daztrueblue91
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 4,068
The irony of the whole thing is that many fans have said Carroll should not have been sent off. By that logic then Yaya should never have been sent off either. Then a lot of people have mentioned how Carroll was hard done by with his ban but yet the same people reckon Yaya should have been banned.
Surely by accepting Carroll should not have been banned means that the FA have messed up. Why on earth do people then want the FA to ban Yaya (which must be the wrong decision by Carroll's standards) to keep consistency? Do people want a consistently shite FA?
In my opinion if the referee would have decided to send Yaya off and we appealed the decision then there is no way it would have been overturned. That's the key difference between Yaya and Carroll. If the FA was to ban Yaya then they would have set an extremely dangerous precedent by allowing the media and opposition managers to dictate who should face retrospective action.
Yaya did not commit serious foul play, he was just petulant and as that former ref pointed out a yellow would have sufficed. This is becoming a major problem for the FA though. There is a huge difference between violent conduct, serious foul play and petulance. The challenge Vidic made on Holtby at the weekend where he went charging in arm first was serious foul play. You cannot go into an ariel challenge running arm first, that is definitely putting the opponent at risk. The perspective needed for Yaya's little 'kick' is that soft challenges are more violent that his 'kick', Van Wolfswinkle was never in danger of being injured by his actions.
However why let all this get in the way of a good rant. There have been many tackles in the past year that has recklessly injured or potentially injured a player which has escaped action. The tackle on the Newcastle lad last year, the one on Nasri and Eto'o's knee high tackle against Liverpool. These are the challenges that need retrospective action, not the little acts of petulance which are bound to happen in a sport with so high stakes.
Surely by accepting Carroll should not have been banned means that the FA have messed up. Why on earth do people then want the FA to ban Yaya (which must be the wrong decision by Carroll's standards) to keep consistency? Do people want a consistently shite FA?
In my opinion if the referee would have decided to send Yaya off and we appealed the decision then there is no way it would have been overturned. That's the key difference between Yaya and Carroll. If the FA was to ban Yaya then they would have set an extremely dangerous precedent by allowing the media and opposition managers to dictate who should face retrospective action.
Yaya did not commit serious foul play, he was just petulant and as that former ref pointed out a yellow would have sufficed. This is becoming a major problem for the FA though. There is a huge difference between violent conduct, serious foul play and petulance. The challenge Vidic made on Holtby at the weekend where he went charging in arm first was serious foul play. You cannot go into an ariel challenge running arm first, that is definitely putting the opponent at risk. The perspective needed for Yaya's little 'kick' is that soft challenges are more violent that his 'kick', Van Wolfswinkle was never in danger of being injured by his actions.
However why let all this get in the way of a good rant. There have been many tackles in the past year that has recklessly injured or potentially injured a player which has escaped action. The tackle on the Newcastle lad last year, the one on Nasri and Eto'o's knee high tackle against Liverpool. These are the challenges that need retrospective action, not the little acts of petulance which are bound to happen in a sport with so high stakes.