• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

FA Punishments

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rosco

Rosco

Worse than Brendan
Member
THIS IS A SUAREZ FREE THREAD BTW. THERE IS NOT TO BE A SINGLE FUCKING MENTION OF HIM.

I'm interested for peoples views on how bans should work, what length etc.

I mentioned in one of the other threads yesterday there were three general principles I would use.

1. Intent - self explanatory
2. Damage - self explanatory
3. Public Policy - you punish things which have absolutely no place in the game harsher than those things which are part of the game. I.e. a bad tackle doesn't incur a 10 game ban because you run the risk of making people afraid to tackle at all.

Then you look at the players previous disciplinary record. Whether he pleaded guilty etc.

What do you think the determining factors should be ?
 
It should be set in stone, like Rugby and Hockey, you bite you get x, you double foot someone you get y, if you repeat offend in a 18 month period (for certain offences) you get +50%. It shouldn't go to a panel because as soon as it does, bias comes into play. If everyone got the same ban for the same offence, no questions asked, then a lot of this uproar would disappear.
 
It sounds logical enough to me.

With regard to point 3 I would say that if a bad tackle warrants 10 games thats what it should be. It shouldnt discourage others from tackling at all. It should encourage them not to make bad tackles.
 
Intent can be a tricky one to prove.

Paul Scholes told us that he deliberately set out to hurt people but still gets away with bad tackles.
 
Rosco said:
THIS IS A SUAREZ FREE THREAD BTW. THERE IS NOT TO BE A SINGLE FUCKING MENTION OF HIM.

I'm interested for peoples views on how bans should work, what length etc.

I mentioned in one of the other threads yesterday there were three general principles I would use.

1. Intent - self explanatory
2. Damage - self explanatory
3. Public Policy - you punish things which have absolutely no place in the game harsher than those things which are part of the game. I.e. a bad tackle doesn't incur a 10 game ban because you run the risk of making people afraid to tackle at all.

Then you look at the players previous disciplinary record. Whether he pleaded guilty etc.

What do you think the determining factors should be ?
Click to expand...

I think intent is of primary importance. I think damage incurred and even potential for damage should be a rationale too. I think your point 3 is wrong though. A deliberate bad challenge has no more a place in the game than spitting or biting but that would have to be balanced with point 1 - intent - which I guess you'll say is hard to prove but then again we could use the famous balance of probabilities approach surely ? Accidental bad challenges should not be punished IMO.
 
Jack D Rips said:
It sounds logical enough to me.

With regard to point 3 I would say that if a bad tackle warrants 10 games thats what it should be. It shouldnt discourage others from tackling at all. It should encourage them not to make bad tackles.
Click to expand...

What is a bad tackle though? Where do you draw the line?
 
I think you need consistency in bans though.

8 games for you-know-who and 4 for Terry was and is ridiculous. Surely nobody would disagree?

I know the FA justify the difference by counting the number of times each of them said what was said but it was the one incident and it's a stupid reason anyway.
 
If you are talking about not wanting to be too harsh on bad tackles though, you are suggesting that a punishment should also have an element of acting as a deterrent, as in a player might think 'well I won't tackle him because if it goes wrong I will get banned for 10 games'.

That doesn't really explain why things that are not part of the game should be treated more harshly though does it? If you say that biting someone is a 6 game ban then it's not as if people are suddenly going to start going round biting people because 6 games is not THAT bad.
And when does 'a tackle' stop being a tackle and become just a kick/assault?
 
Rosco said:
What is a bad tackle though? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

It's difficult of course. The problem with of a lot of this is the apparent inability to use common sense. For instance if someone goes in with a challenge over knee height then it's dangerous play with some intent in my book. However should a player be going in for a tackle and he obviously slips on his arse or something skewing his body angle then that should be taken into consideration .
 
Ive heard from more then one player that LOTS of defenders when picking strikers up who have been knocked down in the box will literally tear out their underarm hairs as they pick them up.
Ive seen players in the penalty box squeeze testicles.
Ive seen players pinch and nip other players in the melee.
Ive seen players intentionally stand on other players toes or worse still hands while they are on the ground.
Ive seen a player intentionally knee a goalkeeper in the head and almost kill him.

The hysteria over this bite is imo a fucking joke.
Because anything that happens in the game IS part of the game. And if anyone thinks that Defoe and Suarez are the only people to bite a player in football they are mental.
The revulsion because a player attempted to bite another player rather than kick him in the face is laughable.
As is the idea of public policy in my opinion.
 
Rosco said:
What is a bad tackle though? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Well thats where points 1 and 2 come into it. Its very possible that a player can suffer the same serious injury from two totally different tackles. But if a tackle is bad and there is intent then it must be punished by "x" amount of games. That should not impact on tackling still being part of the game
 
Herr Onceared said:
Ive heard from more then one player that LOTS of defenders when picking strikers up who have been knocked down in the box will literally tear out their underarm hairs as they pick them up.
Ive seen players in the penalty box squeeze testicles.
Ive seen players pinch and nip other players in the melee.
Ive seen players intentionally stand on other players toes or worse still hands while they are on the ground.
Ive seen a player intentionally knee a goalkeeper in the head and almost kill him.

The hysteria over this bite is imo a fucking joke.
Because anything that happens in the game IS part of the game. And if anyone thinks that Defoe and Suarez are the only people to bite a player in football they are mental.
The revulsion because a player attempted to bite another player rather than kick him in the face is laughable.
As is the idea of public policy in my opinion.
Click to expand...

So did you disagree when the authorities decided tackles from behind were outlawed?

That's public policy
 
Jack D Rips said:
Well thats where points 1 and 2 come into it. Its very possible that a player can suffer the same serious injury from two totally different tackles. But if a tackle is bad and there is intent then it must be punished by "x" amount of games. That should not impact on tackling still being part of the game
Click to expand...

So you'd agree that punishments based solely on the amount of harm caused wouldn't be a good idea?
 
Sheik Yerbouti said:
They need to fuck off this 'we can't do anything cos the ref dealt with it' bollocks for a start.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is absurd. Although I don't see why dealing with matters on the field can't begin and end with the match officials. If the referee and his assistants don't deal with something then that's that.
 
Richey said:
Yes, that is absurd. Although I don't see why dealing with matters on the field can't begin and end with the match officials. If the referee and his assistants don't deal with something then that's that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would be right unless they allow the 4th official to use the replays he can see to advise the officials on the best course of action.
 
Rosco said:
Couldn't agree more.

In rugby there's a 24 hour period were incidents can be cited and looked at after the game.

Something similar should be in force
Click to expand...

Yep that would work for me too. I also think we need to make more of the 4th official rather than them being there to keep people in their technical areas, but not help the ref officiate the game. Its crazy.
 
Rosco said:
So you'd agree that punishments based solely on the amount of harm caused wouldn't be a good idea?
Click to expand...

In general yes. The victim of a bad tackle can be lucky and escape injury or unlucky and sustain a serious injury. The tackle is still a bad one in both cases. Every case has to be judged on its own merits though certainly in relation to intent.
 
Here's the factors the FA use:

a. The applicable Law(s) of the Game and any relevant FIFA instructions
and / or guidelines;
b. The nature of the incident including the Player’s state of mind, in
particular any intent, recklessness or negligence;
c. Where applicable, the level of force used;
d. Any injury to an opponent caused by the incident;
e. Any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred;
f. The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally;
g. The wider interests of football in applying consistent punishments for
dismissal offences

I have to say I find it amazing how few people are willing to venture an opinion on this topic given how many experts we have on it this week
 
@DogFaceRefWatch
#mufc club secretary John Alexander chaired Disciplinary Committee for Giroud appeal - #afc play #mufc next

2011 -
David Gill, the Manchester United chief executive, has criticised his colleagues at the Football Association, accusing the organisation of victimising his club with undue punishments that would not be meted out to its Premier League rivals.

Gill, an FA board member, cited Wayne Rooney's two-game suspension for swearing into a television camera after scoring at West Ham in April, as well as the five-game touchline ban imposed on Sir Alex Ferguson because of his castigation of the referee Martin Atkinson, to demonstrate his belief that the champions get a raw deal from the sport's governing body.

"I do genuinely believe there have been some poorish decisions that, in my opinion, wouldn't necessarily have hit other clubs," Gill said. "That's not to say I'm condoning Wayne's comments, because I don't think they were correct, or what Sir Alex said, because it wasn't helpful. But at the same time, the actual punishments were harsh.

"We're possibly being caught up in being one of the biggest clubs and the [FA's] Respect agenda being there. What better way to demonstrate the authorities are being tough than by hitting one of the biggest clubs the hardest?"

2013 -
Dave Richards is retiring from being the Chairman of the FA and the two favourites to replace him are David Gill of Man United and Bruce Buck of Chelsea.
 
December 2012

Sir Alex Ferguson has escaped punishment from the Football Association despite confronting referee Mike Dean at half-time during Manchester United's 4-3 victory over Newcastle.

The Scot was furious with Dean after he overruled assistant Jake Collin and awarded Newcastle's second goal.

Ferguson was seen to approach Dean as he made his way out for the second half. The Manchester United manager also rounded on fourth official Neil Swarbrick before arguing with assistant Collin.

However the FA have said no action will be taken as Dean made no reference to Ferguson's tirade in his match report.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

the count
    • Like
  • Locked
The futures so bright....................
Replies
13
Views
590
rurikbird
rurikbird
mark1975
    • Like
  • Locked
VVD Ban
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Woland
Woland
Beamrider
    • Like
    • Happy
  • Locked
2023 accounts
Replies
3
Views
573
darkstarexodus
darkstarexodus
are we back?
    • Like
  • Locked
'Kelleher has waited to deputise. His patience should be reciprocated.'
Replies
28
Views
2K
localny
localny
Beamrider
    • Like
  • Locked
But what about City? WHAT ABOUT CITY!!!!!
2 3
Replies
76
Views
3K
dee
dee
Back
Top Bottom