MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Only takes one of them not to agree, not all of them.
I agree, the precedent is 'interesting' when the next one comes around. I imagine by the end of the next week there will be one.
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.
No action against Lukaku
- Thread starter barryo
- Start date
Only takes one of them not to agree, not all of them.
I agree, the precedent is 'interesting' when the next one comes around. I imagine by the end of the next week there will be one.
BatleyBlue
Well-Known Member
They've pulled the videos from the Sky Sports articles, so you can't rewatch it on there now.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Rumour has it the panel was ex rag gobshite schmechel, ex rag gobshite Robson and ex rag gobshite Yorke. Seems fair to me.
TCIB
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure why people are getting hung up on Lukaku’s act being one of petulance, or otherwise. As far as I am aware, only Dermot Gallagher, a former referee, has used this as the reason further action should not be taken. The FA hasn’t made a distinction between petulance and violent conduct.
Law 12 of The Laws of the Game says:
“VIOLENT CONDUCT
Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.
In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.”
I assume the FA Review Panel deemed that Lukaku acted with negligible force, and that is why he wasn’t sanctioned.
You can’t really argue with this, as Lukaku hardly made contact with the Brighton player, and he didn’t seem to even notice the attempt from Lukaku. It will be interesting to see how the FA deal with similar incidents that don’t involve a United player though.
Kicking out reasonably hard with the ball nowhere to be seen directly aimed at an opponent meets the requirements for excessive force, surely?
They need more clarity on the rules then imo.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
System needs to change to a majority 3 out of 5 on the panel not a unanimous 3 out of 3. More importantly why are ex players even on the panel.
They aren't.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
They've pulled the videos from the Sky Sports articles, so you can't rewatch it on there now.
Really? Brilliant!
Nothing to hide here, move along.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Somebody in the FA decided this incident worthy a look at.
They had a rule book and had as much time as they needed to arrive at their decision.
Perhaps it would be of benefit to everyone if the reason for it being referred was shown to be incorrect.
They had a rule book and had as much time as they needed to arrive at their decision.
Perhaps it would be of benefit to everyone if the reason for it being referred was shown to be incorrect.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Somebody in the FA decided this incident worthy a look at.
They had a rule book and had as much time as they needed to arrive at their decision.
Perhaps it would be of benefit to everyone if the reason for it being referred was shown to be incorrect.
I don't think that follows.
The referral is made, with the question of "would you have sent him off for this?" I don't know how they make the decision to refer, but it was referred which suggests that that part of the system worked ok.
Edit: And first they have to wait for the ref's report to note that he didn't see the incident fully.
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
I was going to say unbelievable. On reflection, it isn’t.
Those cnuts still exert a lot of pull behind the scenes. To the football establishment, they are still box office (even in decline) while the likes of Brighton are JCLs of fcuk all merit.
If anyone broke the 3-line whip to say he should have been sent off, they’d be admitting the goal shouldn’t have been allowed either. And we can’t have that, can we?
Fcuk off you bent twats.
Those cnuts still exert a lot of pull behind the scenes. To the football establishment, they are still box office (even in decline) while the likes of Brighton are JCLs of fcuk all merit.
If anyone broke the 3-line whip to say he should have been sent off, they’d be admitting the goal shouldn’t have been allowed either. And we can’t have that, can we?
Fcuk off you bent twats.
Last edited:
I agree, he should have been sent off, and should have been retrospectively punished. But with three ex-referees deciding the outcome, and another publicly saying he didn’t think it was a sending off, there can be no surprise about the eventual outcome.Kicking out reasonably hard with the ball nowhere to be seen directly aimed at an opponent meets the requirements for excessive force, surely?
They need more clarity on the rules then imo.
That whole system is corrupt though. How many referees have we seen favour United in the past? They are now ex-referees and eligible for this panel. Who appoints the panel? Riley? An FA member who supports United? They only need to appoint one closet United fan for them to get the decisions. Not only for them, but against other teams too. No doubt Taylor and Mason will become friendly insiders at some point.