A&H

Mings response..

The Referee Store
The FA were caught in a difficult position because they had to ban Mings for a considerable amount of time to send a message that stamping is unacceptable - even if Mings did it unintentionally (which I believe he did), failing to ban him allows other people to stamp and use 'intention' as a caveat to escape punishment.

Having said that, Ibrahimovic's was an 100% guaranteed bang-on intentional swing, and the fact that it is only 3 matches is, quite frankly, a disgrace.
 
A Freethinker said:
Still think Ibra should have received a similar penalty given his was an absolute nailed on deliberate action.
Click to expand...

I agree, there is scope to debate the Mings "stamping incident" but no doubt as to Ibrahimovic's elbow. In the circumstances I think it's a very well worded statement from Mings/Bournemouth.
 
"My foot did not change course and at no point did I try and move my foot towards his head". Shouldn't that be rephrased as "at no point did I try to move my foot towards his head but at no point did I try to avoid moving my foot towards his head, either"?
Rightly or wrongly, it looks as though stamping incurs a higher tariff than use of the elbow but I think there are a couple of distinctions between the two incidents.
Firstly, the elbow by Ibrahimovic was while challenging for the ball and in my opinion that would be deemed SFP. Secondly, the stamp by Mings would be seen as an off the ball incident and therefore, violent conduct. The FA does take a dim view of violent conduct and punishes VC more harshly than it does SFP.
Further to this, Manchester United and Ibrahimovic accepted the decision whereas Bournemouth and Mings chose to appeal. This would appear to be a lost appeal and the FA could have increased the length of the ban in line with that. My guess is that Mings was originally given a 4 game ban but it was then increased to 5 games.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
In isolation the pictures don't look good but only he knows the intent or not!!
Click to expand...
In these scenarios, the word or phrasing around "intent" has long been removed from the LOTG.
Intent only remains in the LOTG in relation to kicking the ball at another player at a free kick or throwing the ball at another player in relation to a throw in.
 
Yampy said:
"My foot did not change course and at no point did I try and move my foot towards his head". Shouldn't that be rephrased as "at no point did I try to move my foot towards his head but at no point did I try to avoid moving my foot towards his head, either"?
Rightly or wrongly, it looks as though stamping incurs a higher tariff than use of the elbow but I think there are a couple of distinctions between the two incidents.
Firstly, the elbow by Ibrahimovic was while challenging for the ball and in my opinion that would be deemed SFP. Secondly, the stamp by Mings would be seen as an off the ball incident and therefore, violent conduct. The FA does take a dim view of violent conduct and punishes VC more harshly than it does SFP.
Further to this, Manchester United and Ibrahimovic accepted the decision whereas Bournemouth and Mings chose to appeal. This would appear to be a lost appeal and the FA could have increased the length of the ban in line with that. My guess is that Mings was originally given a 4 game ban but it was then increased to 5 games.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that extra matches are only supposed to be given as a result of a "frivolous" appeal, or one designed to manipulate the ban system to result in a ban over more favourable matches?

Even if they didn't accept the appeal, Mings definitely had a strong argument this this was an accidental move, so was justified in trying an appeal IMO. An extra match would be harsh in that case, wheras had Ibra appealed, an extra match would have been justified given that it's so clearly deliberate.
 
Jack Phillips said:
And then you get Suarez biting people which should actually result in a permanent ban...

Mings clearly had no intention to stamp on the head of Ibrahimovic, whereas Ibra clearly intended to cause harm to Mings.
Click to expand...

I repeat myself.

In these scenarios, the word or phrasing around "intent" has long been removed from the LOTG.
Intent only remains in the LOTG in relation to kicking the ball at another player at a free kick or throwing the ball at another player in relation to a throw in.
 
GraemeS said:
I was under the impression that extra matches are only supposed to be given as a result of a "frivolous" appeal, or one designed to manipulate the ban system to result in a ban over more favourable matches?

Even if they didn't accept the appeal, Mings definitely had a strong argument this this was an accidental move, so was justified in trying an appeal IMO. An extra match would be harsh in that case, wheras had Ibra appealed, an extra match would have been justified given that it's so clearly deliberate.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly the FA did deem it frivolous. Maybe Bournemouth and/or the player should seek a wiser counsel such as Man United/Ibrahimovic used?
 
Yampy said:
"My foot did not change course and at no point did I try and move my foot towards his head". Shouldn't that be rephrased as "at no point did I try to move my foot towards his head but at no point did I try to avoid moving my foot towards his head, either"?
Rightly or wrongly, it looks as though stamping incurs a higher tariff than use of the elbow but I think there are a couple of distinctions between the two incidents.
Firstly, the elbow by Ibrahimovic was while challenging for the ball and in my opinion that would be deemed SFP. Secondly, the stamp by Mings would be seen as an off the ball incident and therefore, violent conduct. The FA does take a dim view of violent conduct and punishes VC more harshly than it does SFP.
Further to this, Manchester United and Ibrahimovic accepted the decision whereas Bournemouth and Mings chose to appeal. This would appear to be a lost appeal and the FA could have increased the length of the ban in line with that. My guess is that Mings was originally given a 4 game ban but it was then increased to 5 games.
Click to expand...
No I think it should say "his head made contact with my foot as I was running! :rolleyes:
 
Yampy said:
Quite possibly the FA did deem it frivolous. Maybe Bournemouth and/or the player should seek a wiser counsel such as Man United/Ibrahimovic used?
Click to expand...

no, the FA banned mings for 5 games outright, the frivolous aspect comes from an appeal with no chance of success
 
Yampy said:
I repeat myself.

In these scenarios, the word or phrasing around "intent" has long been removed from the LOTG.
Click to expand...
At the disciplinary level, the code brings in the word intent, because discipline committees can determine intent whereas referees cannot.

Post-match discipline code is not the LotG.

To be honest, I suspect it's because that with a hearing and listening to the argument, we can read intent better than simply by watching an incident happen once-off.

Yampy said:
Intent only remains in the LOTG in relation to kicking the ball at another player at a free kick or throwing the ball at another player in relation to a throw in.
Click to expand...
You missed the corner kick. ;)
 
Jesus, what are you people watching?
He looks down at Ibra and stamps on his head!!! Most deliberate thing you'll ever see
 
The issue I have here is that we have two offences, one of which was possibly / probably intentional, the other which was 100% nailed on intentional. The former gets a 5 game ban and the latter a 3 games ban. Now, we talk about our decisions as referees needing to be credible and consistent, yet the decisions made by the appeals panels are not (and I am totally neutral here in terms of club allegiance). So, for me, they should have dealt with both at the same time, and if they felt that Ming's action was deliberate and merited 5 games, then given that Ibrahimovic's action was clearly retaliation he should have received the same sanction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top