Chelsea vs. Liverpool

yom 1

Sissoko went for the ball won it but followed through a little. There was no malicious intent in it. Essien however went for Hamann, his knee and nothing less. Look at the picture as he hit Hamann he is not looking anywhere near the ball. It was one of the worst tackles I have ever seen and many people feel similar. You cannot say they are similar. Only with glasses found outside the chelsea dressing room, which are believed to belong to a certain Mr. Wenger could Mourhino say the tackles were similar.

Tusky

Sissokos tackle should have been a free kick MAYBE a yellow. I dont think it was intentional, he put his foot on the bal and it rolled away on him, he then ended up standing on the players foot. ( Gudjohsons? ) Essien dove into the tackle, studs showing, foot just below the knee above the shinguard. There is NO condoning that. He was about a foot above the ball, you CANT win a ball like that, he was going for th player. Red card and a ban if you ask me, disgusting, leg breaking tackle.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Are you serious, if you had ever read or posted on the soccer forum at all you would know that absolutely no abuse is tolerated. Regardless of the target of that abuse. Your assertion that saving face is the reason that I have not lifted the ban is about as far off the mark as it could have been. There have been many bans in the recent past for exactly the same offence and I have already admitted that the charter as it stood left some room for misinterpretation, how fair would it be do you think on those users who had been banned, and there have been a few, to have served their bans (without in the most case any kind of whinging) and for us to now allow users away with the same thing they were banned for in only the last couple of weeks ? We have clarified the rules to ensure that another wannabe Erin Brokovich will not come on and starts slating the mods for not playing fair already. (Ooh the face I lost on that, I am still smarting badly from receiving positive input on what I feel is a consultative process)

We received many reports about the posts that lead to these user being banned, so it seems that the users who reported the posts too interpreted the rules in the 'Spirit' that they were meant. In fact one of the users who was banned has held his hands up and said we were right to ban him.

Again I wil state that the bans will not be lifted, if the users who have been banned have an issue then they can PM Talla or I and we can discuss the reasons for their bans.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Thanx

p.pete

Lemlin wrote:

Was Sissoko's tackle a little later not nearly as bad as Essien's? They pretty much cancelled each other out IMO. After all, neither was booked.

Is that the "tackle" where Sissoko's foot was in contact with the ball, rolling under his foot?

I agree with the sentiment 2 wrongs don't make a right and certainly every case should be judged individually. Steven Gerrard has made plenty of dangerous tackles in the past and plenty will argue he wasn't punished sufficiently - that's not what's under discussion in this instance though so I do hope that UEFA take a look at this further.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Tusky wrote:

Sissokos tackle should have been a free kick MAYBE a yellow. I dont think it was intentional, he put his foot on the bal and it rolled away on him, he then ended up standing on the players foot. ( Gudjohsons? ) Essien dove into the tackle, studs showing, foot just below the knee above the shinguard. There is NO condoning that. He was about a foot above the ball, you CANT win a ball like that, he was going for th player. Red card and a ban if you ask me, disgusting, leg breaking tackle.

True sissokos challenge was more down to the ball moving under his foot than him trying to hurt somebidy. Gallas was lucky to get away with one too when he stepped on Kewells foot without going anywhere near the ball.

RE*AC*TOR

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

We have clarified the rules to ensure that another wannabe Erin Brokovich will not come on and starts slating the mods for not playing fair already.

Erin Brokovich? That sounds like personal abuse! Now you have to ban yourself.

The Muppet

Lemlin wrote:

Was Sissoko's tackle a little later not nearly as bad as Essien's? They pretty much cancelled each other out IMO. After all, neither was booked.

Sissoko's tackle was nowhere near as bad as Essiens as It didn't look like there was any intention to kick anyone. Essien appeared to know exactly what he was doing, He definitly should have walked for that one.

What was going on with the lineman/third official ? He made a few offside decisions against Chelsea that were digraceful.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Why would you consider it abusive to be compared to such an upstanding member of society, fought for the rights of all of those good people who did not even know in some cases that their rights were being infringed upon.

The Rooster

Well done Reactor. The 3 guys would certainly get off in the real world due to the wording of the charter - whether or not the charter was written that way deliberately - and I think you'd have to take it at face value that it was written that way deliberately - at least until (if) its amended. Alas the mods are the judge and jury and appeal judge in this world, and its sometimes hard to get them to climb down. On the bright sides our mods are decent people, unlike some other mods out there who we could have been landed with.

I wonder whether the posts came to Talla's attention because they were reported? It is certain there are some people with empty lives out there who view Liverpool threads with the sole purpose of identifying any chance to report a post to get somebody banned.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Liverpool were very lucky on a couple of occasions as the assistant ref was shockingly bad for a few of Chelseas chances, particularly when Lampard was through and was flagged for offside after running past two or three stationery liverpool players.

Actually as far as I can tell only one of the user who reported was a Liverpool fan, the rest were barring one who I am unsure of, certainly not.

p.pete

The Muppet wrote:

What was going on with the lineman/third official ? He made a few offside decisions against Chelsea that were digraceful.

True, it's a shame the major talking points of the match are tackles and ref'ing decisions. Hopefully they aren't officiating at the World Cup

The Muppet

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Actually as far as I can tell only one of the user who reported was a Liverpool fan, the rest were barring one who I am unsure of, certainly not.

I'd blame the Man U Fan's , we get blamed for everything else.;)

PHB

If you have a problem with a moderator, why don't you read the rules and guidelines of boards.ie as a whole, and go to the feedback forum.

If you do not do this, it would suggest that you are just stirring things up for no particular reason, which is exactly what you accused Thanx 4 the Fish for doing, and are in breach of the rules.

Put yourself in a bit of a bind there didn't ya.

RE*AC*TOR

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Why would you consider it abusive to be compared to such an upstanding member of society, fought for the rights of all of those good people who did not even know in some cases that their rights were being infringed upon.

I don't appreciate being likened to an unmarried mother of 3!

PHB wrote:

If you have a problem with a moderator, why don't you read the rules and guidelines of boards.ie as a whole, and go to the feedback forum.

If you do not do this, it would suggest that you are just stirring things up for no particular reason, which is exactly what you accused Thanx 4 the Fish for doing, and are in breach of the rules.

Put yourself in a bit of a bind there didn't ya.

Are you refferring to me?

1. I don't recall ever accusing Thanx 4 The Fish of "stirring things up for no particular reason".

2. As far as I was concerned this discussion was over, so I don't know why you are jumping on the bandwagon all of a sudden.

3. I don't see why I should have went to the feedback forum, as I was only continuing a discussion that had already started with Mayordenis, Thanx 4 The Fish and The Rooster.

But, thanks for your comments all the same

Steve_o

kaimera wrote:

can the ref site essien in his report if he didn't do anything about it during the game?

and can UEFA do anything with the video evidence?

I'd say UEFA will view the tapes and probably charge him with misconduct!!

dougal

Steve_o wrote:

I'd say UEFA will view the tapes and probably charge him with misconduct!!

The problem UEFA have is that the ref saw the incident - gave a free and no more. If UEFA do anything it will be undermining their own officials. They will have to ignore it.

Steve_o

dougal wrote:

The problem UEFA have is that the ref saw the incident - gave a free and no more. If UEFA do anything it will be undermining their own officials. They will have to ignore it.

Good Point!! Is that a case of the ref just not seeing it or did he just not want to send Essien off at stamford bridge??

Thanx 4 The Fish

I do not think that he saw it, i think, and I cannot remember v clearly, could have something to do with the beer, but did the ball not go/get put out of play ? I did not think he gave a free for it and I was watching. If he had given a free for it, then that would have suggested that he had seen it and if he had seen it then he would have had no option but to send him off.

p.pete

dougal wrote:

The problem UEFA have is that the ref saw the incident - gave a free and no more. If UEFA do anything it will be undermining their own officials. They will have to ignore it.

The ref saw part of the incident, he gave a free (correctly) for what was the early part of the incident. TBH I think the ref may have been blind-sided, I think he was roughly behind Essien in relation to Hamann and so probably had an obstructed view. The guys on the sideline are going to be keeping their mouths shut as they should have seen it, although JM managed to miss it from there. Though he seemed intent on watching the stageshow that was Benitez :rolleyes:

BaZmO*

Anybody got a video clip of the tackle?

B.

eirebhoy

SSN free clip:
http://home.skysports.com/broadband.asp?showclip=yes

Did he mean it or was he trying to avoid Gerrard? From the first camera view I didn't think he meant it but the close up one makes it look like he definitely meant it.

Its obvious Mourinho is lying though. I think his honeymoon period is over and he's not the great funny man he was.

Steve_o

True you can see a little bit of doubt creeping into his attitude!!

BaZmO*

Cheers EB.

That tackle was disgraceful and if UEFA don't take action they are nothing but cowards.

There was nothing in the Sissoko challenge though, his foot just slipped off the ball, no malicious intent imo.

I think you're right about the honeymoon period being over for JM.

B.

redspider

Two points:

1. Uefa can and do use video evidence.

2. The bannings are harsh. I think the charter should be changed so that Moderators should first edit/delete any offensive material, warn the poster with a pm, and if the poster re-offends in a relatvely short time, say two weeks, then ban him/her.

The current method of "first strike and you're out" as it stands currently or in the new charter?, on comments that are subjective at times (eg: Erin whatsherface may be a hero to some but may be disparaging to others, a thug may be a term of endearment to some and a horror to others, etc) is like being in a totalitarian environment, and not so democratic, which boards.ie should be espousing in terms of developing communities, etc.

Also, whats to stop people using careful language such as:

"I read where its alleged that <player> is an <expletive> ....",

when compared with
"I think <player> is a <expletive> ..."

is the former currently a case for banning?


Perhaps its worth starting up a seperate thread on improving the charter, rather than hijacking this one, as its off-topic ....

redspider

Tusky

I got banned for a week for this comment.

"Blackburn are dirty bas****s!"

It was in reference to a number of red cards and a rediculous ammount of fouls and bad tackles in a game. Stupid to get banned for something like that.

Dont be at yourself

Mods do seem to be losing the run of themselves recently alright.

I can see why - nobody wants a return to the soccer board of a year or so ago, but a balance must be struck. I don't think this iron-fisted approach is helping things.

[edit]but this isn't really the place for this discussion[/edit]

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

2. I think the charter should be changed so that Moderators should first edit/delete any offensive material, warn the poster with a pm, and if the poster re-offends in a relatvely short time, say two weeks, then ban him/her.

I don't think that works here as we saw before. The mods would need to be here all the time warning people who are unable to get their point of view across without using offensive terms. Everybody knows there is a zero tolerance so have no reason to complain when they breach the charter.

IMO the most important aspect of modding this forum in particular is impartiality and to have consistancy in decisions made. Whether we agree with the bannings today or not they are consistant with recent ones. Users here have to realise they have a part to play in keeping things on an even keel and recognize the difficulties in modding this forum.

redspider wrote:

The current method of "first strike and you're out" as it stands currently or in the new charter?, on comments that are subjective at times (eg: Erin whatsherface may be a hero to some but may be disparaging to others, a thug may be a term of endearment to some and a horror to others, etc) is like being in a totalitarian environment, and not so democratic, which boards.ie should be espousing in terms of developing communities, etc.

There does appear to be a few members here who are very easily offended and resort to reporting for very little . I would favour the username of anyone reporting a post being made public for this forum. That may help in illiminating one upmanship reporting of posts as alledged .

redspider wrote:

Also, whats to stop people using careful language such as:

"I read where its alleged that <player> is an <expletive> ....",

when compared with
"I think <player> is a <expletive> ..."

is the former currently a case for banning?

Perhaps its worth starting up a seperate thread on improving the charter, rather than hijacking this one, as its off-topic ....

Try it an see,

A thread here as opposed to the feedback forum would have the benefit focusing the discussion to just members of this forum if the mods deemed such useful.

BaZmO*

The Muppet wrote:

I would favour the username of anyone reporting a post being made public for this forum. That may help in illiminating one upmanship reporting of posts as alledged.

Are you mad? If ever there was a case for "one upmanship" that's it right there.

It'd never work because you'd have a never ending game of tit for tat between posters.

I don't see what the big fuss is. The rules are simple, if you are abusive to other posters or about people, well then you get banned. Thems the rules and everybody knows that. Simple.

B.

~Rebel~

Cheers for the link EB, just watched it a few times and whether he meant it or not should have walked for sheer recklessness. If you watch the ball, it never goes, or even looks like going anywhere near where Essiens leg comes flying in. There was absolutely no chance he could have gotten the ball the way he came in. If it does come to a disciplinary board i've no doubt he'll get some sort of punishment if just for the recklessness of it. Obviously will be much worse if found to be malicious. Looking at it and pausing just as he comes into the picture he does seem to be looking at where his foot is landing and just as he makes contact he looks away and then they all fall over so seems like he knew where he was landing. All in all, certainly a bad one anyway.

sharkman

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has given Uefa the green light to take disciplinary action against Michael Essien for the Chelsea midfielder's foul on Liverpool's Dietmar Hamann during last night's Champions League game Stamford Bridge.


Over the top: Chelsea's Michael Essien
Blatter said: "In 1994 the Fifa executive committee took a decision that the disciplinary committee can use television evidence in the case of infractions against the laws of the game that have not been identified by the referee.

"As this happened in a Champions League game it is up to Uefa to decide whether to review video evidence."

Essien's knee-high lunge at Hamann, described as "the worst tackle I have experienced in my career" by the Liverpool player, was caught on camera, however German referee Herbert Frandel failed to take any action.

European football's governing body are awaiting reports from Frandel and match delegate Indrek Kannik of Spain.

They are expected to arrive within the next few days and it is possible that Frandel rather than essien who is disciplined.

A Uefa spokesman said: "The fact that he did not show any card does not mean that Uefa later can say it was an incident for a red card or yellow.

"But there will be evaluation of the referee as always by the match observer."

sharkman

BaZmO* wrote:

Cheers EB.
There was nothing in the Sissoko challenge though, his foot just slipped off the ball, no malicious intent imo.

B.

I agree , when you watch it again you can see that he goes for the ball , it gets away from him and his foot slips over onto the other palyers ankle .

Gallas was worse .

Kingp35

I have only just seen the tackle for the first time and it was absolutely atrocious. That is two horrible tackles Essien has done in a short space of time and he deserves to be disciplined for it. there is no call for that kind of thing in football. An absolute disgrace it was.

garred

Yeah it was a shocking tackle, Haman did'nt even have the ball. Anyone going for the knee like that should get a year ban, I mean you could wreck a players career. It reminded me of the tackle on Irwin a few years ago against Feyenord where the player did'nt even get a card. There was uproar over that aswell.

growler

sharkman wrote:

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has given Uefa the green light to take disciplinary action against Michael Essien for the Chelsea midfielder's foul on Liverpool's Dietmar Hamann during last night's Champions League game Stamford Bridge.."

no surprise that UEFA will want to have another go at Chelsea, keep the new boys with the money in their place etc. , I fully agree it was a terrible tackle and worthy of a card. What does pizz me off is how inconsistant UEFA can be in their application of the rules leaving plenty of scope for biased actions. I also hated the way Mourinho did a Wenger and said he saw nothing, thought he was a bit bigger than that. No matter how annoyed he may have been about the defensive tactics of Liverpool I don't think he wass anywhere near annoyed as a lot of chelsea fans who expected better from the lads regardless of the unimportance of the game to the managers, especially when paying £48 for the priviledge.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

I don't think that works here as we saw before. The mods would need to be here all the time warning people who are unable to get their point of view across without using offensive terms. Everybody knows there is a zero tolerance so have no reason to complain when they breach the charter.

But the problem is what defines a term as offensive? Its subjective, so with zero tolerance the "thought police" can ban you. For example, I might call a player a muppet, or a poster a muppet, that may get me banned, or it may not, I wouldn't know unless there was a long list of offensive terms documented in the charter, and even then that wouldnt stop a poster from posting a new unlisted derogatory remark, such as "You are an Erin Bronkovich".

Zero tolerance is stupid tolerance as far as I'm concerned in the football forum, and I'd say if we had a poll on the forum I would be backed up. Its not as if we are discussing the finer points of ballet, although some of the players these days would make you wonder, there is swearing in the sport - lip read any match these days and you will see that, so swearing, expletives and offensive remarks are common vernacular in football and many sports. I dont think we need to use them here, as we can avoid them, but zero tolerance is ludicrously [select your own expletive here].

Giving posters the opportunity to be warned is not an unworkable system and no more work than it is for the mods at present.

redspider

therecklessone

Is it FIGHT TEH POWAH week on boards?

kleefarr

I don't ever remember such a fuss being made about other tackles that were bad or even worse. It's simply a case of Liverpool crying and wingeing about it because that's what they're like and the media trying to sell papers and jump on the "lets put Chelsea down" band waggon.

Was there any punishment for other tackles of this nature.
how about this one? I don't think so.

Hamann on Damien Francis of Norwich, last season.

redspider

kleefarr wrote:

I don't ever remember such a fuss being made about other tackles that were bad or even worse. Was there any punishment for other tackles of this nature. how about this one? I don't think so. Hamann on Damien Francis of Norwich, last season.

I agree that all bad tackles should get punished. And you are right, Hamann and many other players do put in bad tackles, and get away with it. The point is though, whether you think that is ok or not.

I dont. I think it should be stamped out of the game, and using video evidence and post match punishments is one way of acting as a deterrent. The reason for the fuss is the high profile of this game, it being on a European stage and all that, even Sepp Blatter was watching it, whereas he didnt watch Liv/Norwich last season!

If Hamann got nothing for that one, he should have. But that does not deter that Essien should get something for this one. As someone else rightly pointed out, two wrongs dont make a right.

If we want skill to flourish in the sport, then deterring fouls such as this is the way to go.

redspider

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

Zero tolerance is stupid tolerance as far as I'm concerned in the football forum, and I'd say if we had a poll on the forum I would be backed up. Its not as if we are discussing the finer points of ballet, although some of the players these days would make you wonder, there is swearing in the sport - lip read any match these days and you will see that, so swearing, expletives and offensive remarks are common vernacular in football and many sports. I dont think we need to use them here, as we can avoid them, but zero tolerance is ludicrously [select your own expletive here].

Giving posters the opportunity to be warned is not an unworkable system and no more work than it is for the mods at present.

redspider

Stupid or not zero tolerance or a free for all are the the only workable solutions.
You may well be backed by the majority if it were polled but that does not necessarily mean it would be the right for the forum. It's not long ago that this forum was shut down because of such issues. If there were a poll asking members that were here then which is better the forum then or as it is now I suggest now would be the winner.

Bazmo wrote:

Are you mad? If ever there was a case for "one upmanship" that's it right there.

Mad as a hatter but that beside the point. I think if the report was public you would only get genuine reports instead of what appears to be happening now. I dont think anyone would want to be seen to be making stupid reports by the rest of the forum and I doubt it would develop in the way you suggest .

therecklessone

The Muppet wrote:

Mad as a hatter but that beside the point. I think if the report was public you would only get genuine reports instead of what appears to be happening now.

What appears to be happening now Muppet? Have you read the offending posts, or are you buying into the "its just bitter Liverpool fans" as well?

I reported all three posts, and you know I'm not a Liverpool fan.

Its the mods decision to ban or not, regardless of who reported the post, or why for that matter.

Thanx 4 The Fish

redspider wrote:

Giving posters the opportunity to be warned is not an unworkable system and no more work than it is for the mods at present.
redspider

The posters have two opportunities to be warned. They have two temp bans. Surely that is a warning, would you not consider it fair that before a user is perm banned they should have a temp ban, allowing them the chance to learn from thier mistakes. Or perhaps we could warn a user and then perm ban them. As has already been shown in the change of the access requests system, the mods are open to new ideas as long as they are not just essentially mod bashing threads, saying that the "thought police" will come down on you for expressing an opinion is unfair and I think that the large majority of posters here will agree that the system that is run here is fair.

Here's a novel idea, come up with some reasonable suggestions, put them across in a reasonable fashion, remove the "insert random expletive here" crap make, put a post together and see how it goes down.

Might I just give you a little history lesson thought before you go off on your quest. When we did not operate a zero tolerance policy, it took four mods close on a 2-3 hours a day to monitor, clean up and babysit the soccer board. They were accused of bias, all of the time by those who were banned, those who knew the people who were banned and other random people who just decided to post on threads for the fun of it. Threads often descended into very aggressive bouts of swearing and expletive exchange after which the users were banned but after much complaining and some campaigning by their mates were reallowed access. There were somewhere between 40 & 70 reported posts on a bad day and the mods had to sift through them daily cleaning up, editing posts and being all round wetnurses.

Members of boards who had been involved on the soccer forum for years left in their droves as they did not want to post there anymore quoting their reasons as any between the Signal:Noise being very low and being afraid that any threads that they got involved in would just turn into a spamfest and they would be a target of flaming and trolls.

Now there are two mods, I like to think that we do a decent job, thankfully there is not much to do for the most case and a massive proportion of the 800 or so regular posters are courteous and civil and understand that there is no need to launch into some nature of personal attack on a poster/personality/footballer just because they feel like it. Civility abounds and the number of bannings per month is at an all time low.

If you could suggest a system that was more or less self policing (as is the current one to a large extent). That does not mean that we will have to take on 2 or 3 more mods on a full time basis working shifts to cover all the live long day and alsokeeps my inbox relatively clean then please do, in fact I am looking forward to your suggestions.

The Rooster

You certainly can't blame the mods for banning someone when a post is reported that violates the charter. The mods have simply no choice in such circumstances.

And I can understand someone reporting a post that personally causes them offence. They should certainly report the post and see if the mods believe the post is offensive or not. If people only reported posts that caused offence to them, the mods job would be easier and there'd be far less people upset with the mods.

I can't understand people reporting a post to the mods that doesn't offend them, but they think it might offend others. This is the "I wanna be a mod" syndrome. The fact is they couldnt really know what causes other people offence. Lets those other people who might get offended report the post.

But probably a lot of "reporters" are just those who scour threads looking for a slip-up from someone, so they can see them banned. Highly entertaining. This is the "I wanna have a life" syndrome.

therecklessone

The Rooster wrote:

I can't understand people reporting a post to the mods that doesn't offend them, but they think it might offend others. This is the "I wanna be a mod" syndrome. The fact is they couldnt really know what causes other people offence. Lets those other people who might get offended report the post.

But probably a lot of "reporters" are just those who scour threads looking for a slip-up from someone, so they can see them banned. Highly entertaining. This is the "I wanna have a life" syndrome.

I like the way you speculate on the reasons for people reporting posts yet you claim they're not qualified to speculate on what might offend another poster.

Its been said a number of times already, but here it is, straight from the horses mouth:

talla wrote:

Posters are actively encoraged to report posts. Its stops flame wars from getting out of hand. Its the only way this forum can run smoothly, mods can't read every ingle thread and every single post.

RE*AC*TOR

therecklessone wrote:

What appears to be happening now Muppet? Have you read the offending posts, or are you buying into the "its just bitter Liverpool fans" as well?

I reported all three posts, and you know I'm not a Liverpool fan.

Its the mods decision to ban or not, regardless of who reported the post, or why for that matter.

You should go here, you'd fit in well.

therecklessone

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

You should go here, you'd fit in well.

That the equivalent of calling me a snitch?

:rolleyes:

RE*AC*TOR

therecklessone wrote:

That the equivalent of calling me a snitch?

:rolleyes:

I'd never call anyone anything, especially not on the wonderfully wonderful soccer forum where everything is wonderful...

Dont be at yourself

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

The posters have two opportunities to be warned. They have two temp bans. Surely that is a warning, would you not consider it fair that before a user is perm banned they should have a temp ban, allowing them the chance to learn from thier mistakes.

Here we have the crux of the matter. Why is it that the first recourse for the mods is a ban? In my experience, a simple "back on topic/play nice" post in a thread that's showing signs of deteriorating is usually more than enough to direct it back on course. A ban, temporary though it may be, seems to be overkill, especially as it seems to apply to any and all breachs of the charter (which are often entirely subjective - some people may take offence to certain terms, others may not etc). By banning left, right and centre for any apparent wrong-doing is only going to foster resentment and accusatios of bias, complaining and campaiging that you're trying to avoid.

Of course banning has its uses, but it's not the only weapon in a mod's arsenal. A warning should come first, in my mind.

Thanx 4 The Fish

The first warning is the charter that say read this or You will be banned. I understand that there are other ways to deal with minor infractions but then we have the Oohh his was more serious than mine and he got a ban and I didn't and he got warned first and I got something different which is also subjective.

Lex Luthor

Hamann is no angel, he has put in his fair share of tackles in his time.
That tackle on Francis looks fairly bad. Essien went for Hamanns leg, not the ball and Hamann was lucky it was his kicking leg and not his standing leg.

merlinsmerryman

UEFA have just charged Essien with gross unsporting conduct.