FIFA Women's World Cup 2023

[jimharri]

They saw it was a malicious, intended/ premeditated action (she thought about where she was placing her foot as she looked down) so, therefore, 'violent'.

What else can you call it?? Correct call.

I agree. And I think she's got off lightly enough there. Violent conduct (punished by a straight red card) is normally a three game ban, isn’t it?

 

[mattcity5]

Did it fit any of the criteria above for the description of being 'violent'?

I'd say not. I'd say she trod on her but without any additional force.

I totally agree that we are used to really pathetic, soft, actions resulting in a red card (eg. the softest of head contact gets classed as a headbutt) and being classed as 'violent conduct', but maybe they shouldn't be? We're just used to them being treated that way.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Lauren James' ban has been confirmed now as 2 games, so I guess that classes it somewhere below 'violent' but above a normal red card offence.

Feels ok to me, but also feels like they make it up as they go along...

Well it works for the FA / PL etc, so why not ?

 

[JRockBlues]

I thnk it's an appropriate ban for the offence. For those trying to protect James by saying that it was just a heat of the moment thing and that she's not like that, I know what they're trying to do but it doesn't wash with me. To deliberately step on a player is a calculated act and there must be something in the player's character in order to perform such. To do so knowing it will be caught on camera is just stupid and petulant. It also shows that perhaps Wiegman doesn't know the players in her squad as well as she should with allowing James to continue to underporform in the match and leave her on to get frustrated enough to commit this type of action.

 

[mattcity5]

I thnk it's an appropriate ban for the offence. For those trying to protect James by saying that it was just a heat of the moment thing and that she's not like that, I know what they're trying to do but it doesn't wash with me. To deliberately step on a player is a calculated act and there must be something in the player's character in order to perform such. To do so knowing it will be caught on camera is just stupid and petulant. It also shows that perhaps Wiegman doesn't know the players in her squad as well as she should with allowing James to continue to underporform in the match and leave her on to get frustrated enough to commit this type of action.

It's probably the first time she's come up against close 'man to man' marking where somebody is assigned to follow her, wind her up and stop her.

Because of how she reacted it won't be the last time either. Needs to be smarter.

You're right though, the coach should probably have subbed her maybe 20 minutes before it happened anyway.

 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

I thnk it's an appropriate ban for the offence. For those trying to protect James by saying that it was just a heat of the moment thing and that she's not like that, I know what they're trying to do but it doesn't wash with me. To deliberately step on a player is a calculated act and there must be something in the player's character in order to perform such. To do so knowing it will be caught on camera is just stupid and petulant. It also shows that perhaps Wiegman doesn't know the players in her squad as well as she should with allowing James to continue to underporform in the match and leave her on to get frustrated enough to commit this type of action.

True, though I don’t think we can grumble with the manager - only second trophy in our history!! She’s shit hot, hope we keep her for another few tournaments at least. Really enjoying this World Cup so far

 

[Mon Autre]

I agree. And I think she's got off lightly enough there. Violent conduct (punished by a straight red card) is normally a three game ban, isn’t it?

In the premier league yes. Not in FIFA rules. 2 game ban seems a compromise to me. You see tackles worse than that fly in all the time.

 

[better dead than red]

In the premier league yes. Not in FIFA rules. 2 game ban seems a compromise to me. You see tackles worse than that fly in all the time.

Some people can't tackle. Some put in bad tackles on purpose. Using moral relativeness does not excuse her.

She stood straight up and purposefully her boots into Alozie's body. She could have avoided doing it. She didn't because she wanted to step on her.

Simply because there is an effort to make her the new face of the Lionesses is not a reason to make excuses for her by anyone.

 

[Bill Walker]

That hypocritical bald ugly twat head of FIFA is racking up thousands of air miles in a private jet all over Australia. Green FIFA.........yeah right.

 

[mattcity5]

Some people can't tackle. Some put in bad tackles on purpose. Using moral relativeness does not excuse her.

She stood straight up and purpose put her boots into Alozie's body. She could have avoided doing it. She didn't because she wanted to step on her.

Simply because there is an effort to make her the new face of the Lionesses is not a reason to make excuses for her by anyone.

I know this isn't specifically aimed at me, but I just want to be clear here, I'm not excusing her at all. She was a dickhead.

However, all she did was stand on Alozie. She didn't exert extra force. There was pretty much no chance of it injuring her, it just would have been uncomfortable for a second or two.

For me 'violent conduct' has to be something deliberate (it was) which could injure a player (it couldn't).

She should not be excused as she could have cost her team the whole tournament with one petty action. But that doesn't mean she should be banned for the rest of the tournament either. Whether the manager should trust her enough to pick her again if we get to the final is another matter. I'd like to think that if we get through 2 games without her, the players who get us there deserve to be involved in the final, not her.