I can't see any other explanation personally. Why did they not look st the rest of Zlatan's thuggish actions then?
The referee saw Zlatan throw Mings to the ground and that's only a yellow card offence anyway. And they obviously didn't think he stamped on Mings. And I agree with that.
Even though A) he looks at Mings first B) he changes direction C) he follows an unnatural path D) there is no need, despite all this, to step on the other player?
Come on. Tom thinks premeditated attacks are not as bad as spontaneous or accidental ones. He must be right!
Exactly. The whole business stinks. As you say above, money talks, and the FA are about as corrupt an organisation as their parent organisation FIFA.
I'm that bored that I might pop over to Footballorgin to watch the 90 minutes so that I can nerdily spot the incidents. And I might not be that bored.
I agree, the FA have got it wrong. Should have been 8 games, same as what Thatcher got. Small club bias. And they charged Ibrahimovic for the elbow despite the officials seeing it. Biased.
Let's recap ... 1. Shaw's tackle is deemed fair. 2. Surman's tackle (very very similar) is deemed a booking 3. Mings being thrown to the ground is deemed not a yellow for Zatlan. 4. Mings leap, when off balance, over Rooney and catching Zatlan's hair with his boot (If he had caught his skull there would have been serious injury). My take on Ming's behaviour was dangerous but not intentional). He would have been highly skilled to have caught him on the head without injury.. 6. Zatlan provides a premeditated act of dangerous revenge to Ming's face. 7. Surman booked for pushing Zatlan who goes down as if poleaxed by a heavy weight boxer and is subsequently sent off by the ever efficient referee when he was reminded of Surman's original booking. 6. Zatlan provides a premeditated act of dangerous revenge to Ming's face. Outcome: After review, Zatlan gets 3 match ban, Mings gets 5 match ban and Surman a 1 match ban... Perhaps we should have a vote on here as to whether with think events described above were dealt with fairly, the only contentious issue above being whether Mings's actions were intentional or not.
OK, if you're keen to do some analysis : http://www.footballorgin.net/2017/03/04/epl-manchester-united-vs-afc-bournemouth-full-match-replay/
I think Tigger summed it up well. But, I do have to add once again. Mr Mings the merciless knew where that foot was landing. It was not a skull stamp, but a scalp nip, he knew.
Feels like deja vu, but with off-pitch video assist refs [VARs], Zlatan's elbow would have got him at least a yellow. That would have meant a sending off, because earlier in the game he got one for talking too much. It's also possible that Mings would have been sent off for the stamp. Then again, in the heat of the moment, the VAR may have thought it was accidental. The more I look at it [I've just rolled a match video back and forth during the moment] the more I think he was just jumping over Rooney and got his foot misplaced. Easily done see as he was looking at the action. Perhaps they did him for 'jumping over ManU star players without due care and attention'.
This. 100%. I said it the other day, if a United player had done what Mings did, people would be calling for more than 5 games. It was a disgraceful act, which would probably amount to GBH in the street. Well done the FA.
Tom, can you explain why Ibra's judo throw is a yellow and Surman's gentle push when surrounded by Utd players is a red please? Is there specifically bad wording in the laws of the game that cover the difference between those two?
If Mings meant to do what he did, then he deserves the extra ban. Only he will know the answer to that though. But what I'm struggling to understand is why Zlatan didn't the get same. I'm left in no doubt that he meant what he did. Throw the book hard at both of them, and then at the officials.
