Red Card for Glen Johnson?!?!?!

[Frank H]

If that's the case then we can appeal but let's not go down the route that Liverpool took over the Suarez case.

I think Mancini is slightly hyprocritical to cry wolf overthis after defending Kompany's tackle.

Mancini defended Kompany but was then told that sort of tackle is illegal. So now with that information he wants to see parity. The whole thing stinks.

I understand that but this whole thing just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

We dont need to give the media more ammo to have a go at us.

I agree that City mustn't go down the Liverpool route.

But Mancini was not being hypocritical - not even slightly so.

For Steven Gerrard to accuse Mancini of trying to get Johnson sent off is simply absurd, when Mancini was speaking after the game was over!

 

[johnmc]

Mancini defended Kompany but was then told that sort of tackle is illegal. So now with that information he wants to see parity. The whole thing stinks.

I understand that but this whole thing just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

We dont need to give the media more ammo to have a go at us.

I agree that City mustn't go down the Liverpool route.

But Mancini was not being hypocritical - not even slightly so.

For Steven Gerrard to accuse Mancini of trying to get Johnson sent off is simply absurd, when Mancini was speaking after the game was over!

He didnt say "sent off" he said "into trouble"

 

[Tonster]

As the ref saw it and gave a free kick for the incident you cannot appeal.

What next, are we going to be wearing Kompany T shirts for the Wigan game?

i thought he gave a throw in

If that's the case then we can appeal but let's not go down the route that Liverpool took over the Suarez case.

I think Mancini is slightly hyprocritical to cry wolf overthis after defending Kompany's tackle.

He's not crying wolf over this tackle. It's all about the inconsistency, nothing more. The ref and FA have deemed Vinnie's tackle worthy of a straight red and 3 game ban (4 because he was sent off previously) so Johnson's needs to be treated the same (in fact IMO it was a much more dangerous straight legged, higher challenge) otherwise where is the fairness? We are missing Vinnie for games, Liverpool should be missing Johnson for games as it was the same/worse offence. It's that simple.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Mancini defended Kompany but was then told that sort of tackle is illegal. So now with that information he wants to see parity. The whole thing stinks.

I understand that but this whole thing just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

We dont need to give the media more ammo to have a go at us.

I agree that City mustn't go down the Liverpool route.

But Mancini was not being hypocritical - not even slightly so.

For Steven Gerrard to accuse Mancini of trying to get Johnson sent off is simply absurd, when Mancini was speaking after the game was over!

City will have nothing to do with this.

The FA's own people will look at this based on Mason's report.

He will be asked why he arrived at the decision he did. He did not receive a caution so under rule 3 he can be banned retrospectively without appeal.

I think Adebayor/Van Persie incident was also same.

It's a Kop out anyway (pardon pun)

The FA have put the onus on Mason, but they then give him an out by allowing him cover his arse and fall into line, by suggesting if he had seen it from different angles, a red would have been brandished.

 

[baldmosher]

Kick the FA out of Football.

Leaving.... Ootbll?

 

[samharris]

Kick the FA out of Football.

Leaving.... Ootbll?

Thts unny..:)

 

[twinkletoes]

i thought he gave a throw in

If that's the case then we can appeal but let's not go down the route that Liverpool took over the Suarez case.

I think Mancini is slightly hyprocritical to cry wolf overthis after defending Kompany's tackle.

He's not crying wolf over this tackle. It's all about the inconsistency, nothing more. The ref and FA have deemed Vinnie's tackle worthy of a straight red and 3 game ban (4 because he was sent off previously) so Johnson's needs to be treated the same (in fact IMO it was a much more dangerous straight legged, higher challenge) otherwise where is the fairness? We are missing Vinnie for games, Liverpool should be missing Johnson for games as it was the same/worse offence. It's that simple.

If only it was that simple.

The rules rely on the referee's interpretation so it is subjective and therefore based on his opinion at the time of the incident.

It is the law that is to blame not the referee or any FA panel.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Kick the FA out of Football.

Leaving.... Ootbll?

Thts unny..:)

you`ve got strnge sense o ucking humour

 

[Frank H]

I understand that but this whole thing just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

We dont need to give the media more ammo to have a go at us.

I agree that City mustn't go down the Liverpool route.

But Mancini was not being hypocritical - not even slightly so.

For Steven Gerrard to accuse Mancini of trying to get Johnson sent off is simply absurd, when Mancini was speaking after the game was over!

He didnt say "sent off" he said "into trouble"

Fair enough - but it still isn't "hypocrisy" to point out gross inconsistency.

And it's clear Mancini wasn't trying to get Johnson into trouble, but merely pointing out that since Johnson had not got into trouble, neither should Kompany have.

 

[Tonster]

If that's the case then we can appeal but let's not go down the route that Liverpool took over the Suarez case.

I think Mancini is slightly hyprocritical to cry wolf overthis after defending Kompany's tackle.

He's not crying wolf over this tackle. It's all about the inconsistency, nothing more. The ref and FA have deemed Vinnie's tackle worthy of a straight red and 3 game ban (4 because he was sent off previously) so Johnson's needs to be treated the same (in fact IMO it was a much more dangerous straight legged, higher challenge) otherwise where is the fairness? We are missing Vinnie for games, Liverpool should be missing Johnson for games as it was the same/worse offence. It's that simple.

If only it was that simple.

The rules rely on the referee's interpretation so it is subjective and therefore based on his opinion at the time of the incident.

It is the law that is to blame not the referee or any FA panel.

Maybe, it's the referees interpretation at that time but there is nothing to stop Mancini pointing out where it is clear a mistake has been made and as the ref didn't deal with the incident (he gave a throw) then it can be corrected now with a retrospective red card and subsequent ban.