Tyrone Mings stamp on Zlatan Ibrahimovic

I just don't think that's a logical benchmark to apply in banning a player.

According to your logic, how many people have died from being poked in the eye? Because that's exactly what earned Dembele a SIX match ban. For the record, I was completely in favour of that ban - as one of our most experienced players he should've known better. But it just goes to show the rank inconsistency in applying any sort of uniform standard for 'dangerous behaviour'.

I've always felt that most of these cases fall into one big category - 'dangerous behaviour'. From there, the length of the ban should be set according to:
A) How much intent there was
B) The context (was it provoked or not)
C) Degree of pre-meditation

This would at least go some way to explaining the length of Dembele's ban, but still leaves me at a loss to explain why Zlatan got off so lightly.

Thank you for having the decency to turn this into a semi-civil debate btw.

 

I agree with those, although provocation is a controversial one - should Zlatan's elbowing get a more lenient sentence as he was provoked by Mings stamping on his head a minute before? I don't think that would be a good precedent to set.

I would also add:

D) The degree of violence
E) The psychological impact of the action

Of those, D is necessary to distinguish between things like slaps and pushing a head towards someone with limited contact, and full blown punches, elbows, forearm smashes like the one that put Mendes in hospital etc. And, imo, distinguishes Zlatan and Mings' cases.

E is the one which more readily applies to Dembele imo - sticking a finger in the eye is designed not only to be a physical assault but also a mental one. The impact is not just "ouch, that hurt" but an overall sense of unease. Same as Suarez and his biting, it's not something you expect to happen in football, and thus deserves a higher level of punishment.

 

They're all hilariously outraged at Mings' ban on Talk Sport right now, having decided it was an accident. Must have been an accident as some Ipswich fan just phoned up and said Mings isn't like that.

It wasn't an accident, if you accidentally stamp on someone's head you apologise to that person and he didn't. He therefore 100% meant to ****ing do it.

The FA just digs holes for themselves that they don't need to as all they had to do was give both an equal ban and we could have all moved on.

 

I don't think you'll find many people who agree with Category E and your definition thereof. The impression we got at the time was that the length of Dembele's ban was more part of the whole 'pantomime villain' narrative we'd been cast in for the closing months of the season as the only team who could potentially catch Leicester and take a large runny dump on global football's fairytale parade. His ban was more of a 'how dare you' than anything else.

Category D is true but almost impossible to assess after the fact. There are so many factors to take into account - or instance, being trodden on the head lightly does almost nothing whereas taking a full-force elbow to the skull can have major repercussions. Surely here the sensible thing would be to do exactly what is done in civil law and just look at the actual extent of harm caused to determine the amount of force used and 'degree of violence'? If Zlatan had come away with mild concussion, bruising to his skull etc. I'd say ban Mings for the maximum 12 games. But as he didn't, it is clear that the FA's assessment is based entirely on speculation regarding the 3 categories I mentioned above. They think that Mings' action was:

A) More intended than Zlatan's (impossible to prove given that the elbow was retaliatory)
B) Less provoked (and therefore far worse). (Again, hard to prove as footage clearly shows Zlatan aiming a clear stamp at Mings just split seconds before)
C) More pre-meditated (he had more time to plan the assault. Again, impossible to say as it seemed to happen in the heat of the moment with a bundle of players on the floor and the ball all over the place)

Which brings me back to my thoughts above about Dembele. We are seeing media and headline influence with increasing regularity nowadays. If an unseen incident is picked up and made a meal of on MOTD and other highlight reels, it seems that the FA is far more willing to taken action due to public pressure. We have had a few outrageous incidents this season that didn't raise a peep in the media and therefore didn't trigger the cranky old men into action either. Most noteworthy of which was Kyle Walker getting kicked in the face (studs first) against Swansea in a disgustingly reckless "tackle" that didn't appear on any highlight reel (because it was 'only' Spurs v Swansea and we won 5-0 anyway), QED no public outrage, QED no action taken.

I fully agree with Chief: both players deserved equal bans of either 3 or 5 games and it wouldn't appear to fans of other clubs as though the FA is playing along to some sort of underlying narrative, influenced greatly by the media.

 

Precedent has been set for elbowing when the opponent was able to carry on without any ill effects - i.e. when Fellani elbowed Huth last season and got 3 match ban. If Mings was marked up or knocked out then I would have expected more action.

This is the first time has stamped on an opponent's head in a while so FA want to set a precedent now.

Also that Mings did not show any kind of sportsmanship afterwards either on the pitch - not even something simple like as holding up a hand in apology at a mistake - or in interviews definitely played a part in determining if it was an accident or not.

 

You may be right around E, and I agree it is quite subjective. The FA's current rule says a greater punishment can be applied based on "The nature of the incident" and "The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally", which does open it up to trial by media and the usual talking heads deciding that some arbitrary behaviour is "not something which belongs in the game", as if elbowing, headbutting and stamping are perfectly fine on the football pitch.

Though I would disagree that someone who gouges another person's eye can ever be described as a 'pantomime villain'. And I don't think you can discount the psychological impact of an incident, otherwise why is spitting punished when it is not at all dangerous?

As for D, I would say that's a lot easier to assess than A or C on your list. As you say, it's impossible to prove intent or pre meditation unless it is admitted, whereas you can judge the degree of violence by viewing the incident and can then establish clearer guidelines. If you watch a slowed down replay of an incident, you can make an objective judgement of the force involved. That is actually what is done in criminal law - the extent of the violence and the extent of the harm are judged separately, so you can't get away with battering someone if they don't bruise easily.

Ultimately though, I do fully agree that the FA is far too media driven in general. We had that a few seasons back when Rooney was caught swearing and slapped with a ban, despite endless evidence of other players swearing at referees and other players which wasn't caught on camera.

Although in this case I would argue that the FA has actually gone the opposite way to the media tide - as Chief has pointed out above the media is now banging on about how Mings' stamp was an accident, and after the match the headlines and pictures were all showing Zlatan's elbow - there were almost no pictures of the stamp and no mentions of it in headlines. Just check the BBC website reporting on the incidents:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39182905
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39168130
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39086674
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39210644

Three pictures of the elbowing, not a single one of the stamp.

 

Am almost certain it was unintentional.
But that doesnt change the fact that he did it because he was reckless.
"I wasn't trying to get back to defend" is not a valid excuse to leap over players on the ground recklessly and just plant your studs down without looking.
It was stupid and he deserves his ban.

 

The issue of intent is important but isn't eveything.

They decided that Zlatan acted deliberately and with premeditation and therefore gave him the standard 3 match ban.

Stamping on someone's head is rarer than elbowing or stamping on someone's leg. I can see why the FA gave a higher punishment. As a professional you have to make the necessary effort not put an opponent at serious risk. Yes, when he jumped he may not have intentionally set out to injure Zlatan but he could and should have avoided planting his foot on his head.

The FA was trying to make sure that this dangerous action does not increase, intentionally or not.

 

Chris Tarrant jumping on the bandwagon!!