Our sport is run by idiots...
Madrid's deliberate red cards
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
I don't understand how Barca can appeal. Something lost in translation? The case hasn't been processed by UEFA's disciplinary committee yet, and it's they who dish out punishments (as in the Real case). When they have had their say, Barca can appeal to the Appeals Body (as Real did).
If Iniesta gets banned it's going to be almost as unbelievable and stupid as the Rooney ban. If Madrid players did not get any further ban after the one game they missed there is no way they can change the rule and ban Iniesta midseason.
I may be wrong here but didn't UEFA warn Madrid that if they did it again, they'll be banned? If so, I don't see how Barca can complain because Carvalho will now miss the first leg of the semi finals for not doing what Iniesta did.
You could argue the fines for Real players were considered as a warning to other players. Iniesta didn't take the warning seriously thus should be banned. It's unsporting behavior anyhow.
All these deliberate cards are embarrassing. They could've at least put some effort in and try to make them look not as deliberate. You actually should get an extra yellow card or a ban for it as it's cheating.
All these deliberate cards are embarrassing. They could've at least put some effort in and try to make them look not as deliberate. You actually should get an extra yellow card or a ban for it as it's cheating.
Fair enough but then apply the rule from next season and not half way through. I'm against getting deliberate bookings but if you don't ban players from one team you can't go ban them from another team.
That wouldn't be right. You have to have a rule which applies to everyone.
And if you're changing it, it should be known to everyone.
I still don't see the hoo-haa about this. If Carvalho and Ronaldo did this at WHL, you know they will be banned from games because if it were just monetary fines, Madrid could afford it.
I am surprised UEFA still need to think this through.
Spot on.
So Madrid players shouldn't be fined and Mourinho shouldn't be banned as well right?
I still disagree totally with this in principle. Players should have the right to manage their bookings, deliberately or not. The result of this is that they'll grab shirts to prevent counters from now on, even when not needed, instead of taking too long to make a throw in.
You can't fight it, they are still suspended, what's wrong with it?
You can't fight it, they are still suspended, what's wrong with it?
This, if fines are now the rule, Madrid would very much regret not dong it.
The bottom line, really.
The only reason we know these cards were deliberate it's because they didn't make an effort to hide it because they weren't aware they could be punished for it. They will still be able to do it more covertly from now on, and if UEFA or FA's try to punish them they will be opening a can of worms with risks of unfairness all through out.
Getting a booking purposely to clear a punishment for a match is as much a tactical decision as a defender who blocks counters by grabbing shirts at the end of the match while we wouldn't do it at the beginning under the risk of playing the whole game on the yellow.
Too much obsession with fair play, there are far more worrying things on that regard than this for UEFA to waste time with.
Isn't it because the predesence had already been set and Barcelona had quite obviously done it 2 weeks ago in the league with two of their players?
I don't know. If you rob a store you're most likely doing it deliberately. If you are somehow not doing it deliberately you get the same sentence.
Madrid got cards to receive a ban.
I don't know. Perhaps the UEFA feel that they need to approach it differently in order for it to stop. They tried doing something about Madrid, it wasn't enough (Mourinho got banned). So now they try something different. I find that the likeliest explanation.
I do think it stinks if Iniesta gets a ban against the very same team who got away with it earlier in the season.
Ok, you can't base the decision on who the opponents are, but it wouldn't half highlight the inconcsistency!
Ok, you can't base the decision on who the opponents are, but it wouldn't half highlight the inconcsistency!
FFSIt's two entirely different things. Rooney's ban was stupid because he didn't do anything to deserve a ban (and the FA has been unable to justify/explain why he was banned). The problem with Iniesta's ban is inconsistency, in my opinion, I'm glad to see them punish cheaters, I'd only wish the two Madrid players got bans too.
Not really, rules and laws are open to interpretation and all that. Which was it they claimed RM broke? Bringing the game into disrepute? That's a woolly law, and "inconsistency" could be justified if UEFA had said "right, this shit here is bringing the game into disrepute, so we're starting to crack down on it from now on. Since we haven't been explicit about it before we'll only hand out fines this time, but will punish it more severely later". I don't know if this is what happened, though. It'd be good if someone did.
Deliberate infractions should be hit with a mandatory 1 match ban + any other additional ban.
They didn't get away with it. Three players were fined and Mourinho got a fine and a ban. And he got a UEFA ban. That's very different from the ban SAF got.
When should they start doing something about this. When it's not Madrid or Barcelona?
Two Barcelona players, Pique and Busquets I think it where, got a yellow card each just like Madrid did in the CL, by standing with the ball during a goal kick and waiting for the ref to card them. They did it so they had clean slates before the Classico matches in the league and cup. UEFA know about this. They can't do anything about it in Spain, that's up to the Spanish FA, so surely they saw this as an opportunity to come down harder on this and close the loophole.
That's the only logical explanation I see for giving Iniesta a ban.
If UEFA did issue a statement saying they were cracking down on this and any future discretions of this nature would be more severely punished by bans then fair enough. Funnily enough, this is exactly the way I think the FA should have handled the Rooney swearing case.
In the absence of such a statement, though, they're failing to show the most important quality of any sports governing body - consistency. Every punishment sets a precedent. You can't randomly ramp up punishments when it suits you, without warning all the clubs concerned. That would be the equivalent of suddenly doubling the ammount of games a player misses for a getting sent off by denying a goal-scoring opportunity, without any prior warning, just because they've decided to clamp down on professional fouls.
In the absence of such a statement, though, they're failing to show the most important quality of any sports governing body - consistency. Every punishment sets a precedent. You can't randomly ramp up punishments when it suits you, without warning all the clubs concerned. That would be the equivalent of suddenly doubling the ammount of games a player misses for a getting sent off by denying a goal-scoring opportunity, without any prior warning, just because they've decided to clamp down on professional fouls.
That's the way court systems usually work Pogue. You never see consistency when a panel of judges are sentencing someone.
They didn't make a statement either when they banned Mourinho and fined all the Madrid players. There was nothing in the rules that didn't allow this and therefor they did it. Like the Madrid coach said, he suggested to Mourinho that they should get deliberate yellow in the first Tottenham leg to be save for the semis but Mourinho opposed by saying he didn't want to be banned for those games.
They didn't make a statement either when they banned Mourinho and fined all the Madrid players. There was nothing in the rules that didn't allow this and therefor they did it. Like the Madrid coach said, he suggested to Mourinho that they should get deliberate yellow in the first Tottenham leg to be save for the semis but Mourinho opposed by saying he didn't want to be banned for those games.
Completely disagree with the first para. Court systems are based almost entirely on precedents. That's pretty much the whole basis for case law. That's my understanding of it anyway. Be interested to hear from an actual shyst... er... lawyer though. Brophs?
Got to admit you're right - had a look of the rules and they are quite clear.
And here's the problem. It's not longer a misinterpretation, it's just accepted as fact. Not by fans, but by coaches, players, referees. Everyone. I mean, was Evra's handball at West ham DELIBERATE? No, it wasn't. But did anyone think or claim it wasn't a pelanty? Not that I recall. It was widely accepted as a clear penalty, no doubts about it.
This may actually be the worst case of a clear football rule that is not actually in effect.
Is this a penalty? 0:45 Not deliberate IMO.
Very few handballs in the box should be awarded penalties, 90% of the ones I see aren't deliberate handballs. There's the occasional Suarez-like penalty, or sometimes a sneaky control attempt by a defender, but most of the times it's just plain bad luck from the defender and whistle-happiness from the referees.
Deliberately, no defender would do such a thing 90% of the times that it's awarded.
And yes, I'm pulling stats out of my arse.
TBF it's entirely possible that they have issued such a warning to the clubs, there is no reason for them to announce it publicly.
That's not what I meant. Of course if something is dead certain there's a precedent for the judgement. But let's consider something like rape cases. People get very different sentences for the same offence. It's often word against word with no witness.
It's the same with so many things in court. Sometimes people get away with stuff yet do the same crime as the next guy who got 5 years.
It's easy to say if he committed murder on purpose he get's this sentence. But that's not always the case.
If you don't see my point from all this then ignore it. I'm just trying to put it into words and the law isn't the most clear thing at times for us non educated in the matter.
With these cards there weren't any precedents. They acted one way towards Madrid. Few months later Barcelona does the same thing in the league, out of UEFA's jurisdiction. Imagine being in their shoes and seeing Barcelona do the exact same thing on their turf less than two weeks later. Clearly it's not enough to just fine the player. I would think that much was obvious.
They messed it all up themselves by not being clear the first time. They haven't decided anything yet and perhaps they'll come out with a statement upon the verdict.
There's also the case of having your arm stretched way outwards from your body when you are tackling or trying to block the shot. Making yourself way bigger than normal could well be interpreted as deliberate handball.
But I agree. Most handball aren't deliberate.
No they're not deliberate nearly every time, the issue is how can they prove deliberate from unintentional, it's often seen as not moving out of the way when they can or being in an unnatural position when it hits.
if we couldnt count with rooney because SAF didn't tell him to get carded at the proper game, i would be fumming
This is going way off topic and gets done to death on here after every penalty due to a hand-ball but I do agree the law, as it stands, is almost impossible to administer properly.
I'd like to see the rules change so that if the ball hits your arm/hand at all it's a free-kick. The ball hits arms accidentally relatively infrequently as it is and you can bet your arse the likes of John Terry would suddenly get a whole lot more careful about tucking their arms out of the way when they're making a challenge in the box.
I'd like to see the rules change so that if the ball hits your arm/hand at all it's a free-kick. The ball hits arms accidentally relatively infrequently as it is and you can bet your arse the likes of John Terry would suddenly get a whole lot more careful about tucking their arms out of the way when they're making a challenge in the box.
But you can't make your arms disappear and I bet it's fairly easy for an attacker to flick the ball deliberately on to the arm of the defender.
Not if they tuck their arm behind their back it isn't. Dennis Irwin always kept his arms behind his back in the box and I don't remember him ever conceding a pen for hand-ball.
You probably will get strikers occasionally deliberately flicking the ball into an arm but at least that's rewarding skill, rather than punishing bad luck - which seems to be the status quo.
This kind of action will just lead to players going in hard to get yellows instead of committing obvious fouls.
Unsurprisingly no ban, don't think there is a fine either.
Would be interesting to see how UEFA word it.
Hardly a skill hitting a big target like that from 1-2 meter. Dare I say I could do that 9 out of 10 times.
More like trying to make a good pass to your team mate in an angle where it might strike the opponents arm.
Pretty much the case. Common law is entirely based on previous decisions, although similar anomalies occur (ie a case being decided one way and not appealed. An identical case being decided the same way, but appealed to CoA succesfully. Then a third identical case being decided as the previous appeal decision and successfully appealed again via the HoL. This doesn't even take into consideration a potential 4th scenario when the HoL then decide to change their minds).
Legislative law is slightly different in that there is always a first mountain of cases in which the lower courts have to try to interpret what Parliament intended when legislating. Particularly in complicated scenarios you will have a mountain of inconsistancy until either Parliament expressely clarify or appeal courts clarify via a decision and their obiter dicta.
The problem with football is that there is no obiter dicta (judges statement to clarify his decision in reference to previous cases and the legislation). If a clear explanative dicta were produced for say the Rooney incident, everyone would be able to ascertain exactly what was punished (the swearing, the intention of viewers to here it, the exact wording, the malice behind it etc).
Without dicta the courts (from the bottom courts upward) would have the licence to manipulate legislation or previous case law to make a totally different decision. Which is essentially where the FA and FIFA are at the moment, a perfect example being the Rooney elbow where the FA said we can't retroactively punish him and then FIFA said they could have.
Why are the players so crap at picking up bookings in a way that isn't so obviously premeditated? It's not that difficult to clatter into someone a bit late, tug cynically on a shirt or throw the ball away is it? Should seem obvious I'd have thought.
I remember Drogba getting booked years ago when Mourinho was Chelsea manager. Can't remember what game it was but I think it was a Premiership game, giving him his 5th/10th booking of the season so he missed a less important cup game or something along those lines, and just did it through a late challenge. That's how to do it, even if it's morally wrong.
I remember Drogba getting booked years ago when Mourinho was Chelsea manager. Can't remember what game it was but I think it was a Premiership game, giving him his 5th/10th booking of the season so he missed a less important cup game or something along those lines, and just did it through a late challenge. That's how to do it, even if it's morally wrong.
I guess most players would rule fouling out because you take the risk of a referee going card crazy and sending you off. Others are options of course, but I wonder if these days everytime a player from a known club get a 'comfortable' yellow card he'll become a suspect.