Red Card for Glen Johnson?!?!?!

[Balti]

Not read all the thread so might have already been covered. What is the ruling regards the referee not punishing something then the FA taking retrospective action, i.e. Adebayor, SWP. Can they ban Johnson for 3 games now if they thought it should have been a red?

No the ref saw it so nothing can be done.

Just said the FA are not doing anything regards Johnson on Talksport for the above reason

Cheats

 

[mcmanus]

With Balti on this. Remember they changed whats his name's yellow to a red for the infamous elbow on Mendes.

Where would we be without rules eh? Yep France..... pub landlord comedian

 

[twinkletoes]

WTF are you on about?

Mancini wants consistency,as do we all.He clearly doesn't believe either challenge merited a red card,as do the majority of us,however,if,in the opinion of the powers that be(and thats all that matters unfortunately....) Komps challenge was worthy of a sending off then so was Johnsons,that is all.

So when has he said that? He wanted Johnson sent off.

Bollox. He only pointed out that there was no consistency as Johnson should have been sent off just as Vinny was. Vinny's card should have never been given and then rescinded but the FA are choosing to make a scapegoat of Vinny.

If Johnson gets away with exactly the same offence, and Mason does not come under scrutiny either, then the FA are hypocritical inept aresholes at the very least and will understandably be inviting further accusations of being biased and/or corrupt.

I am not an apologist for the FA or the referee and I agree that there are inconsistencies but it was obvious by Mancini's argument with Gerrard that he wanted Johnson punished.

Vincent Kompany's statement after the incident could be construed as a defence of the Johnson tackle.

 

[SWP's back]

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

He is neither "crying wolf" nor is he being "hypocritical".

He is simply asking for parity..

He is being hypocritical in criticising Rooney for what he did and then doing exactly the same himself.

No he isn't. He is wanting parity and highlighting a lack of consistency.<br /><br />-- Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:42 pm --<br /><br />

Grow up or fuck off.

More supreme debate from twink.

What did you report me for? Was it breaking the CoC? Hmmm.

Now what were you saying about hypocrisy?

 

[Balti]

So when has he said that? He wanted Johnson sent off.

Bollox. He only pointed out that there was no consistency as Johnson should have been sent off just as Vinny was. Vinny's card should have never been given and then rescinded but the FA are choosing to make a scapegoat of Vinny.

If Johnson gets away with exactly the same offence, and Mason does not come under scrutiny either, then the FA are hypocritical inept aresholes at the very least and will understandably be inviting further accusations of being biased and/or corrupt.

I am not an apologist for the FA or the referee and I agree that there are inconsistencies but it was obvious by Mancini's argument with Gerrard that he wanted Johnson punished.

Vincent Kompany's statement after the incident could be construed as a defence of the Johnson tackle.

Johnson shouldn't have been sent off and wasn't.

Vinny shouldn't have been sent off but was and banned for 4 games as a result.

Where is the fairness or equity in that. Mancini is right to highlight the unfairness, inconsistency and inequity.

One rule for LFC and another for MCFC.

That is either bias or cheating or both.

 

[twinkletoes]

Bollox. He only pointed out that there was no consistency as Johnson should have been sent off just as Vinny was. Vinny's card should have never been given and then rescinded but the FA are choosing to make a scapegoat of Vinny.

If Johnson gets away with exactly the same offence, and Mason does not come under scrutiny either, then the FA are hypocritical inept aresholes at the very least and will understandably be inviting further accusations of being biased and/or corrupt.

I am not an apologist for the FA or the referee and I agree that there are inconsistencies but it was obvious by Mancini's argument with Gerrard that he wanted Johnson punished.

Vincent Kompany's statement after the incident could be construed as a defence of the Johnson tackle.

Johnson shouldn't have been sent off and wasn't.

Vinny shouldn't have been sent off but was and banned for 4 games as a result.

Where is the fairness or equity in that. Mancini is right to highlight the unfairness, inconsistency and inequity.

One rule for LFC and another for MCFC.

That is either bias or cheating.

Yes I agree with the inequality and he is right to highlight it, but Mancini cant say there is one rule for Kompany and another for Johnson.

 

[kippaxblue76]

No the ref saw it so nothing can be done.

Just said the FA are not doing anything regards Johnson on Talksport for the above reason

Cheats

This rule needs changing, how many times has this happenned now, personally i didnt go along with the agenda thing but i am seriously beginning to wonder, it fucking stinks.

Just to add if the ref saw that and thought there was nothing wrong with it he should never ref again.

 

[DTeacher]

Yes I agree with the inequality and he is right to highlight it, but Mancini cant say there is one rule for Kompany and another for Johnson.

The facts are crystal clear.

Kompany was sent off, Johnson was not.

Johnson's wild LUNGE was far, far worse and only an imbecile would argue otherwise.

You keep repeating that Mancini argued with Gerrard. Why don't you write that GERRARD instigated the argument?

Mancini:

"It was worse," he said. "This tackle was worse. Gerrard came to me and said I said something. It was not for Johnson. It is for the tackle. This tackle was worse than Vinny's. Everyone can see it."

 

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

The FA may not be obliged to do anything about this, so obviously they won't.

However, as they are very much accountable and responsible for communicating the rules and making sure that football games are officiated consistently and according to those rules I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an explanation for why Vinny's tackle was a sending off and Johnson's wasn't - for the purposes of clarification.

In fact, we should DEMAND an explanation in the interest of learning what the fucking rules actually are!

 

[Balti]

I am not an apologist for the FA or the referee and I agree that there are inconsistencies but it was obvious by Mancini's argument with Gerrard that he wanted Johnson punished.

Vincent Kompany's statement after the incident could be construed as a defence of the Johnson tackle.

Johnson shouldn't have been sent off and wasn't.

Vinny shouldn't have been sent off but was and banned for 4 games as a result.

Where is the fairness or equity in that. Mancini is right to highlight the unfairness, inconsistency and inequity.

One rule for LFC and another for MCFC.

That is either bias or cheating.

Yes I agree with the inequality and he is right to highlight it, but Mancini cant say there is one rule for Kompany and another for Johnson.

But if nothing changes then there clearly is one rule for Kompany and another for Johnson.......