Sky - Mané Red card poll (official appeal rejected)

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think there's virtually zero chance of the ban being reduced. Corruption cannot be seen to take such a manifest form.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think under the circumstances that was right... Barnes tackle was a leg breaker (he got a 7 match ban)

Barnes didn't get anything, dd he?

 

[Lancet Fluke]

I think under the circumstances that was right... Barnes tackle was a leg breaker (he got a 7 match ban)

I look at that incident and think what Barnes did is more relevant to this than what Matic did. Ashley Barnes' tackle wasn't a leg breaker (it didn't break his leg), it was a potential leg breaker and Sane's challenge was a potential skull or jaw or eye socket breaker. I know people are comparing the incidents because Matic had his ban reduced but there's only one thing there that is actually comparable to Saturday's incident and it isn't Matic pushing someone over.

 

[Dribble]

Once upon a time, in the days of Dave Ewing, God rest his bones, this type of incident was classed as 'dangerous play' and was sanctioned with an indirect free kick. You can never tell, no matter how contrite the culprit might be, whether there was intent or not, unlike some thug who just launches themselves parallel with the ground and takes someone out at the knees or sticks the nut on an opponent. With every law change there will always be some attempt to massage the situation in order to negate the law and put an incident in a 'grey' area. All things being equal, a three match ban for Mane shouldn't be equal to someone using an elbow to fracture a cheek bone.

I see there was another moment of dangerous play in the Wiiiiiiist Hiiiiiiiiim game last night where Kevin Friend, the Whistling Wanker on this occasion, gave neither a card nor a free kick! What it leads to unfortunately is that where players are correctly called for reckless play an attempt is made to show how they were badly treated and the incident ought to be downgraded to the lowest level. Jonny got it right; Jones and Friend got it hopelessly wrong.

There was a match a few years ago (I forget the 2 teams, but I'm sure it was from a European league) where a ball was slung in from the wing & a player went up for an overhead kick which would have been a Goal of the Season contender had the opposition defender not got his head to the ball a split second quicker.

The defender cleared the ball & got booted in his face for his troubles. I remember one of our Referees on Ref Watch saying an overhead kick carries the risk of a sending off if another player got there first.

He said ALL players have been warned about high boots, but Refs are allowed to interpret the danger posed on a situation by situation basis. His advice was very clear; If a player carries out a flying kick like the overhead player (or Mane in this case), he better make sure he connects first, because if he doesn't & ends up injuring an opponent, he's likely to get a straight red.

Simples.

 

[SWP's back]

When you consider the furore over Agueros alleged elbow against West Ham and the amount of red cards you see where the player 'raises his hand to an opposing player and yet we are seeing serious pundits argue that a flying kick to the head shouldn't merit a sending off. Seriously, just what the actual f*ck!?

If you were on the fence about media bias in this country then surely the argument has just been ended by the media reaction to Mane?

Let's ask @franksinatra

 

[dario2739]

Do you still get an extra game ban for frivilous contention – surely the Dippers trying to claim this isn't a 3 match ban should earn them an extra match!?!

 

[Rolee]

Do you still get an extra game ban for frivilous contention – surely the Dippers trying to claim this isn't a 3 match ban should earn them an extra match!?!

I don't think you do, the whole idea of giving the extra game for frivolous appeal was to stop suspended player appealing which allowed him to play next game whilst appeal was being hears.

They've since sped up the appeal process and scrapped extra game for frivolous appeal afaik.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Accepting it as a red card is the sensible stance to take. BUT some of them (especially the plank I work with) actually believe is was Ederson who endangered Mane!

When I asked the Dipper I work with what his view would've been if Mane had got to the ball ahead of Ederson, he said 'Ederson should have received a straight red'.

That's the view in an alternate universe, but in this universe where Ederson got there first, they reckon Mane played for the ball & had his eyes on it throughout (which isn't true), & accidents happen because football's a contact sport!

YCMIU....

That's what 50 years of favourable decisions does for you. Rags are the same, they expect it.

They can't look at two similar incidents & see if theirs is the same, because the one with the red shirt is 'different'.

Unfortunately plenty at Sky, in the media in general & plenty of refs, do the same.

 

[petrusha]

That's what 50 years of favourable decisions does for you. Rags are the same, they expect it.

They can't look at two similar incidents & see if theirs is the same, because the one with the red shirt is 'different'.

Unfortunately plenty at Sky, in the media in general & plenty of refs, do the same.

Too right - Liverpool had favourable reffing for decades and have always moaned like fuck about any decision they dislike. This one is a more blatantly correct decision, but anyone remember the 'Geoff Hurst' effort by David White in August 1991? I was a modern languages student at the time, spending my summer abroad. I got back to Manchester three weeks after the game, and Elton Welsby was still banging on about the ball not crossing the line nightly in the Granada Reports sports news segments. Makes you sick.

PS - Apologies if that's been mentioned already. I've not seen it and there are too many pages to hunt through to see if there's a reference.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I don't think you do, the whole idea of giving the extra game for frivolous appeal was to stop suspended player appealing which allowed him to play next game whilst appeal was being hears.

They've since sped up the appeal process and scrapped extra game for frivolous appeal afaik.

That was also to overturn the whole thing rather than ask for lesser punishment, so I don't think it applies anyway.