This whole 3-match, now 2 match, ban ruling in Boateng's case still confuses me. Who came up with the idea that the ban should be extended by a game if the other team fecks up the penalty? It makes no sense. If he fouls outside the penalty box, preventing a clear goalscoring chance, it's way worse, because the other team doesn't get a penalty to make up for it, yet if the freekick doesn't end up in a goal, it has no influence on the ban.
If it happens when the team is 5-0 in the lead, should the goalkeeper simply let the ball in, so that the ban isn't extended? And why is it even relevant at all? There's also the chance that the striker fecks up the chance without a foul. The penalty gives back the chance and the red card is the punishment, job done. Missing or scoring shouldn't have any influence on the punishment anymore.
I understand that they want to extend the ban if the player is a repeat offender and I don't really get why they took that one away now, because Boateng has a few too many red cards in his career. But the one for missing the penalty is probably the most stupid rule I ever heard of and that's saying something with all the stupid rules in football. Hell, the judge even made a joke in the hearing and asked Boateng if Neuer doesn't like him because he saved it. That alone should show everyone how ridiculous that rule is.
Oh and:
1860