You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Adebayor's ban
- Thread starter SambaMike
- Start date
Off goal.com message board. Made me facepalm
yes city beat us and yes city were the better team on the day but adebayor other then ur goal wat else did u do... evrytime u touched the ball gallas or vermallen was there to take it back. u got dis posseded on a regualr basis, if u didnt score that goal then u would have been the worst player on the field. and lets not get started on u just trying to hurt other players, realy shows a lack of professionalism and ihope u get a suspension, p.s... dont say things ur actions cant cash... ur shite
Not only are the articles crap but there are so many idiots who visit there, (myself included of course) must be the pretty pictures and the easy layout.
yes city beat us and yes city were the better team on the day but adebayor other then ur goal wat else did u do... evrytime u touched the ball gallas or vermallen was there to take it back. u got dis posseded on a regualr basis, if u didnt score that goal then u would have been the worst player on the field. and lets not get started on u just trying to hurt other players, realy shows a lack of professionalism and ihope u get a suspension, p.s... dont say things ur actions cant cash... ur shite
Not only are the articles crap but there are so many idiots who visit there, (myself included of course) must be the pretty pictures and the easy layout.
siforest65
Member
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 5
Forest Fan here, thought I'd register and give my take on the celebration incident as we are going through a similar issue with Nathan Tyson and the corner flag waving incident.
I think Adebayor will receive a ban for the celebration, in a similar vein to Tyson. What seems to be ignored is the reaction of the opposition in both instances (the Derby players and Arsenal fans). If Tyson does receive a ban, you can bet that any Derby players caught celebrating in future against Forest will be pounced upon.
What saddens me about these 2 instances is that it is a further dumbing down the sponteneous emotions allowed within a highly charged football game.
Both players wil be banned (wrongly I must add) in my opinion.
I think Adebayor will receive a ban for the celebration, in a similar vein to Tyson. What seems to be ignored is the reaction of the opposition in both instances (the Derby players and Arsenal fans). If Tyson does receive a ban, you can bet that any Derby players caught celebrating in future against Forest will be pounced upon.
What saddens me about these 2 instances is that it is a further dumbing down the sponteneous emotions allowed within a highly charged football game.
Both players wil be banned (wrongly I must add) in my opinion.
Scotland_WC2010
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 199
Should wish the FA's was like the SFA!
Look at this:
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8190130.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 190130.stm</a>
Celtic defender Glenn Loovens is to contest a one-game ban for a challenge on Rangers' Maurice Edu at Ibrox.
Loovens caught Edu with his studs after making a clearance in the final Old Firm derby of last season.
That was worse than Ade's 'stamp' on RVP.
Look at this:
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8190130.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 190130.stm</a>
Celtic defender Glenn Loovens is to contest a one-game ban for a challenge on Rangers' Maurice Edu at Ibrox.
Loovens caught Edu with his studs after making a clearance in the final Old Firm derby of last season.
That was worse than Ade's 'stamp' on RVP.
blue12
Well-Known Member
I heard poll the ar.....e on talksport this morning.
He said something along the lines of technically city could argue that clattenberg was looking straight at the incident so he did not see anything wrong,clutching at straws i know but that is the guist of what he said.
What really gets up my nose is the inconsistency of the fa,why wasnt vidic done for the incident at wigan the other week?
My opinion is that we are going to have to work f....n harder than most to break the top 4 as the press do not like the fact we are about become a real force.
He said something along the lines of technically city could argue that clattenberg was looking straight at the incident so he did not see anything wrong,clutching at straws i know but that is the guist of what he said.
What really gets up my nose is the inconsistency of the fa,why wasnt vidic done for the incident at wigan the other week?
My opinion is that we are going to have to work f....n harder than most to break the top 4 as the press do not like the fact we are about become a real force.
dannybcity
Well-Known Member
The thing with it is surely the incidents will have to be treated separately. The 'stamp' will have no bearing on the celebration which in isolation is silly but not in my eyes ban worthy. Looking at the stamp we can argue that a) the ref was looking right it and b) his lack of intent.
welcome mate. i saw that tyson incident. derby players made it a situation not tyson himself. adebayor has diliberatly tried to wind the arsenal fans up but so has neville in the past and rooney. none have recieved bans. then again thats the united scum getting preferencial treatment as usual. i hope tyson doesnt get banned because its just celebrating a local derby win. what next noone is allowed to celebrate or no banter?siforest65 said:Forest Fan here, thought I'd register and give my take on the celebration incident as we are going through a similar issue with Nathan Tyson and the corner flag waving incident.
I think Adebayor will receive a ban for the celebration, in a similar vein to Tyson. What seems to be ignored is the reaction of the opposition in both instances (the Derby players and Arsenal fans). If Tyson does receive a ban, you can bet that any Derby players caught celebrating in future against Forest will be pounced upon.
What saddens me about these 2 instances is that it is a further dumbing down the sponteneous emotions allowed within a highly charged football game.
Both players wil be banned (wrongly I must add) in my opinion.
Matty
Well-Known Member
The FA will treat both incidents separately, and that's how they'll give him more than a 3 game ban. They'll give him a 3 game ban for the "stamp", and then they'll give him a 1 or 2 game ban for the "celebration".
People are arguing that the Neville celebration sets precident, and that the fact he was booked for celebrating means the FA can't act on that incident. Well, to those people I say this. This is the FA, they can, and will, do whatever they like. They don't care what's been said before, or about their own rules, they essentially make it up as they go. When they don't want to act after the event they "claim" they are powerless, that the referee dealt with it at the time. However, when they want to act after the fact they do, remember Thatcher? They said it was a "special circumstance", which basically gives them carte blanche to do anything they want to.
In my opinion he probably should get a ban for the stamp, he argued, and Bluemoon members have argued, he didn't mean it, that it was accidental. I'm not so sure, there looked like a definite attempt to connect with RVP to me. Imagine if the roles were reversed, if RVP had done the same thing to Adebayor we'd be crying out for a ban and claiming it was assault. As for the celebration, I feel he's been dealt with and the FA shouldn't act on it, however I think they WILL act on it.
What the FA need to do here is deal with Arsenal also. Yes Adebayor's celebration was confrontational, but their fans launched allsorts of missiles onto the pitch, they injured a steward and they basically reacted in a shocking manner. Arsenal should be charged with failing to control their fans. The FA should also look seriously into RVP statement. It's an Official Arsenal statement as it appeared on their official website and should be treated as such, and as such it was inflammatory, it was based on personal opinion rather than facts and it was clearly a very unsubtle attempt to influence the outcome of the incident, to put pressure on the FA and to prejudice the investigation. There should be fines imposed on Arsenal for both incidents. Of course that won't ever happen.
People are arguing that the Neville celebration sets precident, and that the fact he was booked for celebrating means the FA can't act on that incident. Well, to those people I say this. This is the FA, they can, and will, do whatever they like. They don't care what's been said before, or about their own rules, they essentially make it up as they go. When they don't want to act after the event they "claim" they are powerless, that the referee dealt with it at the time. However, when they want to act after the fact they do, remember Thatcher? They said it was a "special circumstance", which basically gives them carte blanche to do anything they want to.
In my opinion he probably should get a ban for the stamp, he argued, and Bluemoon members have argued, he didn't mean it, that it was accidental. I'm not so sure, there looked like a definite attempt to connect with RVP to me. Imagine if the roles were reversed, if RVP had done the same thing to Adebayor we'd be crying out for a ban and claiming it was assault. As for the celebration, I feel he's been dealt with and the FA shouldn't act on it, however I think they WILL act on it.
What the FA need to do here is deal with Arsenal also. Yes Adebayor's celebration was confrontational, but their fans launched allsorts of missiles onto the pitch, they injured a steward and they basically reacted in a shocking manner. Arsenal should be charged with failing to control their fans. The FA should also look seriously into RVP statement. It's an Official Arsenal statement as it appeared on their official website and should be treated as such, and as such it was inflammatory, it was based on personal opinion rather than facts and it was clearly a very unsubtle attempt to influence the outcome of the incident, to put pressure on the FA and to prejudice the investigation. There should be fines imposed on Arsenal for both incidents. Of course that won't ever happen.
Barton says sorry for Etuhu lungeLast updated at 10:09 13 November 2007
Newcastle midfielder Joey Barton insists there was "no malice" in his challenge on Dickson Etuhu during Saturday's derby draw against Sunderland.
The Football Association last night confirmed Barton will not be punished after referee Martin Atkinson decided to take no action over the studs-high tackle.
"There was no malice in it, nor was it premeditated," Barton told Sky Sports News. "If I caused him any injury, then I apologise. Things happen in the heat of a derby game.
"It was my third game back and I'm still a bit rusty. If I was fully match fit the situation would have been avoided."
Atkinson did not get a full view of the challenge, so Barton has escaped action.
An FA spokesman said: "The Football Association can only take action in the case of incidents that are not seen by officials.
"Whilst it is clear that the officials did not see the full extent of the incident, they did see players coming together and to take any further action would be tantamount to re-refereeing the game and this would be contrary to the laws of the game."
No blame has been attached to Atkinson for his failure to take action against Barton during the match as he was unable to see the incident clearly from his position.
His assistant also saw the coming together and according to an FA source, "no-one is suggesting any of them could or should have seen what you might call the misconduct part of the incident".
Under FIFA guidelines, a retrospective charge for violent conduct can only be laid down in instances where the match official does not notice the incident at all.
The Association's 'fast-track' disciplinary system is designed to act as an aid to officials for incidents completely out of sight of the referee or his assistants, such as off-the-ball clashes, and replicates action which would have been imposed had the referee or his assistants seen the incident.
A similar example to this case occurred last season when Jermain Defoe was alleged to have bitten Javier Mascherano.
No proceedings were initiated retrospectively by the FA because while the referee saw the two players clash, he did not see any actual violent conduct from his position on the pitch.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-493332/Barton-says-sorry-Etuhu-lunge.html#ixzz0R0iKwnDS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0R0iKwnDS</a>
Newcastle midfielder Joey Barton insists there was "no malice" in his challenge on Dickson Etuhu during Saturday's derby draw against Sunderland.
The Football Association last night confirmed Barton will not be punished after referee Martin Atkinson decided to take no action over the studs-high tackle.
"There was no malice in it, nor was it premeditated," Barton told Sky Sports News. "If I caused him any injury, then I apologise. Things happen in the heat of a derby game.
"It was my third game back and I'm still a bit rusty. If I was fully match fit the situation would have been avoided."
Atkinson did not get a full view of the challenge, so Barton has escaped action.
An FA spokesman said: "The Football Association can only take action in the case of incidents that are not seen by officials.
"Whilst it is clear that the officials did not see the full extent of the incident, they did see players coming together and to take any further action would be tantamount to re-refereeing the game and this would be contrary to the laws of the game."
No blame has been attached to Atkinson for his failure to take action against Barton during the match as he was unable to see the incident clearly from his position.
His assistant also saw the coming together and according to an FA source, "no-one is suggesting any of them could or should have seen what you might call the misconduct part of the incident".
Under FIFA guidelines, a retrospective charge for violent conduct can only be laid down in instances where the match official does not notice the incident at all.
The Association's 'fast-track' disciplinary system is designed to act as an aid to officials for incidents completely out of sight of the referee or his assistants, such as off-the-ball clashes, and replicates action which would have been imposed had the referee or his assistants seen the incident.
A similar example to this case occurred last season when Jermain Defoe was alleged to have bitten Javier Mascherano.
No proceedings were initiated retrospectively by the FA because while the referee saw the two players clash, he did not see any actual violent conduct from his position on the pitch.
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-493332/Barton-says-sorry-Etuhu-lunge.html#ixzz0R0iKwnDS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z0R0iKwnDS</a>
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,234
An excellent find Manacle. They've really made a rod for their own back with this one.Manacle said:An FA spokesman said: "The Football Association can only take action in the case of incidents that are not seen by officials.
"Whilst it is clear that the officials did not see the full extent of the incident, they did see players coming together and to take any further action would be tantamount to re-refereeing the game and this would be contrary to the laws of the game."
No blame has been attached to Atkinson for his failure to take action against Barton during the match as he was unable to see the incident clearly from his position.
His assistant also saw the coming together and according to an FA source, "no-one is suggesting any of them could or should have seen what you might call the misconduct part of the incident".
Under FIFA guidelines, a retrospective charge for violent conduct can only be laid down in instances where the match official does not notice the incident at all.
I suspected they would try to re-referee it by saying that whilst the referee saw it, he didn't see the full extent of it, but that quote makes it quite clear that it is against the FA's own rules to do that.
Our lawyer's dossier really doesn't need to include anything other than that above quote.