anotherharboroughfox Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 So a linesman sees the challenge, doesn't do anything about it, and a player is seriously injured from it threatening his career (life in Fergie terms), and the offending player gets off scot-free. not saying it in this case, but serious injury is an occupational hazard, the tackler should not be punished just because someone was injured. The FA really confuse me at the moment they consider pretty much all two footed tackles reckless and potential leg breakers and punish genuinely good tackles, but this is perfectly fine? In my opinion it was a genuine challenge for the ball but was certainly very excessive and reckless.
Soar Fox Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Someone sums it up on twitter. "Mark Bunn misses 3 games for a handball, but McManaman gets nothing"
AKCJ Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Sky Sports News â€@SkySportsNews Newcastle assistant manager John Carver charged with misconduct by the FA #SSN Gets worse and worse.
Carl the Llama Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 At least in times of bleak form we can look to the comedians at the FA to cheer us up.
Super_horns Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Sky Sports News â€@SkySportsNews Newcastle assistant manager John Carver charged with misconduct by the FA #SSN Gets worse and worse. I thought the Wigan people getting involved made the situation look worse than it was in that case.
Stuliasz Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Sky Sports News â€@SkySportsNews Newcastle assistant manager John Carver charged with misconduct by the FA #SSN Gets worse and worse. Didn't the referee see the incident and send Carver to the stands? Surely that counts as the officials seeing the incident and dealing with it at the time so how can they issue retrospective punishment?
Corky Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Sky Sports News â€@SkySportsNews Newcastle assistant manager John Carver charged with misconduct by the FA #SSN Gets worse and worse. Hang on, they showed on SSN on Sunday the referee watching the incident and standing away from it, not getting involved. So how can they charge him when an official has seen it?
Alexikokopops Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 The FA really confuse me at the moment they consider pretty much all two footed tackles reckless and potential leg breakers and punish genuinely good tackles, but this is perfectly fine? It's not that they consider it fine, it's just that they have a stupid rule that if any of the officials saw it then they can't go back and retrospectively act. However the interesting part of that rule is the following: "The FA can confirm that no action can be taken against Wigan Athletic's Callum McManaman retrospectively following his side's game against Newcastle United. Following consultation with the game's stakeholders (the Premier League, the Football League, the Professional Footballers' Association, the League Managers' Association, Professional Game Match Officials Limited and the National Game) in the summer, it was agreed that retrospective action should only be taken in respect of incidents which have not been seen by the match officials" It will be interesting to see if they change the rule following more "consultation".
Brown Fox Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 This rule is a pisstake. Use it whenever it suits them best. For example, last season Spurs vs Man City. Balotelli stamped on Parker, the ref saw the incident and booked him. Then afterwards the fa disregard the rule and give him a ban. What a load of arseholes.
ScouseFox Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Sky Sports News â€@SkySportsNews Newcastle assistant manager John Carver charged with misconduct by the FA #SSN Gets worse and worse. Wait, are you saying he shouldn't have been charged? He completely lost is and the FA have come to the perfectly correct decision there. How is that things getting worse?
AKCJ Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 Wait, are you saying he shouldn't have been charged? He completely lost is and the FA have come to the perfectly correct decision there. How is that things getting worse? I'm saying how does that warrant a charge yet an act of assault doesnt?
ScouseFox Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 I'm saying how does that warrant a charge yet an act of assault doesnt? It clearly warrants a charge. A sarcastic comment about an official in a post-match interview gets a charge these days, let alone trying to fúcking attack them on the pitch. They got one decision wrong and one right, are you saying you'd be happier and they'd have done better if they'd got them both wrong?
anotherharboroughfox Posted 19 March 2013 Posted 19 March 2013 an act of assault doesnt? a bit dramatic?
Finnegan Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 Agree with Savage, it was a red card tackle but no more. Should have the three game ban but all this uproar and hype is pathetic. He goes in overly committed and hurts someone, its unfortunate but that's the risks of playing football.
Brown Fox Posted 20 March 2013 Posted 20 March 2013 Agree with Savage, it was a red card tackle but no more. Should have the three game ban but all this uproar and hype is pathetic. He goes in overly committed and hurts someone, its unfortunate but that's the risks of playing football. I think more people are pissed off that it didn't even get a yellow. Horrific challenge, but a 3 match band and red would have been right
foxfanazer Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 Getting a bit fed up of hearing about this Mcmanaman challenge now. Ok it was a horrible challenge and a mandatory red card but I think it's just turned into a witch hunt. There are plenty of bad fouls that go unpunished but get very little coverage, what's so special about this one? Hope the Newcastle player recovers soon and the Wigan player is allowed to get on with his football
StanSP Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 Getting a bit fed up of hearing about this Mcmanaman challenge now. Ok it was a horrible challenge and a mandatory red card but I think it's just turned into a witch hunt. There are plenty of bad fouls that go unpunished but get very little coverage, what's so special about this one? Hope the Newcastle player recovers soon and the Wigan player is allowed to get on with his football It's the way that the FA has dealt with it which has pissed so many off; and the fact that the 'retrospective rule' is just simply a load of bollocks. Furthermore, the fact that it has gone unpunished is what is angering people the most, especially when the FA have bent the same rule for other clubs (Balotelli on Parker - referee saw it, booked Balotelli, FA gave him a ban anyway). That's just 1 example. I'm sure others can find other examples too. It just shows that the FA are devoid of any kind of common sense. Or have a very minimal amount of it.
foxfanazer Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 It's the way that the FA has dealt with it which has pissed so many off; and the fact that the 'retrospective rule' is just simply a load of bollocks. Furthermore, the fact that it has gone unpunished is what is angering people the most, especially when the FA have bent the same rule for other clubs (Balotelli on Parker - referee saw it, booked Balotelli, FA gave him a ban anyway). That's just 1 example. I'm sure others can find other examples too. It just shows that the FA are devoid of any kind of common sense. Or have a very minimal amount of it. Totally agree with that, the fact he isn't getting punished is unreal but that's not the players fault. It just further highlights the lack of common sense the governing bodies of this sport have. It just seems like they aren't prepared for things like this to happen so it leaves everything up to interpretation when it should be retrospective punishment, no exception!
Father Ted Posted 21 March 2013 Posted 21 March 2013 Agree with Savage, it was a red card tackle but no more. Should have the three game ban but all this uproar and hype is pathetic. He goes in overly committed and hurts someone, its unfortunate but that's the risks of playing football. Agree with this, I've seen much much worse yet some papers are claiming it's the 'worst tackle ever'.
AjcW Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 West Ham will be officially confirmed as tenants of the Olympic Stadium later today. West Ham will be officially confirmed as new tenants for the Olympic Stadium on Friday morning.The deal for a 99-year lease will be announced at a news conference, along with details of the revamped stadium featuring retractable seating. Adapting the stadium is set to cost £150m and the Hammers are expected to move in from August 2016, but the agreement should beforehand allow the venue to be used for the 2015 Rugby World Cup. Negotiations between London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and West Ham have been long and tortuous since the club was named preferred bidders in December but it is understood that the Corporation's legal advisers have now finally signed off the finer details. Under the agreement, West Ham will be given the right to use the stadium for all their matches under a 99-year deal, giving the club long-term security but ensuring they will have no property interest in the facility. The deal will protect public interest should West Ham's owners sell the club for a large profit on the back of the move to the stadium, with the LLDC guaranteed a significant cut. The LLDC will have the rights to the income from other events such as music concerts, and there will also be a legacy for athletics with a number of events for that sport maintained. The retractable seating should allow the stadium to be changed from a football venue - with seats on the running track - to one suitable for athletics or concerts within eight days. London mayor Boris Johnson is expected at the press conference near the stadium, along with mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales and LLDC chief executive Dennis Hone. Leyton Orient chairman Barry Hearn insists he is still seeking a judicial review into the bidding process but Sports minister Hugh Robertson claimed that was not a cause for concern. "That is one for Boris [Johnson] but I am told that all the legal advice is that the review is likely to fail," he said.
Soar Fox Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 Shame that they'll be leaving Upton park. Another stadium with character being replaced by a modern day lego stadium.
Fox in the North Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 Nice to see government funding going to a worthwhile cause..........
Kitchandro Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 West Ham will be officially confirmed as tenants of the Olympic Stadium later today. I feel sorry for them tbh. I mean, not really cos I don't like them, but they must be gutted. What a waste.
Soar Fox Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 I feel sorry for them tbh. I mean, not really cos I don't like them, but they must be gutted. What a waste. I'm sure I've read or heard somewhere that West Ham fans don't even want to move into the Olympic stadium.
Kitchandro Posted 22 March 2013 Posted 22 March 2013 I'm sure I've read or heard somewhere that West Ham fans don't even want to move into the Olympic stadium. I shouldn't think they do. It will be a nightmare for them, our move from Filbert Street to the KP is still unpopular but for them it's shocking, Upton Park is a lovely stadium and a pretty much perfect size, and the Olympic stadium is even uglier than te KP and way too big. They should fight this with everything they've got, even if it makes no difference. Things will never be the same for them. Was watching that Leyton Orient bloke on SSN - why was he talking about wanting to ground share with them? Why on earth would they want to move in there?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.