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

Oldyella

Full Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
5,845
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.
Oh come on, really? Zlatan was stupid, end of and deserves a ban for the elbow. They both deserve bans.
 

Ainu

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
10,140
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
I'm fairly satisfied with the wording of that charge. Ibra deserves the three match ban even though I still fully understand why he did it and don't blame him. Then they go on to state that the standard punishment for Mings would be "clearly insufficient". I hope that doesn't mean 4 or 5 games but an actual significant increase, but at least the statement sounds fair.
 

pauldyson1uk

Full Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
55,354
Location
Wythenshawe watching Crappy Fims
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.
Behave , Zlatan deserve his ban , does not matter what the ref did or did not do.
Nothing shameful about the FA charging him it was their only choice
 

OnlyTwoDaSilvas

Gullible
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
21,679
Location
The Mathews Bridge
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.
The panel are there to punish acts that happened on the pitch, not to create an alternate-timeline caused by Mings getting sent off, altering what happened next.

By that reckoning, Surman's red card would be rescinded, as he would have never pushed Zlatan over.

This is football. Not time-travel.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
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:


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.
Exactly. And what about an incident where a defender gives an attacker a sneaky push or pull to deny a clear goal-scoring opportunity? That's a sending off offence. Why didn't Kyle Walker get a retrospective ban for shoving Sterling when Spurs played City? He even admitted it after the match!

Kyle Walker later admitted that he had pushed Sterling in the back as the winger went through on goal. “I wasn’t going to get the ball otherwise,” Walker said. “You have to put him off as much as possible.”
It's the inconsistency in the way retrospective video arbitration is applied that really grips my shit. The FA are all over the place on this issue.
 

RedDevil-85

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
2,886
No surrprise to see both charged,they deserve bans the both of them.
 

montpelier

Full Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
10,637
I suppose the T Shirts saying Mr Friend is pretending that he didn't see it could come out, but we'd look pretty stupid doing it.

The grim possibility is that if they go in hard on Mings - let's say 9-12 games or something silly, they might want to calculate Zlatans ban in such a way that means it is proportionate to what Mings is getting - bring up the throw or the Z stamp as maybe a 2nd red card offence. Also makes them look tough.

#BedWetting
 

Janson

Full Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
6,028
Location
Sweden
Completely deserved, a really stupid thing to do from Ibra. Let's just hope this doesn't affect our chances too much. Rooney will probably replace him because of his experience but hopefully Rashford can get a look in as well.
 

Red Dreams

Full Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
55,371
Location
Across the Universe....from Old Trafford.
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.
Not going to defend Zlatan for what he did.
But in the heat of a game even 35 year olds get emotional.

As far as United are concerned this does not mean we will lose/drop points for all the 3 matches.

I think Mourinho will play Rooney instead and Rooney should prove himself.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,612
Location
London
Not going to defend Zlatan for what he did.
But in the heat of a game even 35 year olds get emotional.

As far as United are concerned this does not mean we will lose/drop points for all the 3 matches.

I think Mourinho will play Rooney instead and Rooney should prove himself.
That's what we all fear.
 

RedCurry

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
4,687
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.
Thanks I just went and watched that incident. I saw it during the game and thought nothing of it clearly. I saw Mings grabbing Zlatan and Zlatan pushing him into the ground. Both players got a talking to for it if I remember it correctly.
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.
That push was no different from Surman's push on Zlatan for which he got a yellow. Good luck trying to get a straight red for a push, especially where the opponent is grabbing you with both his arms.
 

The Purley King

Full Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
4,268
The reason the rule about "if the ref sees it, action can't be taken retrospectively" was so that games weren't re-referreed afterwards and the referees judgement wasn't questioned. That is what is going to start happening now, mainly due to the appaling standard of referreeing at the moment.
There are going to be calls for FA action on all sorts of things and of course they'll be inconsistent in what they do and what they leave and that will lead to accusations of bias etc.
They may as well just say we can review what we want whether the ref sees it or not. The current system is a joke.......

And I do think Ibra should be banned.......
 

KVDP

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
95
Location
Wherever I want to be.
Supports
Liverpool
The panel are there to punish acts that happened on the pitch, not to create an alternate-timeline caused by Mings getting sent off, altering what happened next.

By that reckoning, Surman's red card would be rescinded, as he would have never pushed Zlatan over.

This is football. Not time-travel.

This...
Could not have put it better myself.
 

Janson

Full Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
6,028
Location
Sweden
That's what we all fear.
You can't throw an inexperienced Rashford in there to lead the line with him having that little time in that position. For me, Rooney is the obvious choice, he even had a good game on Saturday.
 

Treble

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,550
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:


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.
Most elbowing incidents are not off-the-ball incidents though. And plenty of them have been punished. Your logic doesn't hold water. Any health-threatening deliberate action deserves to be punished and there is no legal obstruction to do so. Simple.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Most elbowing incidents are not off-the-ball incidents though. And plenty of them have been punished. Your logic doesn't hold water. Any health-threatening incident involving deliberate actions deserves to be punished and there is no legal obstruction to do so. Simple.
Plenty? Ok, then. Name two examples of a player being retrospectively banned for elbowing someone while heading the ball.
 

lonelyred

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,302
Location
Far far away...
If the referee had not seen the incident (Ibrahimovic's elbow), I wonder what he was talking about with him and Rooney for about a minute, while holding a yellow card in his hand.

He obviously did not have the guts to show it and send Ibrahimovic off, but I wish he did - that would mean a one game ban, never mind that we would then probably win the match.
 

hellohello

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
1,819
Supports
Tottenham
The panel are there to punish acts that happened on the pitch, not to create an alternate-timeline caused by Mings getting sent off, altering what happened next.

By that reckoning, Surman's red card would be rescinded, as he would have never pushed Zlatan over.

This is football. Not time-travel.
Haha, good post.

If the FA actually could time travel I fear it could mean the end of the world.

In relation to the charge; I'm surprised so many try to argue Zlatan doesn't deserve the ban based on a technicality. He was lucky to not get a straight red in the first place. If this was any player from another team everyone would be saying 'no brainer'.

Anyway, I look forward to see another striker for a few games, hope Martial or Rashford is given a chance since it could either indicate that they are used in the wrong position or that Jose is right not to trust them as strikers.
 

Treble

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,550
Plenty? Ok, then. Name two examples of a player being retrospectively banned for elbowing someone while heading the ball.
See, I have more important things to remember than such incidents. Might be wrong. Wasn't Aguero punished for elbowing a player in a not-off-the-ball incident?
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,612
Location
London
You can't throw an inexperienced Rashford in there to lead the line with him having that little time in that position. For me, Rooney is the obvious choice, he even had a good game on Saturday.
Cantona has a lot of experience too, should we register him quickly and play him up front?

Rooney has scored 2 goals in 18 league appearances and 1000 mins of league football. He scores 1 goal every 500 mins and very importantly he plays centrally whenever he plays. He still never looks like scoring.

Rashford has 3 goals from the wing and at least he offers some pace and movement. Though I would personally play both Martial and Rashford upfront in a different formation, thus increasing our chances of one of them having a good game and scoring.
 

Giggsy PO

Wimbledon Prediction Champion 09
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
11,057
It's the inconsistency in the way retrospective video arbitration is applied that really grips my shit. The FA are all over the place on this issue.
This is absolutely spot on. It is not a rocket science or healthcare reform. The rules should be pretty clear. Yet there seems to be a different interpretation of what has to be done on every case.
 

Paxi

Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
27,678
Just heard Danny Murphy saying that Mings shouldn't be banned as Mings said it was unintentional and there is no way proving that it was.

Okay, Danny you bald twat. :houllier:
 

RobinLFC

Cries when Liverpool doesn't get praised
Joined
May 20, 2014
Messages
20,935
Location
Belgium
Supports
Liverpool
Most elbowing incidents are not off-the-ball incidents though. And plenty of them have been punished. Your logic doesn't hold water. Any health-threatening deliberate action deserves to be punished and there is no legal obstruction to do so. Simple.
Other than the fact that there is no rule to support their decision?
 

Treble

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,550
Actually, that's a good example. Just googled it. Not dissimilar to the Ibra incident.
Indeed. And they will have it in mind when deciding on Zlatan. They'll be afraid that City will be all over them id they don't punish him.

Tbh, I think that Zlatan needs rest. He will be fresh for April and May.
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
101,180
Location
Barrow In Furness
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'."
People going off on one when they have not read all of the statement.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,929
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Indeed. And they will have it in mind when deciding on Zlatan. They'll be afraid that City will be all over them id they don't punish him.

Tbh, I think that Zlatan needs rest. He will be fresh for April and May.
Yeah, that is a possible upside.

I'm also perversely pleased that the rest of the attacking players have no choice but to step up and prove we're not a one man team. About time too.
 

Danny1982

Sectarian Hipster
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
15,091
Location
Old Trafford
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:


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.
Spot on.

Most elbowing incidents are not off-the-ball incidents though. And plenty of them have been punished. Your logic doesn't hold water. Any health-threatening deliberate action deserves to be punished and there is no legal obstruction to do so. Simple.
He's actually spot on. You're arguing about the wrong thing. It's not about whether Zlatan deserved a red card or not during the game, it's about being consistent. Whether you think it's right or not, this is going to set a precedent. Are they going to retrospectively punish all red card offenses? If I remember correctly another Bournemouth player also went for a dangerous studs-up tackle which the ref only gave a yellow for. It should have been a straight red. Why aren't they retrospectively punishing him?

They're setting a precedent with this ban, which will be difficult for them to follow and maintain consistency.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
16,342
Location
Flagg
It's fairly obvious both should be banned. I know it technically should be "off the ball" and Zlatan's wasn't, but it's so blatant that it'd set a worse precedent not to punish it.

The only thing I don't get is HOW the ref managed to miss both of them. In the replay he was very clearly looking straight at Zlatan as he elbowed Mings in the face. So is he now saying he didn't see it and would have sent him off if he had? Because if he didn't see it, what WAS he looking at?

He was refereeing the game by staring at where the ball was but not actually looking at what was happening?
I mean I really have no qualm with Zlatan being banned for elbowing someone in the face, but that makes the referee very clearly a liar...and if you're allowing people who you know are prepared to lie about what they see, act as referees, you really have no integrity to base anything on.

There's been so many incidents similar to this over the past few months, where a ref seems to have clearly seen something and just decided to ignore it or pretend it was something else.
 

Spiersey

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
7,386
Location
United Kingdom.
Supports
Chelsea
I'd probably go with a 6 match ban for Mings and a 4 match ban for Ibra (extra game for it being premeditated). Obviously Ibra was provoked but a message should be sent saying retaliation won't be allowed etc.
 

hellohello

Full Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
1,819
Supports
Tottenham
One detail though. In fact, it's not positive for United if Mings gets a long ban. Bournemouth play Liverpool on the 5th of April and Spurs on the 15th, if he gets a 6 match ban as many are asking for he will be unavailable and directly benefiting your direct rivals for a top 4 finish.