ref saw the incident even if he obviously didn't see it properly. If he didn't "see" the incident, why give a foul? I don't think it is cut and dried as to whether the FA will review it. If they do, then I'm sure there will be a 3 game ban. I think this is the most disturbing point. The referee gave a foul so clearly thought Adebayor guilty of foul play. If he saw the foul play, he has to send him off for the elbow. So he clearly didn't see the foul play and was just guessing. Makes you wonder how many more decisions he guesses at? No it doesn't really, it's blatantly obvious he guesses at most of them. |
|
peadar87
Academy Starlet
Stoke City and Bray Wanderers. Because one relegation battle a season just isn't enough!
Posts: 206
|
Post by peadar87 on Apr 27, 2014 10:08:22 GMT
Retrospective bans are no good to the team that has been offended. In fact it can help rivals more. Don't know what FA can do though. Shawcross sent off, advantage Spurs. Adebayor retrospective ban, advantage West Ham and Villa. Where's the justice in that? Aye, but if he doesn't get punished for it this time, it just shows him he can do it again with impunity the next time we play him. Ideally, the idea with retrospective bans is that they're never used, because you'd have to be daft to do something like that, knowing you're definitely going to be caught by 20 TV cameras doing it |
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Apr 27, 2014 10:13:18 GMT
I think the ref got most things right as far as Stoke were concerned, even if Shawcross sending off was a bit harsh, but significantly failed to punish Spurs appropriately, I wonder why?
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 27, 2014 10:16:42 GMT
It was a pre-meditated assault continuing a history of bad blood between the 2 players.
It was another gutless challenge, just like the bollock high lunge he did which started the bad blood back in 2009.
Adebayor skulked off like the coward he is then spent the rest of the game staying out of Shawcross' way.
He should have been sent off but he wasn't and he won't get a retrospective punishment either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 27, 2014 10:17:02 GMT
When a player gets a 3 match ban after the event to me that player should serve one of the match bans against that team it happened against even if he gets transferred that punishment should stay with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bowyer83 on Apr 27, 2014 10:28:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Apr 27, 2014 10:31:42 GMT
If he played for Stoke you'd send him off..
|
|
|
|
Post by thehoof on Apr 27, 2014 11:00:26 GMT
Mystical,
Right in front of me in Block 18, and only a twat as blind as Marriner and his hopeless sidekick of a Lino could miss it.
And no, he did not give Stoke a foul for it either MOTD said it was an open and shut case alright -Hansen and Savage both said it was a red.
Some Stoke fans are priceless - very quick to jump in on Shawcross "stupid challenge", which seems to be both eyes on the ball and arriving fractionally late, while Adebayor gets away with serious foul play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Apr 27, 2014 11:05:06 GMT
My mistake then - I just didn't hear much outcry, it seemed like there wasn't much reaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Apr 27, 2014 11:16:07 GMT
When a player gets a 3 match ban after the event to me that player should serve one of the match bans against that team it happened against even if he gets transferred that punishment should stay with him. I've always though this, especially when Fellaini was banned retrospectively and Everton had to play 3 games without him which were against teams around us in the table. Any retrospective ban will be determined by INTENT! interesting outcome no doubt |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Apr 27, 2014 11:47:46 GMT
When a player gets a 3 match ban after the event to me that player should serve one of the match bans against that team it happened against even if he gets transferred that punishment should stay with him. That goes some way but still does not give an advantage to the rightful team does it?? There is still 11 against 11 no matter which way you twist it. Not saying you are wrong but there is no answer is there? And these cheating thugs like adebayor know it. |
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Apr 27, 2014 11:51:30 GMT
When a player gets a 3 match ban after the event to me that player should serve one of the match bans against that team it happened against even if he gets transferred that punishment should stay with him. That goes some way but still does not give an advantage to the rightful team does it?? There is still 11 against 11 no matter which way you twist it. Not saying high are wrong but there is no answer is there? And these cheating thugs like adebayor know it. I know i would like to think they could make the team play with 10 men but they'd make up an injury so he wouldn't be selected in the squad unless it was made clear that when that team play the team where the incident took place they'd be playing 10 but then that would open a whole can of worms. |
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Apr 27, 2014 11:52:39 GMT
The telegraph reporter Simon Hughes tweeted the incident as it happened. Sadly, embedding the tweet is beyond my limited technical ability  |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Apr 27, 2014 11:58:14 GMT
That goes some way but still does not give an advantage to the rightful team does it?? There is still 11 against 11 no matter which way you twist it. Not saying high are wrong but there is no answer is there? And these cheating thugs like adebayor know it. I know i would like to think they could make the team play with 10 men but they'd make up an injury so he wouldn't be selected in the squad unless it was made clear that when that team play the team where the incident took place they'd be playing 10 but then that would open a whole can of worms. Can of worms or not that would stop this horrible blight on our game dead in its tracks. Now what about diving and conning the ref? We need something just as radical. |
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Apr 27, 2014 12:00:27 GMT
As the ref gave Stoke a foul there will be no ban, but my feeling is that the ref was guessing that there was a foul because he saw Shawcross on the floor. Decisions should not be made on the evidence of guesswork. The ref should therefore be demoted!
|
|
