Charlie Austin charged by The FA

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
So I assume this will be done in time for Spurs then and he'll miss that, United and Palace.
 
No surprise there. The only good thing for us is that the ban will be immediate, while he’s injured.
 
In fact, even if he wasn't injured, he almost certainly would have been rested for two of our next four games (rotation for the PL games, and a weakened XI in the Cup). S another reason for a three match ban has little material impact.

I'm sure Gabbi is massively grateful at getting Spurs and/or Utd away to try and stake his claim.
 
st_brendy said:
In fact, even if he wasn't injured, he almost certainly would have been rested for two of our next four games (rotation for the PL games, and a weakened XI in the Cup). S another reason for a three match ban has little material impact.

I'm sure Gabbi is massively grateful at getting Spurs and/or Utd away to try and stake his claim.
Click to expand...

Or Long wakes up and finds his scoring boots.
 
I thought the ref saw it but decided it was an accident....now, whether he was right or wrong, I thought that negated any further charge. However, it was nasty and isn't going to make any difference so best to let it go. I realise the hypocrisy of my position....if Charlie was fit to play I'd defend him to the death regardless of what I thought about the incident....but when it is to do with Saints I have flexible morals. I think Charlie should issue a statement saying how sorry he was, it was not intentional* but he accepts the FA decision. Job done, wash hands, move on.

*TBF to Charlie I don't think for one minute he thought of kicking the player in the face; he was just reckless about it happening.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
I thought the ref saw it but decided it was an accident....now, whether he was right or wrong, I thought that negated any further charge. However, it was nasty and isn't going to make any difference so best to let it go. I realise the hypocrisy of my position....if Charlie was fit to play I'd defend him to the death regardless of what I thought about the incident....but when it is to do with Saints I have flexible morals. I think Charlie should issue a statement saying how sorry he was, it was not intentional* but he accepts the FA decision. Job done, wash hands, move on.

*TBF to Charlie I don't think for one minute he thought of kicking the player in the face; he was just reckless about it happening.
Click to expand...

Just in case anyone thinks I'm defending Austin, I'm not.

I think it was more than accidental or reckless for that matter. Whether he meant to catch his nose or not is debateable but IMO there was deliberate movement towards the keeper.

What I was questioning was the ruling about the ref dealing with it at the time, and as you've said above he must have decided it was an accident. How many times have we seen the FA say they can't change a decision because the referee has dealt with it? Now they're saying the ref didn't see the incident so they can bring a charge of violent conduct.They've probably arrived at the correct decision (charging Austin) but haven't applied a consistent procedure.
 
Last edited:
Then what about the Kane and Alli incidents of late. By rights they should not play Boxing Day, but as they are untouchable or play for one of the big clubs, **** it, let’s ignore it.

I think it’s a ****ing disgrace the charge has been brought actually.
Who gives a **** if it’s warranted, it was dealt with and you can’t bend rules to apply to some and not others, irrespective of the injury to the accused.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Toss saints, manxsaint and It'sOnlyAGame
I think what happened was that Probert decided not to take action because he didn’t see what Charlie did, and consequently couldn’t tell whether it was deliberate or not. Austin apologised, so he let it go at the time, but decided to include the incident in his match report because Lösl was injured, albeit not seriously. The FA therefore reviewed the video evidence and decided Charlie had a case to answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back