Whelan escapes FA action.

[MCFC BOB]

I think the rule should be changed anyway.

As LoveCity rightly pointed out; if Whelan was banned for three games it would not benefit us in any way whatsoever, even though he made the offence against us.

Why not make it so that any retrospective ban results in the particular player missing future games versus the team against which he committed the offence?

 

[mccity]

Probably right as he saw the incident but he didn't see the stamp from his angle.Still a disgrace though and even though that thug and no mark Whelan only ever represented us in a minor capacity i wish all records of him ever being here could be erased!He has previous with us as well,didn't he get Shaunny sent off?

Odious reject!

No different to Balo on Parker?

The difference is that the Balotelli incident was an off-the-ball one; retrospective action can only be taken against actions as such.
The Whelan one was technically an on-the-ball incident, so no retrospective action can be taken.

I don't understand the thought process quite. But that's just sadly how it is.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Its not about who it benefits though...... Its surely about taking a thug off the field of play where he has potentially commited an assault capable of finishing a career.

 

[cleavers]

If he was banned retrospectively it doesn't help us, it helps Wigan, Arsenal, and Reading, so I can't say I'm too bothered.

 

[MCFC BOB]

If he was banned retrospectively it doesn't help us, it helps Wigan, Arsenal, and Reading, so I can't say I'm too bothered.

Basically this, and exactly why the rule should be sorted out.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If he was banned retrospectively it doesn't help us, it helps Wigan, Arsenal, and Reading, so I can't say I'm too bothered.

Basically this, and exactly why the rule should be sorted out.

Should be that they play the next three games against us with 10 men.

 

[paulchapo]

I think the rule should be changed anyway.

As LoveCity rightly pointed out; if Whelan was banned for three games it would not benefit us in any way whatsoever, even though he made the offence against us.

Why not make it so that any retrospective ban results in the particular player missing future games versus the team against which he committed the offence?

How about a 3 game ban and the next time they play us Stoke play without the toerag for the time that was left from when he SHOULD have been sent off?

 

[Danamy]

If he was banned retrospectively it doesn't help us, it helps Wigan, Arsenal, and Reading, so I can't say I'm too bothered.

Basically this, and exactly why the rule should be sorted out.

And what if that's the rule and Stoke got relegated, no punishment?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I want to bring a slight bit of balance to proceedings. I was a corporate guest on Saturday and Whelan was voted man of the match and when he accepted his prize he made a bit of a speech and said a lot of complimentary things about his time at City and the backroom staff there.

Not defending his challenge, mind, which was shocking.

 

[cleavers]

I think the rule should be changed anyway.

As LoveCity rightly pointed out; if Whelan was banned for three games it would not benefit us in any way whatsoever, even though he made the offence against us.

Why not make it so that any retrospective ban results in the particular player missing future games versus the team against which he committed the offence?

How about a 3 game ban and the next time they play us Stoke play without the toerag for the time that was left from when he SHOULD have been sent off?

To be honest I'd sooner he had to play against us, that weakens sJoke even more :)