|
|
Post by raythesailor on Nov 27, 2017 16:24:46 GMT
The FA referee panel has decided not to take action following the MU strikers back heel KICK AT A BRIGHTON OPPONENT.
It would have taken a very sharp eyed official to spot the offence in real time, but in this day and age there are cameras everywhere, and he did clearly have a go.
Whilst it should not be relevant there must have been a lot of pressure on the panel as a 3 game suspension would have included the forthcoming Manchester Derby.
I have mixed feelings about these post match video trials. Had that been a Stoke player would the outcome be the same.? If one of our players were involved in a identical incident and suspended would we feel aggrieved. ?
EDIT. You can see the incident on U Tube.
|
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Nov 27, 2017 16:28:12 GMT
Typical FA. The Niasse ban last week was a joke too. Easy option to make them look like they are enforcing the rules. Top club players blatantly dive / cheat every week but go unpunished.
|
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Nov 27, 2017 16:33:37 GMT
Typical Shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Nov 27, 2017 16:53:31 GMT
I bet if Lukaku still played for West Brom and it was a Man U player he had kicked there would have been a different outcome. Still, we always want the FA to be consistent and, in a way, they are!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 19:36:01 GMT
Only just seen it. Joke decision! No surprise there then!
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Nov 27, 2017 20:54:09 GMT
Gutless clowns
|
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Nov 27, 2017 22:20:57 GMT
Not surprised in the least :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by 1982stokie on Nov 28, 2017 13:30:03 GMT
if he had cut his head off and shit in it before throwing it in to the crowed the FA panel would have said it was inconclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 28, 2017 13:37:23 GMT
Brown envelope handed out again. Like all these new rules, favours the wankers at the top. |
|
|
|
Post by chayzenbacon on Nov 28, 2017 14:08:17 GMT
"If he played for Stoke...". As the song goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 28, 2017 14:09:15 GMT
"If he played for Stoke...". As the song goes. Or a lot of other clubs, Chayz! |
|
|
|
Post by chayzenbacon on Nov 28, 2017 14:12:13 GMT
"If he played for Stoke...". As the song goes. Or a lot of other clubs, Chayz! You're not wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Nov 28, 2017 16:31:06 GMT
Really sad to see this! Another thing that works against the teams below the top six!  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 17:39:34 GMT
Especially for those cnuts!
|
|
|
|
Post by waffles on Nov 28, 2017 18:33:59 GMT
The fa are actually consistent, they have 2 sets of rules and they consistently enforce them, first set of rules is to protect the sky product, lukaku will be a big part of the build up to their massive super Sunday Dec 10,they are the important rules, the other less important rules apply to the teams that make up the numbers, with these rules you get the "flavour of the month" in the Manchester derby they will fly in committing yellow card offences, these will be ignored because the ref will be "managing the game" he will also be Reffing in the "context of the importance of the game" he won't apply the second set of rules,it might spoil the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 28, 2017 18:54:22 GMT
According to Daily Mail, the 3 man panel have to all agree on a red card offence. 2 did but one didn't (the guy with the fat wallet?)
If it was done in intent then it is a red, if it is petulance it is yellow.
(Don't shoot the messenger.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Nov 29, 2017 7:14:56 GMT
According to Daily Mail, the 3 man panel have to all agree on a red card offence. 2 did but one didn't (the guy with the fat wallet?) If it was done in intent then it is a red, if it is petulance it is yellow. (Don't shoot the messenger.) I don’t think "intent" is necessarily a factor though. When Charlie stood on a player the retrospective panel didn’t have to consider the intent but the fact that what he did was dangerous and negligent. I haven’t seen the Lukaku incident so can’t comment but doesn’t matter if it’s intentional or not. When a player is guilty of dangerous play etc intent Isn't always a factor and I doubt there are many players who would "intentionally" go into a tackle with intent to injure. Malcolm Clarke is the font of all knowledge regarding this type of scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Nov 29, 2017 10:08:58 GMT
Can understand debate when intent etc causes a grey area. .BUT he deliberately with intent KICKED OR ATTEMPTED TO KICK an opponent.
It was a back kick which is irrelevant.
As somebody pointed out earlier had it been a Brighton player against a MU defender I think we all know what the outcome would be.
I notice the usual arbitrators of justice who normally do trial by no jury on MOTD stayed quiet.
Unbelievable and I hope it comes back to bite them the next time they are called upon to make a decision, or the overpaid pundits start a campaign over an incident they have watched in slow motion several times.
|
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Nov 29, 2017 15:52:06 GMT
"If he played for Stoke...". As the song goes. Then you'd never have even heard about it. Its only because he plays for MU that anyone noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Nov 29, 2017 15:58:15 GMT
Corruption at it's finest.
|
|
|
|
Post by chayzenbacon on Nov 29, 2017 16:12:04 GMT
"If he played for Stoke...". As the song goes. Then you'd never have even heard about it. Its only because he plays for MU that anyone noticed. That's just your usual Shit-biased bollocks. The closest parallel, as quoted further up this thread, is when Charlie Adam was banned retrospectively for "stamping" on an Arsenal player. It was noticed, it was reviewed and he was banned. Because he plays for Stoke not the Shit. |
|
