Re: Kompany's red card and appeal? (merged)

[LawsBackHeel]

What actually constitutes a double footed tackle? Kompany's left leg was well out of the way (to the left and eventually behind Nani) and so despite being off the ground was clearly not being used in the 'tackle'. His right foot then was studs to the side and then actually planted when making connection.

It doesn't actually matter whether it was "double footed" or not. There seems to be some misnomer that, simply because the tackle was 2 footed, it must instantly equate to a red card. There is nothing in the laws of the game that mentions a 2 footed tackle being an offence that must result in a red card. The rule states that the tackle must have been made with "excessive force or brutality", now we can rule out brutality as that would require a degree of pre-meditation and intent to harm, which clearly easn't the case. So, it's the excessive force side of the law Kompany was judged to have breached. This is why I don't thin the FA will act, excessive force is an extremely subjective description, what one man deems excesive another (or in this case most) would deem not to be. Chris Foy, inexplicably as he's supposed far better qualified than most, made the decision Kompany acted with excessive force, it was HIS opinion. This isn't a situation where the referee got it wrong, by that I mean it wasn't a handball where replays show it didn't hit the hand, it was a judgement call made by the referee at the time. It was a horrible judgement, a terrible judgement, but nonetheless it was Chris Foy's judgement. The FA will not overrule him, of that I'm certain. To do so would be to undermine him completely, they would essentially be saying "We don't believe your judgement skills are correct, we feel you are incapable of accurately assessing the laws of the game when it comes to subjective matters". The FA will not do that, regarrdless of the furore surrounding the call, or the obvious error in judgemtn Chris Foy made.

As much as it pains me I have to agree with every single word you have said.

 

[FantasyIreland]

What actually constitutes a double footed tackle? Kompany's left leg was well out of the way (to the left and eventually behind Nani) and so despite being off the ground was clearly not being used in the 'tackle'. His right foot then was studs to the side and then actually planted when making connection.

It doesn't actually matter whether it was "double footed" or not. There seems to be some misnomer that, simply because the tackle was 2 footed, it must instantly equate to a red card. There is nothing in the laws of the game that mentions a 2 footed tackle being an offence that must result in a red card. The rule states that the tackle must have been made with "excessive force or brutality", now we can rule out brutality as that would require a degree of pre-meditation and intent to harm, which clearly easn't the case. So, it's the excessive force side of the law Kompany was judged to have breached. This is why I don't thin the FA will act, excessive force is an extremely subjective description, what one man deems excesive another (or in this case most) would deem not to be. Chris Foy, inexplicably as he's supposed far better qualified than most, made the decision Kompany acted with excessive force, it was HIS opinion. This isn't a situation where the referee got it wrong, by that I mean it wasn't a handball where replays show it didn't hit the hand, it was a judgement call made by the referee at the time. It was a horrible judgement, a terrible judgement, but nonetheless it was Chris Foy's judgement. The FA will not overrule him, of that I'm certain. To do so would be to undermine him completely, they would essentially be saying "We don't believe your judgement skills are correct, we feel you are incapable of accurately assessing the laws of the game when it comes to subjective matters". The FA will not do that, regarrdless of the furore surrounding the call, or the obvious error in judgemtn Chris Foy made.

In which case we may be completely reliant on the rumour that he told Mancini he may have over reacted with the red and has hopefully written such in his report.....?

 

[M18CTID]

The worst aspect of this is the comments of Rooney, Rio and Ferguson who are trying to stitch up a fellow professional footballer. The actions of small frightened men

Every word of that is correct. I don't know why people haven't realised how much the Rags are using Twitter to influence football. Barton has cottoned onto it, and is doing it himself. Ferguson's after match comments were so obviously aimed at not only have the ban upheld, but also at influencing future refs ('Kompany has done that before, but gotten away with it').

They are shit scared of us. Can't wait for the Derby in Apr - we'll hump those cunts.

Every word of that is true, I posted something similar about twenty pages back. Dispicable behaviour from dispicable men representing a dispicable club.

The only thing that counters that is that Mancini suggested Rooney influenced the ref's decision. None of us will know for sure whether that is or isn't the case so perhaps Rooney was hitting back in response to that.

Having said that, with Ferguson and Wio wading in it looks like a proper hatchet job on Kompany. Even Michael Calvin - the journo who IMO has spewed more virtriolic bile in our club's direction since the takeover than anyone else in the media (but who appears to have softened his stance towards us recently) - called it a character assassination.

If our club wanted to turn the heat up on them, we'd be well within our rights to highlight Evra's off the ball elbow on Richards which was completely missed by the officials. That incident has got retrospective 3 match ban written all over it.

 

[phuzion]

When is todays hearing?

 

[alib]

When is todays hearing?

after Ferguson and Rooney have finished training

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

When is todays hearing?

ummmmm Today!

 

[Three_Hat-tricks]

I just looked again at the incident. There's something fishy about that referee but I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Zuriblue]

If our club wanted to turn the heat up on them, we'd be well within our rights to highlight Evra's off the ball elbow on Richards which was completely missed by the officials. That incident has got retrospective 3 match ban written all over it.

As had the Giggs two footer on Aguero.

 

[CITYROBBO]

Anyone know what time we should know by?And does anyone know if it can be reduced?

I'll give you the outcome now if you want....

He will be missing for the next 4 matches.

Agent Bernstein please come to reception. Your assistance is required.

This ^^^^ Bernstein will sort it i have no doubts

 

[M18CTID]

If our club wanted to turn the heat up on them, we'd be well within our rights to highlight Evra's off the ball elbow on Richards which was completely missed by the officials. That incident has got retrospective 3 match ban written all over it.

As had the Giggs two footer on Aguero.

That as well mate. The thing with retrospective punishments is that they only happen if the incidents are highlighted and replayed by the TV companies or if opposing managers complain about them (as was the case when Vieira got a retrospective 3 match ban for that challenge on Glenn Whelan a couple of years ago and Pulis spat his dummy out afterwards).