No because that's rewarding a other teams in the league. My my point was about retrospective bans where the team offended against get no benefit from it (unless they are a direct rival and the other team lose a player for set period etc). In theory say it was a league game and the team was burnley not us, they didn they any benefit from the red but if Costa os then banned against games against e3 of their relegation rivals then burnly are even worse off!
I'm sure you've made an excellent point there- if only I could understand it. You need to set your autocorrect to English
I know. Switching a point would be of benefit to the team that was offended against I've always thought it is ridiculous that a player can get sent off in a cup game and miss leagues games (or vice-versa) as a result. Punishments should be restricted to the competition it occurred in. Much like with Domestic, European and international football are all treated separately.
Never mind that, when one of your players gets crocked he has to leave the field for treatment and you are down to 10 men v 11. That's a much worse Maybe add to it then, a three game ban plus you cannot play against that team again during that season?
But if you're not due to play them again that season then no advantage accrues. Also, what if the offence is committed in the first half of the season and the player transfers in January?
Should Maureen have been sanctioned for trying to influence the ref at halftime? please log in to view this image I reckon the ref should have completely ignored him and walked past or in the interests of fairness and showing parity should have made Maureen say what he had to say in front of Rodgers, the Chelsea manager used to be entertaining at one time but now he's a paranoid lunatic and should be put in his place by the FA.
Good point. but it's hard to separate the punishment of the player and the club especially under the circumstances you mention. Giving a choice to the club of the player fouled opens the door to influencing the outcome of games. It would be problematic. As is if you get banned and you change clubs mid ban you still serve the ban anyway so that new club gets punished, and chose to by signing a banned player, ala barca and suarez
Isn't this pretty much what he acused Rijkaard of, having a half time audience with the ref in order to infleunce decisions in the 2nd half?
I'd like to see better training for refs, the current standard is awful. [just a minor point, I was typing a reply on here a moment ago, tried to delete it, it did that ghosting thing then the screen went blank and my reply popped up on the transfer thread?? anyone else having similar problems?]
Yeah, but I've learned to completely delete everything in the reply box before I type a new post. Not.
Managers should be nowhere near the ref at all unless the ref approaches them during a game but never before after or during half time away from the cameras and always have any discussion recorded on his headset.
Thing is I've never commented in the transfer thread and my reply popped in there - maybe it was because it was the top thread on the main page at the time - who knows.... not being able to cancel a reply is infuriating ...
True. I suppose the buying club just has to accept that he carries the ban with him, if them's the rules.
True i don't blame Costa for his lack of service. I've said it from last year and i still repeat, Hazard and Willian get into some fantastic positions and should deliver the ball early. I can't blame our strikers for not making the runs as they are probably cheesed off with Hazard whos favourite trick is to piss about on the ball (admittedly he's skillful and can hold it up) rather than play it in first time. Whether that's a vision thing, a lack of maturity, or showboating i hope he improves his end product but as of now, they do it time and again. I think that was exemplified when he could have pulled it back to Costa but decided to fek around with the ball and play an over the top ball to Oscar near the end of extra time
