Obviously not, but they increase the probability, so the expected ban is higher if you do. So even in your narrow perspective you have omitted an important element. There is also zero evidence there that the rules have been applied unequally and of course the other point was that its absolutely vile to suggest you may as well injure a player just because the ban won't change.
Did you not read the match thread? Worth a look if you want to know how little this board actually knows about football
The main point I was making, before you started blubbing, is that Pedro didn’t make contact, largely because he withdrew his leg at the last moment. I believe the panel should have recognised this and reduced the ban accordingly, highlighting this attempt to prevent injury. By doing so, it would set a precedent that while actions like the initial challenge (which warranted a red card and ban) should be punished, efforts made at the last moment to avoid harm, like Pedro’s, should also be acknowledged and taken into consideration. Challenges like Pedro's, and worse, will likely never be eliminated from the game, at least in this situation, Pedro provided an example where a player can still withdraw to minimise injury. In football, or life in general, punishment isn't always a deterrent - reducing Pedro's ban could have shown a third way.
He had already committed a red card offence before he withdrew his legs. Mid-lunge remorse doesn’t make it less of a wreckless act I’m afraid.
Exactly If a player threw a punch but missed does he get off? No Im excited to see what we are like without pedro actually
What is the source of that? As baz claimed it on the pod but it seemingly hasn't been a thing for years, so no doubt he repeated it in Hull live articles, but no current sources can be found (or none I can see).
If someone is driving a car down the road, doesn’t stop at the junction, but doesn’t hit another vehicle, forcing others to take evasive action, does that mean it’s not dangerous?
Interesting. Only reason I ask is I think I was listening to the Guardian football weekly the other day who said it didn't exist anymore but they might be no wiser on it.
I think it used to be the case that appeals took a while to be heard and sometimes clubs appealed without grounds, to make a player available for one more game, so the frivolous appeal penalty was brought in. Nowadays, the appeals are heard immediately, so I think the frivolous thing probably just doesn't apply any more.
As he withdrew his legs in the same action, within a second, remorse is hardly the correct noun here. A consideration which I think should have stood in his favour. Others disagree. The world turns.
I've not seen it, but I do wonder whether it was as bad as Gunn's tackle on Aaron Connolly? There were no consequences during the game, or in the aftermath for that one.
Indeed, and you might think the appeals panel, who have discretionary power, would have explored the nuance of the situation rather than taking such a black-and-white approach. It would have been a valuable learning opportunity for all.
