I'd fine him a year's wages

[hmmmmm1]

Of course Cole had to be punished. The point was that you get punished for speaking your mind but not for behaving like a thug.

Incidentally, Webb did not take action against RVP because he didnt see it. However having watched it on video he has decided that the offence didnt warrant punishment anyway. Thats his opinion agree or disagree with it.

I wonder did Mason review the video of Huth's assault. Probably not because he "saw" it in the match so he isnt asked to review it. What a joke of a rule. Bunchoftwats!

It is the same every season, ref's are not consistent and the top clubs do seem to get the rub of the green.

BR needs to speak up more on this, everyone thought rafa was barmy with his rant but he had point, just his timing was poor.

If BR he keeps quiet and thinks he has more class and doesn't get embroiled in this, we will continue to become worse off with decisions.

e.g. bacon face cunt talks up the penalty issues at anfield before the came and then come then game time, scum get a penalty.

Coincidence?

 

[Judge Jules]

No. Good post.

 

[Spionkop69]

Yeah, well Luis wasn't retrospectively banned for diving either.

To say it's corrupt is bollocks. To say it's incompetent is more accurate.

Diving is a bookable offence.

Stamping on an opponent is violent conduct and warrants a red card and a 3 game ban.

So actually, can Luis be retrospectively banned for something that is "only" a bookable offence?

 

[Spionkop69]

What amazes me is that the media are, in the main, studiously ignoring the stamping and all the other nasty little violent incidents to go after the "nasty little foreign racist".

Objective? It doesn't appear so does it?

 

[Woland]

Diving is a bookable offence.

Stamping on an opponent is violent conduct and warrants a red card and a 3 game ban.

So actually, can Luis be retrospectively banned for something that is "only" a bookable offence?

I think it's only ever resulted in a ban when it led to a penalty which then changed a result.

I'm thinking Eduardo for Arsenal. My memory is shit but that's the only one I recall.

I'm not arsed about the FA, I'd like Liverpool to get him to stop because he looks like a fucking mong.

 

[Jack D Rips]

Can anyone confirm that the following is a simplified version of how it works?:

The FA sit down on Monday morning to review controversial incidents in weekend matches.

Match A has an incident that they feel warrants attention so they check the referees report to find it is not mentioned. They contact the referee who says he didnt see the incident. They ask him to review the video, whereon he gives his opinion as to whether or not action should have been taken.

Match B has an incident that they feel warrants attention so they check the referees report to find it is NOT mentioned. They contact he referee who says he DID see the incident but felt it didnt warrant any action. They dont ask him to review the video. End of story.

Because if that is really how it works then they truly are a bunchofmonumentaltwats!

 

[Jack D Rips]

I think it's only ever resulted in a ban when it led to a penalty which then changed a result.

I'm thinking Eduardo for Arsenal. My memory is shit but that's the only one I recall.

I'm not arsed about the FA, I'd like Liverpool to get him to stop because he looks like a fucking mong.

I dont think anyone would ever accuse you of having a shit memory

 

[nealmac]

Can anyone confirm that the following is a simplified version of how it works?:

The FA sit down on Monday morning to review controversial incidents in weekend matches.

Match A has an incident that they feel warrants attention so they check the referees report to find it is not mentioned. They contact the referee who says he didnt see the incident. They ask him to review the video, whereon he gives his opinion as to whether or not action should have been taken.

Match B has an incident that they feel warrants attention so they check the referees report to find it is NOT mentioned. They contact he referee who says he DID see the incident but felt it didnt warrant any action. They dont ask him to review the video. End of story.

Because if that is really how it works then they truly are a bunchofmonumentaltwats!

You forgot the part where they drink about 7 or 8 cups of tea with a few packets of Chocolate Kimberleys.

 

[Judge Jules]

Can anyone confirm that the following is a simplified version of how it works?:

The FA sit down on Monday morning to review controversial incidents in weekend matches.

Match A has an incident that they feel warrants attention so they check the referees report to find it is not mentioned. They contact the referee who says he didnt see the incident. They ask him to review the video, whereon he gives his opinion as to whether or not action should have been taken.

Match B has an incident that they feel warrants attention so they check the referees report to find it is NOT mentioned. They contact he referee who says he DID see the incident but felt it didnt warrant any action. They dont ask him to review the video. End of story.

Because if that is really how it works then they truly are a bunchofmonumentaltwats!

In a nutshell.

Should they find the player guilty and he appeals, things get positively Orwellian. The FA not only prosecute their own charge, they appoint the allegedly "independent" Regulatory Commission which sits to hear it. The chairman will be a lawyer who does half a dozen or more of these a year for the FA and gets paid thousands a day for his trouble, hence has a nice little earner to protect. He will be accompanied by an FA official from one of its regional offices, and a person with a background in the game to whom very similar factors to those which pertain to the chairman will apply (he'll probably get paid about a third as much, but that's still some very nice pocket money).

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

 

[Jack D Rips]

You forgot the part where they drink about 7 or 8 cups of tea with a few packets of Chocolate Kimberleys.

Fucking hell, Chocolate Kimberleys. Bunchoftwats!

 

[Jack D Rips]

In a nutshell.

Should they find the player guilty and he appeals, things get positively Orwellian. The FA not only prosecute their own charge, they appoint the allegedly "independent" Regulatory Commission which sits to hear it. The chairman will be a lawyer who does half a dozen or more of these a year for the FA and gets paid thousands a day for his trouble, hence has a nice little earner to protect. He will be accompanied by an FA official from one of its regional offices, and a person with a background in the game to whom very similar factors to those which pertain to the chairman will apply (he'll probably get paid about a third as much, but that's still some very nice pocket money).

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

You would like to think that when Mason tells them he saw it but didnt think it merited punishment, that thats when they give an appointment at Accrington Stanley in six weeks time. But probably not

 

[Rouge Penguin]

Lets switch the focus to Bale. That was a worse, that was just falling over.

 

[Spionkop69]

Lets switch the focus to Bale. That was a worse, that was just falling over.

But he's not foreign (technically).

Welsh is blatantly foreign to me.

 

[Rouge Penguin]

Do you have to be 100% human to be judged on nationality? Being 80% Chimp surely means its ok?

I was lucky enough to get an interview with him the other day

 

[Mystic]

Anyone have a gif of Bale's bail?

 

[nealmac]

Anyone have a gif of Bale's bail?

 

[Stulikesdrums]

I can't see much wrong with Bale's one.
It looks like he is about to take a proper kicking and decides to get out of the way of it.
He doesn't throw his arms up or roll around for affect.

It is nowhere near as bad as Suarez's one.

 

[Spionkop69]

I can't see much wrong with Bale's one.
It looks like he is about to take a proper kicking and decides to get out of the way of it.
He doesn't throw his arms up or roll around for affect.

It is nowhere near as bad as Suarez's one.

Ross has got to you. Hasn't he? Hasn't he?

 

[nealmac]

I can't see much wrong with Bale's one.
It looks like he is about to take a proper kicking and decides to get out of the way of it.
He doesn't throw his arms up or roll around for affect.

It is nowhere near as bad as Suarez's one.

I didn't see it, but I believe Bale tried to get Guzan sent off just after it happened.

 

[peterhague]

Bale was clearly clipped, so not a dive. Doesn't even compare to Suarez's.

 

[Fabio]

Bale was clearly clipped, so not a dive. Doesn't even compare to Suarez's.

The fuck you talking about Willis?

 

[peterhague]

Bale wouldn't dive.

 

[Athens]

The fuck you talking about Willis?

Peterhague in defence of left wing shocker!

 

[Got the moves like Carra]

The only difference I can see between the chimp's ridiculous dive and luis' is that he wasn't in the penalty area. We should all know that the rules of football are different depending on whether an incident takes place in or outside of the box

 

[nealmac]

^^^ Top class username, BTW

 

[Got the moves like Carra]

^^^ Top class username, BTW

Cheers mate

 

[gkmacca]

I can't see much wrong with Bale's one.
It looks like he is about to take a proper kicking and decides to get out of the way of it.
He doesn't throw his arms up or roll around for affect.

It is nowhere near as bad as Suarez's one.

That's not a good angle. Another shot shows he just decided to fly.

 

[Mystic]

I don't know what Suarez was trying to do with his dive, I don't think he was trying to trick the ref as much as making a point that he'd been man handled. Bale on the other hand was trying to trick the ref.

 

[Y1]

Suarez did had his leg clipped. Period.

 

[nealmac]

FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce believes the Football Association should be given the powers to retrospectively punish players who dive.
Stoke boss Tony Pulis has long been an advocate for stricter punishments for simulation and his case was strengthened by Liverpool striker Luis Suarez's clear dive in their clash at the weekend.
Pulis suggested any player guilty of diving should be given a three-match ban but with referees currently only able to show a yellow card for the offence, the FA are powerless to act after the event.
But Boyce, Britain's representative on FIFA, has called for a change in the rules that would allow all of football's governing bodies to take retrospective action.
He said: "I have seen several incidents recently, and I watched the latest Suarez incident two or three times, and to me it is nothing less than a form of cheating.
"It is becoming a little bit of a cancer within the game and I believe if it is clear to everyone that it is simulation then that person is trying to cheat and they should be severely punished for that.
"It can be dealt with retrospectively by disciplinary committees, and it is done so in some associations, and I believe that is the correct thing to do.
"It can at times be very, very difficult for referees to judge whether something is a foul or a fair tackle and if players are diving then it makes their job even harder."



Amazingly enough, it's Suarez who makes the headlines here, with no mention of Gareth Bale. How odd is that? http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11669/8152980/