Still think Ibra should have received a similar penalty given his was an absolute nailed on deliberate action.
In these scenarios, the word or phrasing around "intent" has long been removed from the LOTG.In isolation the pictures don't look good but only he knows the intent or not!!
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?"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.
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.
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.
No I think it should say "his head made contact with my foot as I was running!"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.
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?
At the disciplinary level, the code brings in the word intent, because discipline committees can determine intent whereas referees cannot.I repeat myself.
In these scenarios, the word or phrasing around "intent" has long been removed from the LOTG.
You missed the corner kick.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.
Have you actually read what he's said Justref?he knew what he was doing