(I think he did, but...) what if it was an accident? You are now saying any player making accidental contact with another player's head is a red card if it's dangerous? Surely Tom it would have been more credible to say, "Maybe with hindsight I couldn't tell if he meant it" Utter bollox
I said from the start Fran that I agree with that and he probably meant it but tried to be clever and appear to "just land" there. I just don't get that someone can say that one meant the stamp but the other one didn't. Smacks of double standards or bloody mindedness. A panel Of 3 ex-players would have said Zlatan tried to stamp too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...2/Premier-League-3pm-Saturday-kick-times.html The list of 3pm Saturdays kick offs in the EPL. The bigger clubs have the least....we are middling with 10 so far. Getting fewer and fewer....a real nuisance for ST holders.....and I doubt it will get any better.
One of the conditions for serious foul play is endangering the safety of an opponent. If a player goes for a bouncing ball with his foot and catches an opponent in the face that's also a red card. A boot to the head can do serious damage.
No ****? I was a very moderate footballer, and what I lacked in skill I tried to make up for with sheer madness. Hurling myself at a ball to try to score a goal was in my repertoire. In my case my salmon leap would have been judged a 1 on Strictly but I scored occasional goals. I also often collided with various bits of defender on the way. So defender is turned away from me, he's trying to hook the ball away from the goal before Lightning Lambo nips in to bamboozle their overweight goalie and Lambo is foolish enough to stick his handsome mug in the way. Ball deflects into the goal and Lambo loses teeth (this is based on a true story). The defender had no intention of kicking me in the head and yet he should go off on your logic. I was a better cricketer, and got a number of wounds playing that. Players of any sport take risks. Getting a boot in the head is a risk if you start diving at kickable balls with your head. It is surely never as black and white as you state here and if it is then it's madness.
So a player walking backwards and not seeing a player just fallen over behind him, gets a red card of he accidentally stands on his head? Yeah. Good ref.
I used to think that refs new every rule but f all about football,now I'm wondering if they know every rule but f all else.
Alright looks like I have to state the bloody obvious. If the impact is completely unavoidable like the example you just gave then obviously it's not a red. But if contact with the head could be avoided by not going with a high boot or not standing on a player's head like Mings did having seen Zlatan on the ground before he jumped then it is a red.
What about "heat of the moment" and "pre-meditated"? Ibra stood on Mings, who then, within a few seconds, responded in kind, albeit to the back of Ibra's head. A heat of the moment reaction. Ibra, on the other hand, waited for an opportunity to elbow Mings full in the face, and boy did he take it. Doesn't pre-meditated carry a heavier penalty than heat of the moment, in our courts? As in the difference between pre-meditated murder and involuntary manslaughter. This smells too much of big club, little club.
You wouldn't have to state the bloody obvious if you weren't so exacting in every other thing you post. I just don't think you can be certain that Mings meant to do it. I say I think he did, but no way can I be sure. I am sure Zlatan elbowed him on purpose and I'm equally sure Zlatan tried to stamp on Mings. Anyone who has played football and understands the movements would agree.
Aha, in which case you agree with Tom, as the panel only has to decide on the balance of probabilities .
But he was off balance ..... The panel - 3 ex-refs. When will they use some common sense and have a mix on the panel.
To be fair they do. Some lawyer called Stuart Ripley is usually the chairman, and he has kicked a ball before. Could be wrong (who me?) but I think the three ex-refs decide who should be charged then the disciplinary panel decide guilty or not, with the ex-refs' opinion being the sort of "prosecution case". Hope that's confused things even more.
