Some of you guys are completely over reacting, 6 months!? Look at the bans for racism and for Joey Barton's thuggish antics recently none of those are anything like 6 months but all are far more grievous offences. You can't honestly say that if Ward-Prowse had done it that you would all be slaughtering him and calling for ridiculous bans.
If you did that on the street, you'd presumably be injuring him on purpose. McManaman didn't injure him on purpose.
You don't know if it was on purpose or not. You're not in his head. From what happened immediately after there is more evidence to suggest he did it on purpose than by accident.
Like what? If you're going to accuse him of doing it on purpose you'll have to have a rock solid case. Until then we can only presume he was innocent.
Innocent until proven guilty mate. And seeing as he got a lot of the ball before he got Haidara, it seems like he was going for the ball.
Ok maybe am over reacting but he could have ended his career. Re. Joey barton.... two wrongs dont makr a right as my old man always used to sau
To be honest, I think a 3 match ban would have been enough. He did get a chunk of the ball, but he did go in dangerously. If he was nowhere near the ball or the tackle was 'unnecessary' EG Ben Thatcher, then could've been more, but think 3 would've been plenty, had the FA not been as **** association as they are.
I need to watch the tackle again I fink. It looked awful to me and he meant it, like really dangerous and with intent.
Spot on, went for a bouncing ball that was half way between him and the opponent. It was clumsy, not malicious or intended. As far as I know, apart from Inspector Gadget, no one has the ability to telescopingly withdraw their leg in mid-tackle in mid-air in a nano-second. The media handwringing over miss timed tackles has got way out of hand. And I'd have the same opinion if it had happend to a Saints player. Injuries happen, bad tackles happen, just get on with the game & let the ref decide rightly or wrongly. Stop all this trial by TV and ****wit pundits.
Well he definitely should know better than to go studs first towards someone's knee like that, but yeah, it was just a crap challenge.
hey ok, just watched again. im gonna back down. im a bit over the top about everything at the moment! it is a **** tackle but yeah not intent, was a bit pished on sunday!!
I'm going to play devils advocate and say yes its right..... I don't think the Thatcher incident is a suitable precedent. That was sheer thuggery - the mcmanaman incident was a poorly timed / reckless tackle. The FA have an agreement in place that says if an official clearly saw the incident they won't go back on it (which has happened for the Thatcher incident but as I said that's thuggery). If they went back on it for this inn ident there are many, many more incidents that they should also be going back to look at and we would all be moaning about the lack of consistency. So whichever official said they "saw" the incident should be punished and the FA should look at putting some slightly different rules in place for retrospective punishment - but they must be able to be applied consistently and not involve dozens of incidents each week - does anyone know much about the way citing works in rugby, could this be an option?
So whichever official said they "saw" the incident should be punished _________________________________ Agreed. The linesmen just don't seem to be doing thier jobs, maybe a little spot light pointed at them could help this unfortunate situation, or maybe future ones anyway.
Yes, all fine, but the rule says nothing about thuggery, and I'm not frankly overly concerned what the rule says. If it does say there can be no retrospective punishment (which I don't believe it does), then it needs to be changed, clearly. Regardless of that, the precedent is there for punishing someone who has already been punished, and McManaman hasn't even been punished. The officials may have seen it but they very obviously didn't see it clearly â they didn't even give a free-kick! He could and should be retroactively punished. To say that to enforce this would lead to dozens of similar incidents requiring attention each week is simply incorrect. I can't remember the last time there was an incident such as this which went completely unpunished. People can disagree on the severity of a punishment, but nobody who sees that tackle could honesty claim it is not worthy of a ban of some kind. If he had seen red at the time, there would have been absolutely no complaints, so how can there be any now? I think the rugby model is a good one and football refereeing could learn a lot from them. As for citing, they have a panel which convenes every week and they review controversial incidents from the weekend's matches. Punishments are dished out based on video evidence and everyone seems to agree it's a good system. It would obviously be better to punish the players during the game, but catching them afterwards is preferable to inaction.
PO10 Saint is exactly correct about the conditions of the retrospective non-action ruling. It only came in at the beginning of this season.
