Tyrone Mings stamp on Zlatan | He’s at it again

Schmiznurf said:
I will say though, if Mings doesn't get at least double the ban Ibra gets then the FA are idiots, the stamp on the had was way worse.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but they've probably been "affected" by the media saying that Ibra's elbow is a clear one, and Mings' stamp not so clear.
 
vi1lain said:
Doesn't make sense. If he didn't see the Zlatan incident, why did he speak directly with him and Rooney?
Click to expand...

Maybe he saw something but couldn't be certain if it was an elbow or not. Could be lots of reasons.
 
Dave89 said:
So it's official - one of our best players is going to be banned because of a referee giving a dishonest testimony to the FA.
Click to expand...
If one of our best players is going to be banned, it will be because he elbowed an opponent player. Lets not go full RAWL/Bluemoon.
 
Zlatan will miss the Chelsea FA Cup game when he gets three games. Annoying......
Mings offence was clearly the worst of the two, but I guess it'll be 3 games for both of them.
A better referee spots the first offence (Mings) sends him off and that is the end of that. Also, am pretty sure that Friend saw Zlatan's elbow, if he's saying he didn't see it now, its only to save face for a monumentally incompetent performance from him.
 
Dave89 said:
So it's official - one of our best players is going to be banned because of a referee giving a dishonest testimony to the FA.
Click to expand...
No he is going to be banned because he took the law in to his own hands or elbows in this case and was caught.
He deserves the ban , if Friend had done his job on the day , he would have a 3 match ban anyway.
 
Can't believe we have to go over this rule multiple times. It's like the away goals rule. Violent conduct charge can apply if the referee hasn't seen it or he had partially seen the incident and reports to FA that he would have taken a different action if he saw the full incident. Don't know why people are surprised at the charge really. There is just zero chance that th Fa are going to miss out on a high profile incident like this.
 
vi1lain said:
Doesn't make sense. If he didn't see the Zlatan incident, why did he speak directly with him and Rooney?
Click to expand...
a) It's a get-out to cover up incompetent refereeing, and...
b) The FA fear the media spotlight being turned on them, so they take action when the press make a fuss about an incident.
 
Revan said:
He might have not seen it but saw the players complaining, etc etc.

Anyway, I think that the rule was changed this summer, and now a player can be charged for inappropriate conduct even if the ref sees the incident. It was a very stupid rule, anyway.

I think that Ibra will get a 3 match ban, while Mings will be banned for 4-6 matches.
Click to expand...

That's silly though because the 'talking to' he gave Zlatan clearly affected the level of freedom he played with afterwards for fear of being sent off. Which I presume was the whole reason he spoke to him in the first place.
 
Revan said:
If one of our best players is going to be banned, it will be because he elbowed an opponent player. Lets not go full RAWL/Bluemoon.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Zlatan could do with a bit of a rest. He can't play all games and the most difficult are yet to come.
 
Dave89 said:
So it's official - one of our best players is going to be banned because of a referee giving a dishonest testimony to the FA.
Click to expand...

same happened with Aguero when he (quite rightly) was banned for the elbow on Reid early in the season, ref was right in front of it and couldn't miss it but said he didn't see the incident.
 
The Purley King said:
Zlatan will miss the Chelsea FA Cup game when he gets three games. Annoying......
Mings offence was clearly the worst of the two, but I guess it'll be 3 games for both of them.
A better referee spots the first offence (Mings) sends him off and that is the end of that. Also, am pretty sure that Friend saw Zlatan's elbow, if he's saying he didn't see it now, its only to save face for a monumentally incompetent performance from him.
Click to expand...
Am I missing something? The FA said in the statement that a standard punishement would not be sufficient for what Mings did...

"Furthermore, the FA has submitted a claim that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for the misconduct committed by the Bournemouth defender is 'clearly insufficient'."

That sounds like he's getting more than just 3 games.

 
Last edited:
Revan said:
If one of our best players is going to be banned, it will be because he elbowed an opponent player. Lets not go full RAWL/Bluemoon.
Click to expand...
If Friend gave an honest account of what he saw, Zlatan wouldn't be charged.

This is the organisation that banned Ferdinand for being forgetful when other players get less for doing cocaine (and Liverpool players get the rules changed to allow them to take PEDs), and that banned Evra for being racially abused by John Terry's gardener mate.
 
SteveJ said:
a) It's a get-out to cover up incompetemt refereeing, and...
b) The FA fear the media spotlight being turned on them, so they take action when the press make a fuss about an incident.
Click to expand...

If someone has a gif of the incident, you can see Friend looking right at it. He 100% saw it. No surprise he's now saying he didn't as otherwise he looks even more incompetent than everyone already knows he is.
 
SteveJ said:
a) It's a get-out to cover up incompetemt refereeing, and...
b) The FA fear the media spotlight being turned on them, so they take action when the press make a fuss about an incident.
Click to expand...

Aye I understand the reason why they do it, but I just don't understand the FA that's all. Their rules change yearly.
 
I think Ibra might get 4 as standard as he already got banned earlier in the season. That's before any extra punishment although I doubt he'd get anymore (Mings should do).

Top 4 probably over.
 
Can't wait to bang 0-0s in for the next three games on the predictions thing.
 
vi1lain said:
Doesn't make sense. If he didn't see the Zlatan incident, why did he speak directly with him and Rooney?
Click to expand...

Yeah that's bollox. Apart from anything else, retrospective video arbitration is supposed to deal with off the ball stuff that a referee couldn't possibly see i.e. if he's following the action and someone got clattered off the ball, behind his back.

Ibra was literally touching the ball at the precise moment of the elbow. It's insane that the referee can get away with claiming that he didn't see the incident. This has now set a precedent where any bad tackle can be retrospectively punished more severely than it was during the game. What a ridiculous can of worms they've opened.
 
Lets not go down the route of Zlatan is being wrongly charged, he elbowed the player that was clear to see , he should not of done it but he did, Friend could have sent of Mings for the stamp but he did not see it ( apparently ) and Zlatan wrongly too retribution for it.
Zlatan deserves his ban and should just accept it.
What needs to happen is the FA should be asking Friend why he stood talking to Zlatan and Rooney for a good few mins, he clearly saw the elbow and bottled the sending off.
 
balaks said:
Maybe he saw something but couldn't be certain if it was an elbow or not. Could be lots of reasons.
Click to expand...

That's how I saw it at the time, as he'd have been off if he had seen it. Either a second yellow or a straight red.

He might have interpreted it as an outstretched arm more than an actual elbowing motion. If that's the case then he's right to say that he didn't see it. Isn't that what happened with Aguero? It looked he definitely saw Agueros but perhaps didn't see the intent in it in real time. Aguero was still banned retrospectively.
 
Dave89 said:
If Friend gave an honest account of what he saw, Zlatan wouldn't be charged.

This is the organisation that banned Ferdinand for being forgetful when other players get less for doing cocaine (and Liverpool players get the rules changed to allow them to take PEDs), and that banned Evra for being racially abused by John Terry's gardener mate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but the FA can't let a player get away with a blatant elbow to the head, regardless of the reason.

Also for Ferdinand they had to come down tougher on him so that players who would otherwise have failed the drugs test don't use the same excuse and miss the test.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I think Ibra might get 4 as standard as he already got banned earlier in the season. That's before any extra punishment although I doubt he'd get anymore (Mings should do).
Click to expand...

4 as standard? It doesn't work like that. He hasn't been sent off or received a retrospective ban this season. He will get 3.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah that's bollox. Apart from anything else, retrospective video arbitration is supposed to deal with off the ball stuff that a referee couldn't possibly see i.e. if he's following the action and someone got clattered off the ball, behind his back.

Ibra was literally touching the ball at the precise moment of the elbow. It's insane that the referee can get away with claiming that he didn't see the incident.
Click to expand...

Just makes the whole confrontation even more confusing, was he considering giving a yellow card for something he didn't see, purely because of player pressure?

How useless can you be?
 
GBBQ said:
Perhaps but the FA can't let a player get away with a blatant elbow to the head, regardless of the reason.

Also for Ferdinand they had to come down tougher on him so that players who would otherwise have failed the drugs test don't use the same excuse and miss the test.
Click to expand...

Yet players get away with potential leg-breakers all the time because the ref lets them play on when video replays show it was a blatant red card. As we've seen with our own Marcos Rojo. Twice. Where's the consistency?!
 
2 Man Midfield said:
Surely the ref saw it because he spoke to the player at length and warned him? If true, then it shouldn't be acted upon as the referee dealt with it at the time.
Click to expand...

Could well be the scenario where the players informed him and he went over to Zlatan to tell him to cut it out and he'll be watching him closely for the remainder of the game.
 
The talk could have easily been telling him to calm down, hence the lack of a yellow card.

It's a deserved ban, don't know how anyone can complain.
 
Tyrone Mings has been punished enough just by having that name.
 
GBBQ said:
Perhaps but the FA can't let a player get away with a blatant elbow to the head, regardless of the reason.

Also for Ferdinand they had to come down tougher on him so that players who would otherwise have failed the drugs test don't use the same excuse and miss the test.
Click to expand...

He provided a sample within two days of missing the test and even offered to come back in on the day that he missed it, but was told it was too late. There is no way you could flush your system that quickly therefore no way that it would be the 'same excuse' used by players who would otherwise have failed. It was a shocking decision, one that the PFA was astounded by.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yeah that's bollox. Apart from anything else, retrospective video arbitration is supposed to deal with off the ball stuff that a referee couldn't possibly see i.e. if he's following the action and someone got clattered off the ball, behind his back.

Ibra was literally touching the ball at the precise moment of the elbow. It's insane that the referee can get away with claiming that he didn't see the incident. This has now set a precedent where any bad tackle can be retrospectively punished more severely than it was during the game. What a ridiculous can of worms they've opened.
Click to expand...
The refereee doesn't have to say that he didn't see the incident. The FA can take action even if he says he saw it.
 
100 said:
The talk could have easily been telling him to calm down, hence the lack of a yellow card.

It's a deserved ban, don't know how anyone can complain.
Click to expand...

Isn't that obvious? Retrospective bans are only supposed to be used if a referee doesn't see the incident. Otherwise you could use them after almost every game. How the hell can a referee not see an incident that occurs within an arm's length from the fecking football? Where, exactly, was he looking at the time?!
 
No complaints, Zlatan deserves to be banned for his elbow. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with the FA coming down on this.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Yet players get away with potential leg-breakers all the time because the ref lets them play on when video replays show it was a blatant red card. As we've seen with our own Marcos Rojo. Twice. Where's the consistency?!
Click to expand...
Sir, you are partaking in whataboutism!

Honestly its ridiculous that Rojo's shenanigans went unpunished. In trying to maintain that Referees are infallible they are having to bend their own rules so as not to look like idiots.
 
The players will stand up for Zlatan and Mata will bang us the goals to win the matches with a one goal margin.
 
GBBQ said:
Sir, you are partaking in whataboutism!

Honestly its ridiculous that Rojo's shenanigans went unpunished. In trying to maintain that Referees are infallible they are having to bend their own rules so as not to look like idiots.
Click to expand...

It's not whataboutism. The rules have always been clear (to me anyway) Video evidence is supposed to deal with stuff that referees are unable to see at the time. Obviously, this shouldn't include incidents that occur when challenging for the ball. These are, by definition, seen by the referee. If he's not watching players compete for the ball then what the feck is he watching?
 
It really is fair enough, who knows it might play in our favour as Zlatan will be nice & fresh for the Rostov home game.

I just hope Jose uses Rashford and not Rooney in his absence.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Since when? And why hasn't Rojo been banned for his two-footed tackles if that's the case?
Click to expand...
Since a year ago or so? Not sure when exactly, but there was a change. They're not going to start punishing every incident that was missed, but if Rojo had injured someone (and not been booked) they probably would have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.