Premier League Feb 28/March 1st 2015

The FA is a fucking joke. A JOKE. 7 matches...did he kill someone?

It is quite mental.. 6 and 7 games for spitting. It's disgusting but why are we not handing out equally strong bans for the elbows and leg breakers?

christmasborocooper wrote:It is quite mental.. 6 and 7 games for spitting. It's disgusting but why are we not handing out equally strong bans for the elbows and leg breakers?

Or any bans for diving/cheating.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/paul-scholes-column-i-dont-believe-jonny-evans-was-spitting-at-papiss-ciss-it-was-a-reflex-but-what-the-newcastle-striker-did-next-was-horrible-10089690.html



The Scholes' defence is that he was looking at Cisse as he spat because he was scared Cisse was going to attack, poor bastard.

Oh but what else can we expect from that racist institution!

Down with the Negro they say, seven matches for a defensive reflex spit back after getting showered with "covenant" phlegm. "You are supposed to just take it, Negro! bow down to your owners".

Moreover, how dare Gustavo Poyet hold his ground against such an odious and racist character like Bruce! Five games ban for the Latino man - that ought to teach him to never dare challenge "the person of the covenant".

Such a lovely place, the home of the paedos. Not everyone mind, but there's a lot of dodgy characters in that island. Did anyone see how someone was trying to escape from the palace? He probably found out he was gonna be sacrificed thus decided to run for his life.

Oh they will tell you in their zionist media that it was a hoax, but the video is as real as it gets. TFS! I talked to a friend who knows CGI very well and he said it looks legit too. There are two instances where the thing proves by itself that it is real. Look carefully, pay attention and you'll see it's legit.

So technically, sneezing in someone's face should give you a 7 match ban as well?!

Legbreakers...a yellow..at most.He.went.for.the.ball.

Last season it was 3 games and no one seemed to have a problem with that, it was changed to 6 games to be in line with FIFA's rules. I have no real issue with longer bans for spitting, it's just the inconsistency that grates, there's still no punishment for diving, if you elbow someone you might get a ban or you might not, if you try to injure someone you might get banned or you might not, then there is Matic getting his ban reduced for retaliation, which seemed like a special one-off gift to Chelsea, i've never seen it before and I doubt we'll see it again. So whenever one of your players gets banned it's hard not to see things as unfair, because they are unfair, and the decisions also seem heavily influenced by London hacks.

Mistime tackles / "leg breakers" / elbows etc are inevitably going to happen sometimes. That is a side effect of the competitive, athletic nature of the sport. It's part of the form and function of the gam'es framework, tackles happen, balls are competed for in the air. Limbs will come into contact, both accidentally or on purpose. Punishments need to be meted out in accordance, which can lead to some subjectivity.

Spitting on another opponent on the other hand - like biting, or racism - has really NO justification or middle ground. It simply does not need to ever happen within a game of football. It's an action that is anomalous within the context of how a game of football plays out. It's black and white. There is no subjectivity once caught on camera. Evans didn't accidentally gob at Cisse. There can only ever be a comparatively harsh punishment. Trying to argue apples to apples is missing the point completely.

Kimbo wrote:Last season it was 3 games and no one seemed to have a problem with that, it was changed to 6 games to be in line with FIFA's rules. I have no real issue with longer bans for spitting, it's just the inconsistency that grates, there's still no punishment for diving, if you elbow someone you might get a ban or you might not, if you try to injure someone you might get banned or you might not, then there is Matic getting his ban reduced for retaliation, which seemed like a special one-off gift to Chelsea, i've never seen it before and I doubt we'll see it again. So whenever one of your players gets banned it's hard not to see things as unfair, because they are unfair, and the decisions also seem heavily influenced by London hacks.

I'm pretty sure Shearer wasn't playing for Chelsea when he kicked Neil Lennon in the head, then hinted at withdrawing from the World Cup squad if punished

Isco Benny wrote:Mistime tackles / "leg breakers" / elbows etc are inevitably going to happen sometimes. That is a side effect of the competitive, athletic nature of the sport. It's part of the form and function of the gam'es framework, tackles happen, balls are competed for in the air. Limbs will come into contact, both accidentally or on purpose. Punishments need to be meted out in accordance, which can lead to some subjectivity.

Spitting on another opponent on the other hand - like biting, or racism - has really NO justification or middle ground. It simply does not need to ever happen within a game of football. It's an action that is anomalous within the context of how a game of football plays out. It's black and white. There is no subjectivity once caught on camera. Evans didn't accidentally gob at Cisse. There can only ever be a comparatively harsh punishment. Trying to argue apples to apples is missing the point completely.

Emotion is also a big part of the game, hence why I understand it why people spit, fart, bite etc

A 7 match ban for exchanging body fluids is only something the biggest Anglo-saxon would dig.

S4P wrote:

Kimbo wrote:Last season it was 3 games and no one seemed to have a problem with that, it was changed to 6 games to be in line with FIFA's rules. I have no real issue with longer bans for spitting, it's just the inconsistency that grates, there's still no punishment for diving, if you elbow someone you might get a ban or you might not, if you try to injure someone you might get banned or you might not, then there is Matic getting his ban reduced for retaliation, which seemed like a special one-off gift to Chelsea, i've never seen it before and I doubt we'll see it again. So whenever one of your players gets banned it's hard not to see things as unfair, because they are unfair, and the decisions also seem heavily influenced by London hacks.

I'm pretty sure Shearer wasn't playing for Chelsea when he kicked Neil Lennon in the head, then hinted at withdrawing from the World Cup squad if punished

So we have to go back 17 years to find a comparable situation? Kind of proves my point. Anyway Shearer was retaliating to Lennon holding.

I quite rate Kane, but:

Phil Neville wrote:"I have never seen a centre-forward work as hard as Harry Kane. He's been all over the place, chasing every ball."

Kimbo wrote:

S4P wrote:

Kimbo wrote:Last season it was 3 games and no one seemed to have a problem with that, it was changed to 6 games to be in line with FIFA's rules. I have no real issue with longer bans for spitting, it's just the inconsistency that grates, there's still no punishment for diving, if you elbow someone you might get a ban or you might not, if you try to injure someone you might get banned or you might not, then there is Matic getting his ban reduced for retaliation, which seemed like a special one-off gift to Chelsea, i've never seen it before and I doubt we'll see it again. So whenever one of your players gets banned it's hard not to see things as unfair, because they are unfair, and the decisions also seem heavily influenced by London hacks.

I'm pretty sure Shearer wasn't playing for Chelsea when he kicked Neil Lennon in the head, then hinted at withdrawing from the World Cup squad if punished

So we have to go back 17 years to find a comparable situation?   Kind of proves my point.  Anyway Shearer was retaliating to Lennon holding.

The challenge Matic retaliated to was far worse than holding. And even a few ex-referees said he shouldn't have been sent off as the push was below neck height (and when do referees past or present ever publicly side against one of their own?). Although some retaliations above the neck don't even get punished, e.g. Vertonghen against Sheffield United

Anyway, there have been plenty of other occasions of bans being reduced, so it's strange to pick on Matic as being a special one-off. Off the top of my head, Routledge had a 3 match ban rescinded for retaliating to a poor challenge; Balotelli had a ban reduced for supposedly being 'sincere and honest' in mocking jews online; Rooney had a ban reduced by UEFA after lashing out for no reason which allowed him to play in the final Euro 2012 game.

He didn't just push him, he put his leg across him and effectively threw him on the ground, it's a clear red, any ref that says otherwise has no credibility. I'm just saying i've seen Newcastle players react to bad challenges, headbutts, and pushes and be given red cards for it, i've never seen a ban reduced because they hadn't instigated the incident, it's very unusual.