Retrospective bans

[rosbif cuisson 'bleu']

Some wonderful blue tints on here. Anyone who thinks that zlatans elbow was worse than thatchers must be on pills.

One of the worst "challenges" I've ever seen.

fucking SPOT ON. EDIT... rates alongside Schumaker's (spelling) on Battiston
Zlatan is still a twat

[john@staustell]

Some wonderful blue tints on here. Anyone who thinks that zlatans elbow was worse than thatchers must be on pills.

One of the worst "challenges" I've ever seen.

The memory fades with age mate.....................

[Original Dub]

[/quote]
Im not on the wind up. I have a different opinion than you. That doesnt mean im trying to wind you up. Whether you get wound up by my opinion is on you.

And yes thats what im saying. I don't understand why he should be punished for something (a stamp) that he didnt do. He got punished for the elbow and thats what shouldve happened.[/quote]

It's not a different opinion though.
You're wrong.

Let's discuss INTENT:

You don't intend to wind up people, but by wading in with a reckless challenge (due to lack of experience, knowledge of the rules and tact), you are inviting punishment..

It's like the opposite of the argument - if you intend to harm another player, the fact that you missed is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

[nottsblue]

5 match ban for Mings.

Disgusting. The FA decided he was guily around 2:45 on the Saturday

[Justified logic]

5 match ban for Mings.

Disgusting. The FA decided he was guily around 2:45 on the Saturday

Interesting...

But agree with you. Disgusting by the FA.

[london blue 2]

It's bullshit.

[Saul Goodman]

Im not on the wind up. I have a different opinion than you. That doesnt mean im trying to wind you up. Whether you get wound up by my opinion is on you.

And yes thats what im saying. I don't understand why he should be punished for something (a stamp) that he didnt do. He got punished for the elbow and thats what shouldve happened.

It's not a different opinion though.
You're wrong.

Let's discuss INTENT:

You don't intend to wind up people, but by wading in with a reckless challenge (due to lack of experience, knowledge of the rules and tact), you are inviting punishment..

It's like the opposite of the argument - if you intend to harm another player, the fact that you missed is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

Interesting that you cant debate the topic but instead turn to insults.

And my opinion isnt wrong is it? The FA agreed with me.

I couldnt care less though. Neither Zlatan or Mings are relevant to my football-watching.

[Original Dub]

Im not on the wind up. I have a different opinion than you. That doesnt mean im trying to wind you up. Whether you get wound up by my opinion is on you.

And yes thats what im saying. I don't understand why he should be punished for something (a stamp) that he didnt do. He got punished for the elbow and thats what shouldve happened.

It's not a different opinion though.
You're wrong.

Let's discuss INTENT:

You don't intend to wind up people, but by wading in with a reckless challenge (due to lack of experience, knowledge of the rules and tact), you are inviting punishment..

It's like the opposite of the argument - if you intend to harm another player, the fact that you missed is irrelevant.

Hope this helps.

Interesting that you cant debate the topic but instead turn to insults.

And my opinion isnt wrong is it? The FA agreed with me.

I couldnt care less though. Neither Zlatan or Mings are relevant to my football-watching.

I can't be arsed arguing with sarky cunts like you and that other blow in, but I'll entertain on this occasion...

So if the fa agree with you, you're right. Is that the way it works?

You can't wade in being a smart little fuck when you don't know the game, the rules or the way rules are applied to different teams.

The majority of people on here have studied all of the above over many years.

I understand people like you need to learn, but just ask. Don't put a tone on like people who see the shit for what it really is are somehow deluded.

All challenges with intent should be looked at. Zlatan attempted a stamp, threw a player to the ground (with far more intent than fernandinho on fabregas) and then assaulted another guy with a full force elbow to the face.

And you think the fa got it right.

Sit back and watch. It will make sense as time goes on. But stop thinking you have it sussed and can afford to be patronising and dismissive when you haven't nearly earned that right yet.

[Dimples]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.

Go figure!

[Original Dub]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw Mings to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.

Go figure!

The fa made their decision.
Apparently that means you've no clue according to our friend above.

[Dimples]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.

Go figure!

The fa made their decision.
Apparently that means you've no clue according to our friend above.

In my book the FA do not make decisions, they protect their investment.

[Original Dub]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.

Go figure!

The fa made their decision.
Apparently that means you've no clue according to our friend above.

In my book the FA do not make decisions, they protect their investment.

You must have been watching the game for longer than 2 years mate

[iwasthere2012]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.

Go figure!

The fa made their decision.
Apparently that means you've no clue according to our friend above.

In my book the FA do not make decisions, they protect their investment.

Corporate decisions!

[patrickblue]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.



Go figure!

If beaker hadn't accepted the ban, I think they would have found a way to blame the whole thing on Mings, and not give Ibranose a ban at all.

[iwasthere2012]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.



Go figure!

If beaker hadn't accepted the ban, I think they would have found a way to blame the whole thing on Mings, and not give Ibranose a ban at all.

Not accepting the ban might have risked the FA looking at the video evidence including his other offences.

Maybe taking the minimum 3 match ban was calculated as being less risk than a longer ban.

On second thoughts, Don't know why they'd worry. Gill would look after them.

[Original Dub]

It is all relative.
Mings gets 5 matches and Twatan gets 3 matches.

So break it down:

1. Twatan threw a player to the ground
2. Twatan stamped on Mings
3. Mings retaliated and nicked Twatan in the head (could have done damage if he wanted to)
4. Twatan threatened Mings before the corner
5. Twatan elbowed Mings in the head (he is always using his elbows - always unpunished)

Who is the aggressor?
4 strikes Vs. 1 strike

Twatan gets 3 matches. Mings gets 5 matches.



Go figure!

If beaker hadn't accepted the ban, I think they would have found a way to blame the whole thing on Mings, and not give Ibranose a ban at all.

Not accepting the ban might have risked the FA looking at the video evidence including his other offences.

Maybe taking the minimum 3 match ban was calculated as being less risk than a longer ban.

On second thoughts, Don't know why they'd worry. Gill would look after them.

Other offences?
Have you not read the the thread?

Saul Goodman has said there was no other offence committed. And his "opinion" has been proven to be the correct one because the FA agree with him.

I shit you not.

[nottsblue]

Cant see a mention of the stamp anywhere on the Sky Sports app. Perhaps it didnt actually happen and i dreamt it.....

[iwasthere2012]

Cant see a mention of the stamp anywhere on the Sky Sports app. Perhaps it didnt actually happen and i dreamt it.....

Not their competition, so I wouldn't rely on them even if it wasn't the Scum.

[Original Dub]

Has Phips Goodman given his/their opinion?

It normally proves invaluable when we all start getting paranoid

[london blue 2]

Breaking news

Scum been charged for failing to control players.