Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thirsty Lizard

A Total and Utter Joke......

Recommended Posts

The FA''s so called disciplinary process that is.

McManaman won''t be banned for his horror tackle. Supposedly because the FA don''t want "to re-referee matches."

Halsey clearly didn''t see the incident. This is just the type of situation the retrospective disciplinary panel SHOULD be for.

Totally and utterly unbelievable........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And of course the FA have had no trouble re-refereeing matches already this season - for instance when Kompany''s 3 match ban for the tackle against Arsenal was overturned - even though the ref clearly saw it.

A complete and utter clueless bunch of clowns.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I''ve understood the situation, the FA either can''t/say they can''t do anything because one of the assistant referees saw the incident and decided not to act on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

completey disgusting response from the FA which takes common sense and throws it straight out the window. I will be praying for Garrido''s saftey soon!

 

if the linesman saw the incident clearly enough for the FA not to ''re-ref'' the tackle then you have to ask, In what universe does that ''tackle'' not warrant a red card/yellow card or even free kick?. Its obvious that the linesmans did not see it properly and therefore the FA can and should take action. If they are saying the linesman has seen it properly then I also assume he will never ref another match again?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="First Wazzock"]

Absolutely unbelieveable.

Stupidity of the highest order.

[/quote]

The fact the Ref (Halsey - if you can call him a Ref) saw it should have nothing to do with it. The fact he was grossly incompetant should not prevent players getting the protection they rightly deserve from potential career threatening challenges like this.

I feel really angry about this. [:@]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this had happened off the pitch it would be deemed assault, ABH at the least.

 

It is not about re refereeing games, it is about dealing with a violent attack.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Bunn''s offence of a handball outside the area is worse in the FA''s eyes than McManaman''s at best reckless, aggressive tackle. One is dismissed and banned the other gets away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Not Nigel"]Was entitled to go for the 50/50, missed the ball and caught the player. I don''t think there was any intent.[/quote]

 

What has intent got to do with it?  He was high, reckless and with excessive force.  A red card challenge every time, and if any of the officials in charge on Sunday think otherwise I hope they never are in charge of a match again!

 

If it was Stoke player there would be pitchforks at the ready by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If it was Stoke player there would be pitchforks at the ready by now"

Ryan Shawcross''s challenge on Laurent Koscielny last month should have been a red too, but it wasn''t, didn''t see many pitchforks.

Football is getting soft, you would have got several challenges like that every game in the 1950''s and they didn''t wear shinpads.

They should make the Newcastle team play the Wigan Warriors next time, that will shut them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Not Nigel"]"If it was Stoke player there would be pitchforks at the ready by now" Ryan Shawcross''s challenge on Laurent Koscielny last month should have been a red too, but it wasn''t, didn''t see many pitchforks. Football is getting soft, you would have got several challenges like that every game in the 1950''s and they didn''t wear shinpads. They should make the Newcastle team play the Wigan Warriors next time, that will shut them up.[/quote]

 

yeah so the ''in my day'' response?

 

so in the 1950''s there were several players stretchered off with suspected ligament damage every game?  Cos it doesnt matter what era we are talking about that is the only result from that challenge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Not Nigel"]you would have got several challenges like that every game in the 1950''s and they didn''t wear shinpads.[/quote]You just made that up didn''t you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont agree that this was ABH on the field - for me this is nothing like the intentional stamps or kicks we have all seen before that are simply assaults.   This was a committed attempt to win the ball that was horrifically mistimed with awful consequences.   

 

It was clearly a red card tackle and the FA have added insult to injury by refusing to give out the appropriate three match suspension retrospectively.   Who is suprised that refs can get away with being incompetent with leadership like that?

 

(PS in fairness to refs they have improved their decision making accuracy to 96% of decisions right from 92% earlier in the season, a success rate the FA can only imagine)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You just made that up didn''t you?"

They didn''t become mandatory until 1990 and the hardmen didn''t wear shinpads.

George Best didn''t used to wear them very often!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Not Nigel"]"You just made that up didn''t you?" They didn''t become mandatory until 1990 and the hardmen didn''t wear shinpads. George Best didn''t used to wear them very often![/quote]

 

but he still managed to walk from the field at the end of the game in the majority of matches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Not Nigel"]"You just made that up didn''t you?"

They didn''t become mandatory until 1990 and the hardmen didn''t wear shinpads.

George Best didn''t used to wear them very often![/quote]That isn''t what you said though is it? You didn''t say when they became mandatory, you said "they didn''t wear shinpads in the 1950''s'' which is untrue. In fact, some players were wearing them at the turn of the 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, another Nigel.

So that''s Nigel, City1st, and Lappinitup.

Well I''m not going anywhere until Pete bans me, so keep on seeking the confrontation.

Didn''t realise that you were part of the clique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Not Nigel"]Wow, another Nigel.

So that''s Nigel, City1st, and Lappinitup.

Well I''m not going anywhere until Pete bans me, so keep on seeking the confrontation.

Didn''t realise that you were part of the clique.[/quote]There''s a '' Making Plans '' on here sometimes.For Nigel ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FA are pathetic, if they really wanted to,they have the power the impose whatever ban they want for anything over any length of time. If they''re unsure (or if the player isn''t "high profile" enough) they hide behind this myth that they''re bound by laws. If it was Joey Barton ,I wonder what theyre decision would have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" It was clearly a red card tackle and the FA have added insult to injury by refusing to give out the appropriate three match suspension retrospectively. Who is suprised that refs can get away with being incompetent with leadership like that?"

The FA and referees shouldn''t feel threatened by a retrospective overruling of decisons (or non decisions) like this. If fact it would lead to much greater respect, as to err is human, but to ignore plain evidence is pure hubris... which leads directly to the very disrecpect they claim they want to eradicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Newcastle coach, who was infuriated by the tackle and approached the player at half time, is still being charged though.  As is the Wigan coach defending his player.Mentalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Not Nigel"]Wow, another Nigel.

So that''s Nigel, City1st, and Lappinitup.

Well I''m not going anywhere until Pete bans me, so keep on seeking the confrontation.

Didn''t realise that you were part of the clique.[/quote]Haha. So. pointing out something you posted which was clearly not true makes me part of a clique and confrontational. Oh, right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...