Tyrone Mings stamp on Zlatan | He’s at it again

SkeppyRed

Lineups Game Winner 2012/13
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
4,064
He actually needs a rest badly and the games he misses aren't too bad.
 

soapythecat

Full Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
3,789
Location
Glasgow resident these days.
feck me, there are some proper drama queens on here. Grow a pair.
Ok, Ibra has scored the lion share of our goals but he has been leading the line in almost all of our games. He has missed some sitters, too.
As long as it's not Rooney coming in to replace him, then I think we will be absolutely fine. Let's hope Martial gets the opportunity to lead the line.
We have been creating lots of chances in games when Ibra has been non existent. His ban could be a blessing in disguise.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,944
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
The FA's statement on this specific case hoists them by their own petard:

"Off-the-ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees. Each referee panel member will review the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it a sending-off offence. For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous."

This wasn't an "off-the-ball incident". I mean, obviously. Like I said, Ibra was literally touching the ball and Mings at the same instant. It's as "on the ball" as you can get!
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
20,935
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
Isn't that obvious? Retrospective bans are only supposed to be used if a referee doesn't see the incident. Otherwise you could use them after almost every game. How the hell can a referee not see an incident that occurs within an arm's length from the fecking football? Where, exactly, was he looking at the time?!
If you think he saw the incident, why didn't he give a red card? And please don't say "because he's incompetent", literally everyone who knows half a thing about football thinks Zlatan should've seen red.
 

GBBQ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
4,808
Location
Ireland
He provided a sample within two days of missing the test and even offered to come back in on the day that he missed it, but was told it was too late. There is no way you could flush your system that quickly therefore no way that it would be the 'same excuse' used by players who would otherwise have failed. It was a shocking decision, one that the PFA was astounded by.
Not suggesting anything about Rio but a lot of recreational drugs stays in your urine for 3-4 days / 1-2 days in your blood so a delay of a couple of days due to missing the test could be the difference between passing and failing. By banning Rio they made it clear that missing the test would be as severe as failing it.
 

SaradM

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 6, 2016
Messages
114
Location
Bristol
bbc: - Deliberate elbowing and stamping are both red card offences, so would result in three-match bans if found guilty.

Stamping on head and elbowing on face should never be in the same bracket though !
 

RedCurry

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,687
If ref had seen and punished Mings for the stamp, there would be nobody for Zlatan to elbow. Shameful from FA to charge Zlatan for this. Another one of those incidents proving that refs in the modern game are obsolete.
 

NecssryEvil

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
531
I know they don't take it into account but, the elbow from Ibra is far less likely if the head stomp doesn't happen, or Mings is tossed because of it. No excuses being made from me for Zlatan, he should be able to control his emotions better at 35. Seen at least 2-3 times he loses focus to revenge v playing the game.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,944
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
If you think he saw the incident, why didn't he give a red card? And please don't say "because he's incompetent", literally everyone who knows half a thing about football thinks Zlatan should've seen red.
The exact same reason players escape red cards for reckless challenges all the time. Referees are human and they make mistakes. He probably thought it was one of those where Zlatan uses his arms for elevation and accidentally catches Mings. Video evidence was never intended to retrospectively correct refereeing mistakes. Because that would create crazy precedents. Like correcting penalty decisions, or whatever. It's supposed to be a way to deal with stuff that the referee doesn't see but tv cameras do. If the ref sees something happen and makes a mistake in dealing with it, then his decisions stands. The alternative is madness.
 

LawCharltonBest

Enjoys watching fox porn
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
15,311
Location
Salford
Mings has a bad injury now anyway doesn't he? So his ban won't actually make him miss any games most likely
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,600
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Yeah that's bollox. Apart from anything else, retrospective video arbitration is supposed to deal with off the ball stuff that a referee couldn't possibly see i.e. if he's following the action and someone got clattered off the ball, behind his back.

Ibra was literally touching the ball at the precise moment of the elbow. It's insane that the referee can get away with claiming that he didn't see the incident. This has now set a precedent where any bad tackle can be retrospectively punished more severely than it was during the game. What a ridiculous can of worms they've opened.
Perhaps he saw the elbow but not the lead up to the contact? If so, then it's possible he was unsure if the contact was incidental or intentional. If he missed the stamp, then there may have been some doubt about Ibra's intent.

That said, he failed to noticed he'd given out a second yellow, so someone's earlier comment about the referee's three day bender/team building session may also explain the Friend's confusion.
 

Stan Jefferson

Full Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
3,258
Location
Yes
bbc: - Deliberate elbowing and stamping are both red card offences, so would result in three-match bans if found guilty.

Stamping on head and elbowing on face should never be in the same bracket though !
Also BBC (next line down even): However, Mings could face an increased ban for his offence. The FA statement added: "Furthermore, the FA has submitted a claim that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for the misconduct committed by the Bournemouth defender is 'clearly insufficient'."
 

Polite Poster

New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Devon
Supports
Manchester City
If ref had seen and punished Mings for the stamp, there would be nobody for Zlatan to elbow. Shameful from FA to charge Zlatan for this. Another one of those incidents proving that refs in the modern game are obsolete.
And if the ref had punished Ibra for throwing Mings to the ground ..........

It happened and they must be punished but I still think the FA will bottle punishing Ibra.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,612
Location
London
If ref had seen and punished Mings for the stamp, there would be nobody for Zlatan to elbow. Shameful from FA to charge Zlatan for this. Another one of those incidents proving that refs in the modern game are obsolete.
Just because the ref missed an incident doesn't mean the player is right to exact revenge by also being violent. There's no defending Ibra on this, he'll rightfully get banned. He's not 20, he's 35. He should have been mature enough to control his temper and consider that the club that pays his wages needs him for the end of season run-in. If they charge him for 2 separate incidents (stamp attempt and elbow) he could be out for 5 matches easily.
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
20,935
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
The exact same reason players escape red cards for reckless challenges all the time. Referees are human and they make mistakes. He probably thought it was one of those where Zlatan uses his arms for elevation and accidentally catches Mings. Video evidence was never intended to retrospectively correct refereeing mistakes. Because that would create crazy precedents. Like correcting penalty decisions, or whatever. It's supposed to be a way to deal with stuff that the referee doesn't see but tv cameras do. If the ref sees something happen and makes a mistake in dealing with it, then his decisions stands. The alternative is madness.
This is what I think happened as well, and the talk to Zlatan afterwards was probably to tell him to cut it out/that he'd be watching him closely from then on.

I agree with you that this is setting a very dangeros precedent because basically everything can lead to a retrospective ban right now, since the ball was where the incident happened. I think the FA just feels that they're kind of obliged to ban Zlatan since there would be a serious media outrage if they wouldn't, even if it means applying their own rules incorrectly (once again).

Zlatan should be banned and will be banned, but on the wrong grounds. Media and other fanbases won't care though, that's just the way it is.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,944
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
This is what I think happened as well, and the talk to Zlatan afterwards was probably to tell him to cut it out/that he'd be watching him closely from then on.

I agree with you that this is setting a very dangeros precedent because basically everything can lead to a retrospective ban right now, since the ball was where the incident happened. I think the FA just feels that they're kind of obliged to ban Zlatan since there would be a serious media outrage if they wouldn't, even if it means applying their own rules incorrectly (once again).
I think that's exactly what's happening. And it's incredibly frustrating. Trial by the media.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,600
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Just because the ref missed an incident doesn't mean the player is right to exact revenge by also being violent. There's no defending Ibra on this, he'll rightfully get banned. He's not 20, he's 35. He should have been mature enough to control his temper and consider that the club that pays his wages needs him for the end of season run-in. If they charge him for 2 separate incidents (stamp attempt and elbow) he could be out for 5 matches easily.
I agree with this. Ibra let himself and the team down by getting wound up by a no-mark defender.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,944
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Just because the ref missed an incident doesn't mean the player is right to exact revenge by also being violent. There's no defending Ibra on this, he'll rightfully get banned. He's not 20, he's 35. He should have been mature enough to control his temper and consider that the club that pays his wages needs him for the end of season run-in. If they charge him for 2 separate incidents (stamp attempt and elbow) he could be out for 5 matches easily.
:lol: Then we'll know the FA really have completely lost their minds...
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,635
Location
London
This is what I think happened as well, and the talk to Zlatan afterwards was probably to tell him to cut it out/that he'd be watching him closely from then on.

I agree with you that this is setting a very dangeros precedent because basically everything can lead to a retrospective ban right now, since the ball was where the incident happened. I think the FA just feels that they're kind of obliged to ban Zlatan since there would be a serious media outrage if they wouldn't, even if it means applying their own rules incorrectly (once again).

Zlatan should be banned and will be banned, but on the wrong grounds. Media and other fanbases won't care though, that's just the way it is.
I really don't see how these are wrong grounds. He fecking elbowed a player on his face, or course he should be banned.

I also don't see how this will cause precedents. You cannot correct offsides and pens retroactively, but deliberate challenges that are either brutal or with clear intentions to injure someone, should definitely be 'corrected' retroactively. I always found the rule that if the ref saw it, it cannot be corrected a stupid rule, and pretty sure they changed it (though I cannot answer how much) in this summer.

In addition, if the ref saw Zlatan doing that, he would have sent him off, no doubt there. Likely, he saw 'something' and in his mind it wasn't intentional or as bad as it really was.
 

macheda14

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
4,645
Location
London
Not suggesting anything about Rio but a lot of recreational drugs stays in your urine for 3-4 days / 1-2 days in your blood so a delay of a couple of days due to missing the test could be the difference between passing and failing. By banning Rio they made it clear that missing the test would be as severe as failing it.
he offered to come back and take it the same day.
 

Schmiznurf

Caf Representative in Mafia Championship
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
12,975
Location
The Lazy Craig Show
Just because the ref missed an incident doesn't mean the player is right to exact revenge by also being violent. There's no defending Ibra on this, he'll rightfully get banned. He's not 20, he's 35. He should have been mature enough to control his temper and consider that the club that pays his wages needs him for the end of season run-in. If they charge him for 2 separate incidents (stamp attempt and elbow) he could be out for 5 matches easily.
"Ibrahimovic was charged with elbowing an opponent and hitting the bottom of an opponents boot with his head"
 

RedMaestro

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
1,496
feck me, there are some proper drama queens on here. Grow a pair.
Ok, Ibra has scored the lion share of our goals but he has been leading the line in almost all of our games. He has missed some sitters, too.
As long as it's not Rooney coming in to replace him, then I think we will be absolutely fine. Let's hope Martial gets the opportunity to lead the line.
We have been creating lots of chances in games when Ibra has been non existent. His ban could be a blessing in disguise.
As long as Rashford's fit it would be unfair on him that Martial plays the #9. He's better as a "winger".
 

RedCurry

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,687
And if the ref had punished Ibra for throwing Mings to the ground ..........

It happened and they must be punished but I still think the FA will bottle punishing Ibra.
I don't know when Ibra "threw Mings on the ground" but even if he did, unless the "throw to the ground" was endangering the safety of his opponent, that would have been a yellow card had ref seen it.

Had the ref done his job right, Ibra would've had a yellow for whatever incident you're talking about and Mings would have had a red for stamping on Zlatan. Case over and the game goes on, no elbow from Zlatan and no second yellow for Surman. Bournemouth would've still played with 10 men but the wrong player got sent off.

Just because the ref missed an incident doesn't mean the player is right to exact revenge by also being violent. There's no defending Ibra on this, he'll rightfully get banned. He's not 20, he's 35. He should have been mature enough to control his temper and consider that the club that pays his wages needs him for the end of season run-in. If they charge him for 2 separate incidents (stamp attempt and elbow) he could be out for 5 matches easily.
He would not have had a chance to take his revenge if refs did their jobs properly. If you're going to charge Ibra for this, the ref should be charged for allowing Mings to be on the field.

Video refs can't come soon enough.
 

Polite Poster

New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Devon
Supports
Manchester City
I don't know when Ibra "threw Mings on the ground" but even if he did, unless the "throw to the ground" was endangering the safety of his opponent, that would have been a yellow card had ref seen it.

Had the ref done his job right, Ibra would've had a yellow for whatever incident you're talking about and Mings would have had a red for stamping on Zlatan. Case over and the game goes on, no elbow from Zlatan and no second yellow for Surman. Bournemouth would've still played with 10 men but the wrong player got sent off.



He would not have had a chance to take his revenge if refs did their jobs properly. If you're going to charge Ibra for this, the ref should be charged for allowing Mings to be on the field.

Video refs can't come soon enough.
So you didn't watch the game ?

Figures !
 

Sigma

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
10,428
Correct decision.

Don't matter if the ref saw it or not, Ibra deserves a ban - it's foolish to argue differently just based off a technicality.

Mings deserves a bigger ban though.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
I don't know when Ibra "threw Mings on the ground" but even if he did, unless the "throw to the ground" was endangering the safety of his opponent, that would have been a yellow card had ref seen it.

Had the ref done his job right, Ibra would've had a yellow for whatever incident you're talking about and Mings would have had a red for stamping on Zlatan. Case over and the game goes on, no elbow from Zlatan and no second yellow for Surman. Bournemouth would've still played with 10 men but the wrong player got sent off.



He would not have had a chance to take his revenge if refs did their jobs properly. If you're going to charge Ibra for this, the ref should be charged for allowing Mings to be on the field.

Video refs can't come soon enough.
I don't think it would be harsh or controversial if Ibra had gotten a red card for this incident 'you didn't see'!
 

RedCurry

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,687
I don't think it would be harsh or controversial if Ibra had gotten a red card for this incident 'you didn't see'!
Yes I watch the game on TV and they didn't repeat any incident where Zlatan should have seen a red except for the elbow. But the way you framed the sentence it tells me that even you aren't sure if there would've been a red card. FA is not retroactively penalizing Zlatan for any other incident, so it's safe to say that this said "incident" wasn't as serious.
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
20,935
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
I really don't see how these are wrong grounds. He fecking elbowed a player on his face, or course he should be banned.

I also don't see how this will cause precedents. You cannot correct offsides and pens retroactively, but deliberate challenges that are either brutal or with clear intentions to injure someone, should definitely be 'corrected' retroactively. I always found the rule that if the ref saw it, it cannot be corrected a stupid rule, and pretty sure they changed it (though I cannot answer how much) in this summer.

In addition, if the ref saw Zlatan doing that, he would have sent him off, no doubt there. Likely, he saw 'something' and in his mind it wasn't intentional or as bad as it really was.
He should be banned but they simply can't support the ban on a correct ground. Pogue quoted the applying article earlier on this page:

"Off-the-ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees. Each referee panel member will review the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it a sending-off offence. For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous."
Retrospective bans are based on this article, BUT Zlatan's elbow is not an off-the-ball incident since it happend right where the ball was at that moment.

This will be a precedent which can be used in later incidents where a ref judges a 'red card tackle' as non-deliberate or non-violent and gives a yellow card. These kind of situations are not open to retrospective action right now because he saw the incident and it wasn't off-the-ball, but that's exactly like Zlatan's elbow - ref saw it and it wasn't off the ball. So if they're banning Zlatan right now, they can take retrospective action against anyone in the future even if the referee saw the incident, and that's not what the panel is for.

Don't get me wrong, I also think Zlatan should be banned. And I 100% agree with the bolded part of your post. But since that's not the way it is right now, they can't base this ban on a correctly applying rule.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,600
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
I don't know when Ibra "threw Mings on the ground" but even if he did, unless the "throw to the ground" was endangering the safety of his opponent, that would have been a yellow card had ref seen it.

Had the ref done his job right, Ibra would've had a yellow for whatever incident you're talking about and Mings would have had a red for stamping on Zlatan. Case over and the game goes on, no elbow from Zlatan and no second yellow for Surman. Bournemouth would've still played with 10 men but the wrong player got sent off.



He would not have had a chance to take his revenge if refs did their jobs properly. If you're going to charge Ibra for this, the ref should be charged for allowing Mings to be on the field.

Video refs can't come soon enough.
The incident where Ibra threw Mings to the ground for obstructing him was a few minutes earlier and not really picked up by the cameras as it was during a throw in. They showed a replay of it once, from a distant angle.

You can complain the Mings shouldn't have been on the pitch after the stamp, but sporting officials have always been quick to punish retaliation. Look at Fellaini and Huth last season. Players are supposed to be better than that, especially thirty-five year olds. The elbow was childish and let the team down immensely.
 

Polite Poster

New Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
786
Location
Devon
Supports
Manchester City
Clever reply. Ignored my entire post. Good on you.
Your post is barely worth a reply but here goes.

Using your logic if the referee had dealt with the feud that was running between Mings and Ibra all game, for example when Mings was thrown to the ground, then the head stamp and elbow may never have happened.

But the referee didn't and both offences occurred and both now fully deserve a ban.

Trying to excuse Ibra is laughable. The guy puts it about plenty, which you would know if you actually watched the games.

I feel sorry for Surman who got booked for a challenge similar to one made by Shaw who wasn't cautioned and then got a second yellow for what I would describe as a light push on Ibra who went down like he had been shot.

The referee was shockingly bad but it doesn't alter the facts that the 2 players are guilty of violent conduct.