How do you prove Ibrahimovic was intentional? Maybe he had a spasm in his arm. I mean how do you prove any bad tackle is intentional.
Tyrone Mings stamp on Zlatan | He’s at it again
- Thread starter Cutch
- Start date
Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'd say looking down at where Zlatan was, leaping over him anyway and then bringing the foot down early instead of comfortably clearing him is reasonable enough evidence. The zero concern or remorse after it happened too. If you accidentally stand on someone's head, you don't trot off and pretend you know nothing of it.
He did immediately play the ball but nevertheless I think it was very childish back and forth between the 2 escalating to what happened due to a hapless ref. The irony is that Zlatan immediately bounced up and got back into the game by what should have hurt him but when he got flicked by Surman he dived to the ground like a complete weed.
He's got a point. You can apply the same "proof" logic to both. If the question is why does Zlatan swing his elbow backwards, then why does Mings bring his foot down below him when trying to jump over someone?
It's irrelevant because they're both forms of dangerous play, thus worthy of punishment.
Nice to see us accept the ban and move on. That's how you deal with it. Had this been Liverpool you would have had a full statement crying foul followed by printed tshirts already on the way.
They don't have to prove anything, this isn't a court of law.
Other than Wayne's lies in the media, José's "big man" speech and Zlatan saying that Ming's jumped into his elbow I'd say we've taken it with good grace
Agreed
It's more about the balance of probability. The burden of proof isn't equivalent to that of a criminal trial. Zlatan probably meant it.
Why they don't just punish the players with heavy €/£ fines like in US? The clubs are the ones been punished not the players.
One point about the Mings stamp, he was trying to step over both Rooney and Zlatan and Rooney gets up. Was Mings knockoff balance by Rooney as it looked like he stepped on Zlatan rather than giving an outright stamp (which I agree would have been despicable).
True.
My only worry is that Rooney will replace him up front.
Or Fellaini if José wants to continue with a big man up front.
We usually do punish any player that gets a red card or suspension but decided we aren't going to fine Zlatan as we desperately need him to sign up again for next season so can't risk angering him.
Last edited:
Extend Mings' suspension or not? Tough call.
Extended ban = misses Tottenham, Chelsea, and Liverpool games. If he can take out Mane or Coutinho, it would be better off in the long run for us.
Extended ban = misses Tottenham, Chelsea, and Liverpool games. If he can take out Mane or Coutinho, it would be better off in the long run for us.
I know it kind of sucks that the ”wrong” teams tend to benefit from these retrospective bans. But in this case I’m all for the right club and player to be punished, this kind of stuff needs to be cut out of the game. Don’t think Bournemouth would get any more points from mentioned games with Mings in the lineup. He also might be out for a while with his knee injury anyway.
Last edited:
Was always gonna happen and rightly so, it was a deliberate elbow as far as I'm concerned. Mings should get his desserts too.
Gonna be interesting to see how badly or perhaps well we fare without the big man for 3 games. Let's hope he signs off in style by winning it for us in Rostov this week.
Gonna be interesting to see how badly or perhaps well we fare without the big man for 3 games. Let's hope he signs off in style by winning it for us in Rostov this week.
That makes a bit of sense. I can still see match bans as the manager is supposed to maintain control of his team and is responsible for their conduct on the pitch *to an extent*, but yes, I think there is some merit in monetary fines to players. Especially if the ban/red card is for violent conduct (as opposed to, say, handball or a last-man-back tactical foul).
Doesn't apply to Europa does it?
It's a fair result.
Mings won't get away with it either. The FA should really be extending his supposed ban because it's a very tenuous appeal.
Mings won't get away with it either. The FA should really be extending his supposed ban because it's a very tenuous appeal.
I think you need to take your own advice.
If you think a guy who takes a good look at who's on the floor, changes stride, jumps on the guy's head, then runs off without even pretending to apologise is in any way unintentional, then it serves the same (foolish) line of reasoning to Ibra's elbow.
Mings will get a huge ban. I hope his injury is very minor, so that he can suck up this ban. Otherwise it's a completely token gesture.
I'm trying to remember when Keane got a ban for the comments about Haaland in his book. I seem to remember he was already injured when he got his ban, so that was similarly token. They can't wait for you to get healed though! Otherwise cynical clubs would just pretend the player was fit to play.
I also vaguely recall a Chelsea player, victim of an appalling challenge got his violent conduct ban reduced due to the provocation.
I wonder if we could use similar with Ibra, as it doesn't get much more provoking than someone jumping on your head when you're prone!
He means rested, so he can play in the Europa...
Definitely. The absolute cheek of the small time bastards.
A bit sad about the ban. This probably means he will miss out on +40 goals this season. He was really on to something big. A rest when he's got the moment up.... boring.
The reason he will miss out on 40+ is all the chances he's missed.
Nobody can prove it was intentional, that's just a matter of fact. Only person who knows is Mings himself, I myself find it hard to believe that any player would intentionally stamp on somebody's head.
That my redcafe pal is why there's been such revulsion at it. It really was that shocking! If it was accidental, he surely, surely would at least have gone and apologised. He'd have felt a skull under his studs!
Whereas elbows are fairly frequent really. Still out of order, but much more easy to happen.
Out cold my arse. The replay showed Arter going down clutching his face doing the standard diving twat's scream of agony. The knocked out pose was nothing more than time-wasting.I think Kevin Friend was shocking but it definitely maximised our chances of winning the game.
I don't recall a shoulder barge on Jones, was it shoulder to shoulder or in the back or what?
Obviously G Nev believed Zlat throwing Ming's was a red if the officials had seen it.
Surman prob shouldn't have seen any cards nevermind a red.
Ming's and Zlat should both have gone obviously, but I'm sure if Bournemouth had the choice they'd have preferred 10v10 to 11v10 for the rest of the match.
Thought the 2 penalty decisions were correct, ours just about but disagree with G Nev implying it was only given because of home crowd pressure on the ref.
Arter should have gone for a 2nd yellow for the careless slide on Pobga.
Friend has to stop the match for a head injury to Arter after he looked out cold after Pogba's shoulder smashed him accidentally, I mean just look at him. It's not up to the ref to wait for the ball to go out, in the case of a clear head injury he has to stop the match by the rules. Massive failure of his duty here. I don't know if he was worried about the crowd reaction or what but idiotic refereeing.
To add to the above Friend then constantly stopped the game allowing Bournemouth to waste time. He once stopped us taking a quick free kick on the edge of our box after a foul by Afobe who rolled around for a bit.
All round shot performance by Friend, but it should have allowed us to take the 3 points.
Ridiculous from Bournemouth to appeal. Hope Mings will get a bigger ban.
Good from Zlatan to take the ban and carry on.
Good from Zlatan to take the ban and carry on.
The bolded above, yes I would want someone to have a lesser punishment for intent than outcome. That's how the world works. It's not flawless but it's what we have. You can't have the same punishment for discharging a weapon vs shooting someone.
I think the FA has rushed to decisions here. The game ended 1-1, both players handled it pretty well. Nobody will really know how much intent was involved in either incident. They could have been given 3 game suspended bans and sent to a childrens hospital in Bournemouth together for some Premier league community work. Wouldn't have had any issue with that.
I missed the incident, but after the match it only took me to watch the replay once, and I'm pretty convinced it was intentional.
He clearly looks down at Ibra before he "tries to jump over him" and he knows exactly where Ibra's head is. Secondly, it seems he is always use a bit more "force" when he brings his landing foot down, which connects with Ibra's head.
But also, fortunately, I don't think the FA needs to "prove intent". They can just ban him if they view the incident to be malicious.
If you are trying desperately to get back into position, you will look to make sure that the obstacle on the ground, which you know is there, doesn't impede you.
I really don't see this as an argument though. Of course he meant it. Just look at the ongoing fight between him and Zlatan. A 6 match ban seems about right given no damage was actually done, not to mention Zlatan gave out his own punishment.
However, I don't think you have to be paranoid to think that were it a United player who'd done that, the press would have insantly been asking for a rest of the season type ban. With at least one ex pool or city player explaining in earnest how dangerous this action was and that a lifetime ban is the only way to protect children.
I really don't see this as an argument though. Of course he meant it. Just look at the ongoing fight between him and Zlatan. A 6 match ban seems about right given no damage was actually done, not to mention Zlatan gave out his own punishment.
However, I don't think you have to be paranoid to think that were it a United player who'd done that, the press would have insantly been asking for a rest of the season type ban. With at least one ex pool or city player explaining in earnest how dangerous this action was and that a lifetime ban is the only way to protect children.
Is there not a way for the association to suspend the ban until the physio declares him fit to play?
That's absurd. It is absolutely not "how the world works". In both situations, the gunman is trying to kill you. Both just suck at aiming to differing degrees. Or you're rewarding luck (lesser punishment for someone when both people attempt the same thing, and one just happens to get closer to succeeding). Attempted murder is attempted murder. If you shoot at someone and miss, or shoot at someone and hit them with a non-fatal wound, you are still charged with attempted murder. I realize I'm rambling about the analogy and not the actual subject at hand, but if I walked up to you on the street and drove an elbow strike into your nose and broke it, or I swung an elbow strike at you but missed and hit you in the collarbone, it doesn't matter. It's still assault, the intent is the same, the punishment should be the same regardless of my luck in aiming. Same with the head stomp. He attempted to STOMP ON HIS HEAD, whether he was "unlucky" (or lucky, depending on perspective) to not connect properly doesn't change the intent, which is the REASON you have bans in the first place! To put it another way: if a player is jogging towards an opponent and trips, and his forehead hits the opponent in the chest as he is falling down, is that a foul? Zidane headbutted Materazzi in the chest with intent, and received a red card. The "outcome" would be the same -- head impact with chest -- but the intent is different. What is being punished *IS* the intent!
Zlats fair enough.
Wishful thinking but if he could kill the tie over there it would be great.
It really is. I answered one question and you're now responding as if I answered a different one.
We don't really need to debate an analogy but being shot and being shot at are two wholly different crimes.
We live in a world where all of the following can exist;
- The FA says "We cannot determine intent, but we are imposing a 3 match ban because you showed a lack of care and landed on a players head"
- Had the player been knocked unconscious and hospitalised they could have said "We cannot determine intent but you have severely injured another player due to reckless behaviour and thus give you a 10 match ban"
Circumstances determine outcomes.
If he's out for 3 matches I hope we don't play him against FC Rostov on Thursday. We should give Rooney and Rashford a chance and try to determine who we should while Zlatan is out.
How long did Mings get the cnut?
NVM just read it, three matches for standing on someones head..feck off!!!
NVM just read it, three matches for standing on someones head..feck off!!!