Nasri Appeal (merged).

[NorCalBlue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Violent conduct?? Are you lot having a laugh? Private school education I assume. If that is a 3 game ban, then I must live in a different place. What a pathetic game is now played in front of us.

That's what I've been saying. If that is violence I give up on this as a sport played by men. May as well start promoting it as "Wendyball" like a lot of rugby players call the sport.

It's a cautionable offence for this part of the Cautionable Offence law; "Commits an act which, in the opinion of the referee, shows a lack of respect for the game (e.g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, or taunting)".

It's aggressive attitude and inflammatory behaviour with a lack of respect. It was not violence.

Spot on Caveman. Here's the oft-mentioned, but so far (as I can see) not quoted definition of "Violent Conduct" from FIFA Laws of the Game;

"Violent conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

Not sure anyone could argue that Nasri used excessive force or brutality. And for those who are willing to write Nasri off for three games without a fight, remember that it wasn't so long ago that we had a red against Zaba overturned for almost the same thing against Sagna - and there was contact in that case as well.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Alas by the laws of the game now he was guilty so an appeal would be pointless it was a full blooded challenge for sure Nasri should have just stayed on the floor and then got on with the game pity cos we were playing well today could have ended up a big big win if we'd still had eleven on the field.

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Violent conduct?? Are you lot having a laugh? Private school education I assume. If that is a 3 game ban, then I must live in a different place. What a pathetic game is now played in front of us.

That's what I've been saying. If that is violence I give up on this as a sport played by men. May as well start promoting it as "Wendyball" like a lot of rugby players call the sport.

It's a cautionable offence for this part of the Cautionable Offence law; "Commits an act which, in the opinion of the referee, shows a lack of respect for the game (e.g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, or taunting)".

It's aggressive attitude and inflammatory behaviour with a lack of respect. It was not violence.

Spot on Caveman. Here's the oft-mentioned, but so far (as I can see) not quoted definition of "Violent Conduct" from FIFA Laws of the Game;

"Violent conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

Not sure anyone could argue that Nasri used excessive force or brutality. And for those who are willing to write Nasri off for three games without a fight, remember that it wasn't so long ago that we had a red against Zaba overturned for almost the same thing against Sagna - and there was contact in that case as well.

You`ve missed this one completely :


LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT


Sending-off offences


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:


•serious foul play
•violent conduct
•spitting at an opponent or any other person
•denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
•denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
•using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
•receiving a second caution in the same match


A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So it could be deemed that it was an act of Serious Foul Play.

 

[Chi-town blues]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

some of the righteous so called blues fans baffles me

 

[oakiecokie]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

some of the righteous so called blues fans baffles me

Had it been any other player from another Club I wonder what the response of these Blue Mooners would be ?? Slightly different reaction do you feel mate ??
;)

 

[Balti]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Anyone who thinks Bassong should get his his yellow card upgraded to a red is missing the point. He was yellow carded at the time and therefore the incident was dealt with and cannot be subject of retrospective action.

He was yellow carded for the foul, yet he put his head into Nasri, much as Nasri did to him, yet he escaped further punishment.

He should also have had a yellow minutes earlier for a foul, but got away with it.

Bassong equally as guilty

or not

too much to ask for fair and equitable decisions I suppose

 

[MSP]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

That should not be red card if Rooney would do it.

Head move and other bullshit - it's just not red card. Players are confronting like that all the time, it always finish with bookings.

If he did headbutted him on proper way, ok, but that was serious BS, never red card in a million years.

No chance appeal would be successful though.

 

[NorCalBlue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

That's what I've been saying. If that is violence I give up on this as a sport played by men. May as well start promoting it as "Wendyball" like a lot of rugby players call the sport.

It's a cautionable offence for this part of the Cautionable Offence law; "Commits an act which, in the opinion of the referee, shows a lack of respect for the game (e.g., aggressive attitude, inflammatory behavior, or taunting)".

It's aggressive attitude and inflammatory behaviour with a lack of respect. It was not violence.

Spot on Caveman. Here's the oft-mentioned, but so far (as I can see) not quoted definition of "Violent Conduct" from FIFA Laws of the Game;

"Violent conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when not challenging for the ball."

Not sure anyone could argue that Nasri used excessive force or brutality. And for those who are willing to write Nasri off for three games without a fight, remember that it wasn't so long ago that we had a red against Zaba overturned for almost the same thing against Sagna - and there was contact in that case as well.

You`ve missed this one completely :


LAW 12 - FOULS AND MISCONDUCT


Sending-off offences


A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:


•serious foul play
•violent conduct
•spitting at an opponent or any other person
•denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)
•denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick
•using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
•receiving a second caution in the same match


A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area.

So it could be deemed that it was an act of Serious Foul Play.

No, I saw that one, but it doesn't apply any more than violent conduct;

"Serious foul play
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.

A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

It might apply to Bassong, but certainly not to Nasri.

I do understand that referees play fast and loose with the laws of the game and that things become accepted even though they don't follow the letter of the law (e.g. goalkeepers retain possession for more than six seconds multiple times every game without any indirect free kicks being given, players regularly use outstretched arms to hold off opponents without any direct free kicks being given). On that basis, we may lose the appeal, but if the Laws of the Game are treated like a legal document, Nasri only gets a yellow on appeal. That in itself should mean he doesn't get an extra game, even if we lose the appeal.

I think all of us supporting the appeal understand that the FA can do whatever they want, but Zaba's reversal shows it's possible (even for us), and any argument that suggests Nasri deserved the red based on a strict reading of the rules is simply wrong.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

Linesman gave the red card because he saw Nasri's head come off the right side of Bassong's head, which was on the linesman's side of the incident. He must have seen it as a butt, "but" there was absolutely no pull back and butt, AT ALL!

ABSOLUTELY NOT "serious foul play." Jones is one of the WEAKEST referees I have ever seen at the top level. he let some things go (Kompany challenge during run up to second goal) and then gave Clichy a yellow card for breathing on a player!?!

HAVE TO APPEAL, especially after the bullshit Barry ban and the Mancini censure. Can't afford to lose a valuable midfielder (who was having a good game today, too!) for the next 3 games.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Re: Appeal or not? SN.

I'd definitely appeal, primarily because it wasn't the referee's decision. The linesman may have told him it was a full-on headbutt and that's why he sent him off. Watching it again he might think the linesman was mistaken and it was only a yellow. It's certainly not clear cut so there's no way it can be deemed frivolous (a video of RVP's yellow against Swansea would ensure that).

It was a very, very harsh red, but I still maintain Nasri was a knobhead to react like that, firstly by rolling around like a pussy and then by jumping up to act the hard man. Doing that meant he gave the officials a decision to make and there was just no need for it.