Only if the assault was of a sexual nature.Big Louis would have expected his player to have elbowed Dembele in the throat in retaliation.
Only if the assault was of a sexual nature.Big Louis would have expected his player to have elbowed Dembele in the throat in retaliation.
Only if the assault was of a sexual nature.
Even if he didnt intend to get him in the eye, but he still went for his face, which is a straight red card offence.
Why?Yes, it is. And I'm sure he'll get a ban.
I don't know why, but I do find it a little galling reading sermons about how players should behave from Chelsea fans.
I don't know why that should be??
I've played football and I enjoyed nothing more than raking my studs down some cheeky bastards calf after he thought he was a funny bastard somewhere during the match.
If you do it to someone just because you think you can, that is what makes you a ****.
Ah, so the eyes are off limits during masochistic sex.

In reality, it's Twattenburg who should get hauled up for letting things get that far.
If Costa's head was moving - entirely likely in that sort of situation - then it is feasible that Dembele didn't intend to go for his eyes. As I say, he's not that type of player.
such deluded crapsuch deluded crap
Still you have to remember that these are the same people that used to claim Bale was 'jumping out of the way of a leg breaking tackle' when he used to cheat and dive at Spurs.
He should've sent off about 10 players or actually got control of the game early on, which is his bloody job.So you're admitting that clattenburg should have sent at least one Spurs player off then.
Dembele has not admitted that he intended to injure Costa. It looked more like a playground fight. Keane freely admitted that he intended to cripple Haaland.
There lies the big difference!
... and please don't go on about 'previous' ... completely irrelevant in terms of proving the offence itself .... relevant in determining the length of the penalty.certainly.It's Diego Costa. Dembele should be given the footballing equivalent of a Get Out Of Jail Free card!Seriously? ... so if Huth doesn't admit that he 'intended' to pull Felaini's hair then he has no case to answer? ... super... and please don't go on about 'previous' ... completely irrelevant in terms of proving the offence itself .... relevant in determining the length of the penalty.certainly.
Whatever the provocation, I can see no mitigating grounds for eye-gouging I'm afraid ... deplorable.

I can see no mitigating grounds for eye-gouging I'm afraid ...
So Dembele eye-gouged you too.

Seriously? ... so if Huth doesn't admit that he 'intended' to pull Felaini's hair then he has no case to answer? ... super... and please don't go on about 'previous' ... completely irrelevant in terms of proving the offence itself .... relevant in determining the length of the penalty.certainly.
Whatever the provocation, I can see no mitigating grounds for eye-gouging I'm afraid ... deplorable.
Cut the bollocks! There's a world of difference between hair pulling and deliberately trying to cripple another player - which, incidentally, Keane succeeded in doing!

... but not between hair pulling and eye gouging? ... wow! ... you really have been on the Sanatogen NSIS![]()