Atkinson says his view was obscured

City Raider said:
Bigga said:
The source came from Taylor himself.

He was talking about how the process will be handled at the panel and the likely outcome, should Atkinson agree his decision would have changed.

This happened in the later segment of the Breakfast Show.

So he was talking hypothetically? The panel doesn't exist? Sorry - your post read as if this 'was' going to happen.

Regardless of what is said before now, we will know by 6pm if Nige gets a charge.

Simple.

After that, we can look at whether Taylor, who has to be at the disciplinary hearing is telling the truth about the procedure.
 
According to this link no further action taken;

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/04/nigel-de-jong-fa-holland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010 ... fa-holland</a>
 
That Grauniad article:

The Football Association will take no action against Nigel de Jong over the tackle that left the Newcastle United winger Hatem Ben Arfa with a broken leg.

Ben Arfa was stretchered off following a robust challenge by De Jong in the third minute of yesterday's match at Eastlands, which Manchester City won 2-1. The 23-year-old Frenchman suffered a broken tibia and fibula of his left leg and underwent successful surgery this morning.

Because the referee Martin Atkinson admitted he saw the incident at the time and decided not to punish De Jong, the FA cannot pursue the matter. However, the midfielder was today dropped from the Holland squad for their upcoming Euro 2012 qualifiers against Moldova and Sweden.

The Holland coach, Bert van Marwijk, said he saw "no alternative" but to remove De Jong, adding: "I've seen the pictures back. It was a wild and unnecessary offence. He went in much too hard. It is unfortunate, especially since he does not need to do it.


You can see from this small slice how murky things can be made to be. The FA will be taking no action because there is nothing to act on, the tackle was robust, and this word does not imply in the slightest a tackle that was illegal, and how could Atkinson 'punish' de Jong if no offence was committed. Oh, but Our Bert, father-in-law to serial transgressor, Marc, thinks there was an 'offence', despite the ref saying not! Murky!
 
If Atkinson lies and claims his view of the challenge was "obscured" just to help force through an unwarranted retrospective ban for De Jong, I will personally burn his house to the fucking ground.

I'm furious at even contemplating the possibility of it.

Atkinson has previous too; SWP's retrospective ban at Stoke (which also came after the deadline for retrospective suspensions) and the half hour of added time at the swamp.

I'll be indignant with fucking rage should anything come of these rumours.
 
wasn't the linesman, sorry, referee's assistant down that side of pitch ? and i know being in the upper tier of the south stand the tackle looked hard but fair to me and others around, he was 5 yards away and i didn't see him waving his flag for a foul so was his view impeded as well ? two men in authority considered tackle ok at the time.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
That Grauniad article:

The Football Association will take no action against Nigel de Jong over the tackle that left the Newcastle United winger Hatem Ben Arfa with a broken leg.

Ben Arfa was stretchered off following a robust challenge by De Jong in the third minute of yesterday's match at Eastlands, which Manchester City won 2-1. The 23-year-old Frenchman suffered a broken tibia and fibula of his left leg and underwent successful surgery this morning.

Because the referee Martin Atkinson admitted he saw the incident at the time and decided not to punish De Jong, the FA cannot pursue the matter. However, the midfielder was today dropped from the Holland squad for their upcoming Euro 2012 qualifiers against Moldova and Sweden.

The Holland coach, Bert van Marwijk, said he saw "no alternative" but to remove De Jong, adding: "I've seen the pictures back. It was a wild and unnecessary offence. He went in much too hard. It is unfortunate, especially since he does not need to do it.


You can see from this small slice how murky things can be made to be. The FA will be taking no action because there is nothing to act on, the tackle was robust, and this word does not imply in the slightest a tackle that was illegal, and how could Atkinson 'punish' de Jong if no offence was committed. Oh, but Our Bert, father-in-law to serial transgressor, Marc, thinks there was an 'offence', despite the ref saying not! Murky!

Unlike his Dutch side in the WC final, and Van Bommel in particular, who did mean to do it?

What does he mean; "didn't need to do it"?
 
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/2010_10_04/football-dutch-drop-de-jong-after-ben-arfa-leg-break-2010-10-04_l.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images ... 0-04_l.jpg</a>

Ahh, that's pretty obscured that


/Sarcasm
 
pag said:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/2010_10_04/football-dutch-drop-de-jong-after-ben-arfa-leg-break-2010-10-04_l.jpg

Ahh, that's pretty obscured that


/Sarcasm

not sure that's the tackle in question pal.
 
bluejase said:
pag said:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/2010_10_04/football-dutch-drop-de-jong-after-ben-arfa-leg-break-2010-10-04_l.jpg

Ahh, that's pretty obscured that


/Sarcasm

not sure that's the tackle in question pal.

That's Routledge, not Ben Arfa.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.