Apparently the FA Review panel could take no action today as the referee Lee Mason had seen the incident but did not feel it worthy of any action! Therefore 2 possible conclusions arise: 1 Mason does not know the laws of the game and is therefore unfit to referee. 2 Mason adds fuel to the fire regarding the perceived bias by Premiership referees towards Suarez. Both however could be true - unfortunately.
As both FIFA and UEFA have quite clearly stated in the past year the FA (or any governing body) can take action even if the referee has seen an incident "if it is obvious" the referee has made a mistake.
The Huth stamping was not a foul tackle. The legality or otherwise of a tackle is always open to debate. It was clearly a physical assault. Therefore Mason's opinion of what he saw is irrelevant. With the video evidence available, the police do not even need Suarez's permission to bring a charge of common assault. Yet again the FA officials prove themselves to be totally incompetent.
I presumed the Ref obviously hadn't seen the incident and Huth would be charged accordingly today.How,as a premiership referee,can you see that incident and take no action? What the **** is going on here?
It's ok lads. The FA are very good at what they do. Look how quickly they acted upon more serious offences like insulting tweets ala Ashley Cole
As a Stoke fan and I have seen that foot on Suarez's chest, I agee that even though the FA will not be taking any further action is wrong IMO. But, as I said yesterday, Suarez followed through on Begovic, I've just heard it from a Stoke fan who was at the game, it was'nt shown on tv last night. He is as honest as the day is long and like me, agrees that Huth should have walked, IMO he could have stepped over Suarez and he did'nt. My 2nd point and I got shot down for this last night is.. Given that Davies a Swansea player was booked last weekend for doing what we all agee Suarez did, he dived. Davies was booked, Suarez was not. BOTH player's we're out of order but the OP should look at both inccidents and not just ignore it. I also wondered if anyone has a comment from Lee Mason or the FA about "Lee Mason" seeing Suarez dive? We can all argue all week about this and that. Both we're bad and both should be stopped now! I think Lee Mason bottled both decisions but that's only my oppinion. He is at fault for not stopping it earlier on in the game.
Fair points and agree with most of that, the only bit I don't agree on is Suarez on Begovic. Having watched it live and several replays since, I believe the ball was there to be won and Suarez had every right to go for it. The best way I can put it is that it was a 60:40 ball in favour of the keeper
Not to mention, he went in with laces and not studs. On another note, the Van Percie elbow on Cabaye was reviewed and judged 'not violent or malicious in nature.' The official doing the review? Howard Webb.
It wasn't really an elbow though was it, it was more of a flat hand and I think RVP was trying to get his arm free. Seen them given but it would have been harsh IMO. His "tackle" on Suso was a lot worse
This outcome has fk all to do with incompetence. at the potter talking about Suarez on this Huth thread yet again about diving, compared ot stamping on someone, fk off mate. The FA say he saw the first part of the incident, it was a foul and then violent conduct, the ref seen the first offence and let it go he never saw the other and so the FA could have dealt with it, the ref never said he saw Huth stand on Suarez chest. Well, stopped paying for this sh!t a long time ago. Pure panto, scripted bullshit, premiership is getting as soap opera predictable as WWE wrestling. Watching games, paying for nothing and not bothering really at this stage, if you can't get justice with video clear as day showing a stamp on a player. As for the potter. Suarez had every right to go for that ball and he did not cream the keeper v Huth pulled kicked and stamped all over Suarez the entire game and all you can talk about is a non existent challenge on the keeper and Suarez diving 2 seconds after his foot was touched. Noone disputes dive but if he's gotten a fair shout from the ref maybe he'd not feel he had to go to such lengths to get a bit of fkn balance. The two issues are very different and its useless talking of his challenge on the keeper, it was NOTHING ffs Apparently to potter Huth stamping and the thugery of his team are far less offences than taking one dive in the game .
Although he doesn't help himself there is little doubt that Suarez is being victimised by the FA and officials and now opposition players have cottoned on and are playing on the fact that , if they make out he was diving then its 99% certain they will get away with it. Huth knew this and stamped on him. Now he has got away with it it's virtually given every thug who dons a football shirt carte Blanche to kick the **** out of Suarez . How come that Gareth bale gets away with a,possibly, worse dive than Suarez but very little mention of it. On MOTD they thought it was funny ( which in a way it is) but the double standards are there for all to see. If he can't het a penalty after being assaulted like he was at Norwich then he never will.
If the referee felt that Huth merely stepped onto Suarez (he was looking the other way) then fair enough, it is a very difficult call, however... For the rest of the world, those of us with a little distance and perspective, it is ****ing obvious that Huth knew full well what he was doing. The FA need to ban him. Simple as that.
"Given that Davies a Swansea player was booked last weekend for doing what we all agee Suarez did, he dived. Davies was booked, Suarez was not" Maybe Suarez can use his booking against Sunderland when he really was fouled and booked for diving as a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card? Or maybe we can use the one Lucas got for diving a couple of seasons ago at the Victoria when higginbottom 'simulated' outrage and innocence after blatantly upending him in the penalty area. But that's a type of play-acting and cheating Saint Pulis the Pious doesn't condemn.
1. if "fans" decide to hate players they are idiots. huth is paid to do a job and was instructed by pulis to go out and kick suarez as much as possible unitl he got a yellow and the shawcross woudl take over. this is the tactic employed and it worked. 2. If "fans" can't stop one upping each over over players doing all they can to win each others teams games and see that its entierly down to refs as the police of such things then it will simply keep on happening, game after game.... mindless repitition of the same you cheated us arguements while refs wander off to thier next game. 3. lee mason had decided, like most refs seems to do.. to avoid at all costs a) booking anyone too early, b) save his cards for the second half thus avoiding a sending off for two cards, avoid that deicsion c) no pens please. d) avoid the suarez press talk. Its clear to me rodgers got into mason's head so thats why the refs have stopped booking suarez the first chance they get for mouthing or diving.... no ther reason... equally its clear the guy was not reffing the game on the merits of each individual act but trying to avoid having any big errors/decisions.. the guy let foul after foul go until the second hafl when he just started waving cards like candy. finally... suarez.. go talk to kagawa whos a total flopper, or torres or 20 other guys who are all at it... pulis is going to tlka himself into a bit of trouble i think cos if he keeps pushing it and singling people out he gets peoples backs up.... rodgers has to ease off now too as he's made his point generally but he's singled out mason for missing the stamp... which was an obvious one. If he singles out another ref then the ref's will push back... and refs pushing back = more reds and suarez suspended. I'm going to predict suarez is booked for diving right after the internationals making it 5 cards and an auto suspension.
MITO, perhaps you have been thinking about this for too lo0ng as your logic has become somewhat skewed. I strongly doubt that anything Rodgers has previously said had anything to do with the refereeing strategy that Mason chose to employ. Only Mason himself can tell if his attitude towards Suarez had any effect upon his refereeing decisions - that is unless you can forward proof that both he and other referees have conspired to deny the laws of the game to Louis Suarez? It is far more likely that Mason had decided to 'let the game flow'. Unfortunately such a mindset led to him missing/ignoring the the Huth assault and the overly robust (yes- I am being very PC there!) tactics used by the Stoke defence and midfield. It is to the great shame of the FA Review Panel that the Huth stamp was not punished severely as it merely encourages more violence on the pitch. When it comes to the fans themselves, there is little or nothing that the referee can do as chanting is beyond his remit as he is solely responsible for the players safety and actions upon the pitch within the rules defined by the FA. However, both the clubs themselves and the police do have a responsibility to take action against fans of both sides who's chants cross the line of banter.
No they didn't! The review is supposed to be of individual incidents. There is no direct link between the two events.
