A Total and Utter Joke......

[Thirsty Lizard 3,203]

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........

[Thirsty Lizard 3,203]

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.....

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

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.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

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?

 

 

[First Wazzock 971]

Absolutely unbelieveable.

Stupidity of the highest order.

[First Wazzock 971]

[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. [:@]

[Bill 1,788]

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.

 

 

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Is anyone actually surprised by this incompetence?

[Not Nigel 0]

Was entitled to go for the 50/50, missed the ball and caught the player. I don''t think there was any intent.

[Cloughie 0]

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.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[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.

[Not Nigel 0]

"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.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[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

[lappinitup 629]

[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?

[Tim Dawson 0]

F.A, backing their refs, corruption at the very top, hardly surprising the refs are mostly bent too, sue me !!!

[ZLF 331]

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)

[Not Nigel 0]

"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!

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[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

[Not Nigel 0]

That''s because nobody could get near him.

[lappinitup 629]

[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.

[Not Nigel 0]

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.

[......and Smith must score. 1,515]

[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 ?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,023]

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?

[Yellow Rose of Texas 0]

" 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.

[Not Nigel 0]

Maybe the FA just don''t like Newcastle.... they wouldn''t be the only ones.

[Mister Chops 7]

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.

[lappinitup 629]

[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!

[Norwich or die tryin! 0]

The FA are useless cun*s and that McManaman is a horrible little scouse rat.