lookwhaticando Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 This is annoying. BBC Football: McCulloch handed three match ban I've nothing against banning a player who decides to punch an opponent - it's a serious offence. What I'm beginning to really hate is the fact that punching an opposition player results in a ban - from TV evidence, no less - while other serious offences that are somewhat related are overlooked. Yes, the old conning of the referee. If we can ban a player for punching another based on TV evidence, why can't we ban players who con referees from TV evidence too? A few memorable dives come to mind - Zokora against Portsmouth being the prime example. Such a blatant dive that got Tottenham a penalty and set them on their way to an important win. Why shouldn't he be punished for it - the video evidence is just as clear for that dive as for the McCullloch punch. The FA discipline lads are really beginning to get my gander up. If you're going to use TV evidence for serious offences, do it for all serious offences - don't just pick and choose.
dandannieldanok Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 This is annoying. BBC Football: McCulloch handed three match ban I've nothing against banning a player who decides to punch an opponent - it's a serious offence. What I'm beginning to really hate is the fact that punching an opposition player results in a ban - from TV evidence, no less - while other serious offences that are somewhat related are overlooked. Yes, the old conning of the referee. If we can ban a player for punching another based on TV evidence, why can't we ban players who con referees from TV evidence too? A few memorable dives come to mind - Zokora against Portsmouth being the prime example. Such a blatant dive that got Tottenham a penalty and set them on their way to an important win. Why shouldn't he be punished for it - the video evidence is just as clear for that dive as for the McCullloch punch. The FA discipline lads are really beginning to get my gander up. If you're going to use TV evidence for serious offences, do it for all serious offences - don't just pick and choose. They should ban conners like Zokora yes but not for as long as thuggery such as punching.
lildave3 Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 If you were walking down the street and saw someone fall over without being touched and then ten minutes later saw someone getting smacked in the face, which would you be more horrifed at?
Scow Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 What about Angel's elbow against Morgan? Not heard anything about him being punished. Correct me if I'm wrong...
dandannieldanok Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 What about Angel's elbow against Morgan? Not heard anything about him being punished. Correct me if I'm wrong... You are right, it was such as blatent elbow with intent.
lookwhaticando Posted 19 December 2006 Author Posted 19 December 2006 They should ban conners like Zokora yes but not for as long as thuggery such as punching. You'll get no argument out of me for that. Violent conduct is the most serious offence and should be treated accordingly, of course. If you were walking down the street and saw someone fall over without being touched and then ten minutes later saw someone getting smacked in the face, which would you be more horrifed at? Irrelevant. The argument here isn't that conmen footballers should be punished equally as an act of thuggery like Thatcher's, for example. My argument is conmen should be punished. Crimes should be punished appropriately and proportionately to the offences. Diving is a con. In the real world, a con is a serious crime and is dealt with appropriately when caught. With TV evidence we can catch the con artists in the act and punish them - so why don't we? Consider your person in the street example. Person walks down street, falls flat on his face without being touched. He then goes to court and sues the council for negligence or some crap like that - dodgy pavement etc etc. That's a con - perjury at the very least - and thus punishable. As I said prior, I'm not arguing thugs and divers should be treated equally in punishment - just that both cases should be punished somehow. What about Angel's elbow against Morgan? Not heard anything about him being punished. Correct me if I'm wrong... There's plenty of other cases that could be looked into, for sure. Don't recall Angel/Morgan, mind.
Scow Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 There's plenty of other cases that could be looked into, for sure. Don't recall Angel/Morgan, mind. Given that this incident happened less than a week before the Wigan game (The game being on Sky as well) I'm surprised this hasn't been dealt with first.
lookwhaticando Posted 19 December 2006 Author Posted 19 December 2006 Given that this incident happened less than a week before the Wigan game (The game being on Sky as well) I'm surprised this hasn't been dealt with first. Did Sheffield United lodge a complaint or not? In either case? Would be interesting if they complained in neither case yet the Wigan one was caught and punished and the Villa one not.
lookwhaticando Posted 19 December 2006 Author Posted 19 December 2006 No... I see what's happened here. In the Wigan game, the ref didn't see anything at all. In the Villa game, the ref saw the incident but didn't see fit to punish. That's utter crap. The Thatcher elbow was seen by the ref and a yellow issued... they went ahead and punished Thatcher properly by video evidence and so on... There's something of an inconsistency there, surely?
Joe. Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Well done, the FA have finally done something right for once...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.