The F.A not to punish McManaman

Gringo180

FA STATEMENT- "Following consultation with the game's stakeholders (the Premier League, the Football League, the Professional Footballers' Association, the League Managers' Association, Professional Game Match Officials Limited and the National Game) in the summer, it was agreed that retrospective action should only be taken in respect of incidents which have not been seen by the match officials.

"Where one of the officials has seen a coming together of players, no retrospective action should be taken, regardless of whether he or she witnessed the full or particular nature of the challenge. This is to avoid the re-refereeing of incidents.

"In the case of McManaman, it has been confirmed that at least one of the match officials saw the coming together, though not the full extent of the challenge. In these circumstances retrospective action cannot be taken.

"The principal objective behind the not seen policy is to address off the ball incidents where match officials are unlikely to be in a position to witness misconduct."



Truely a disgraceful decision to say the least, what kind of message does this send out, there is no place in the modern game for tackles like this.

Pudsy33

It says "we know it was an accident, let's move on" A three week ban would have been apt, but I have no real issue with this.

Gringo180

Newcastle managing director Derek Llambias issued a statement in response to no action been taken by the F.A

"We are disappointed to learn that the FA is not going to charge the Wigan player. We were first notified of this decision by a national media outlet who received notification from the FA confirming the decision. This was prior to anyone from the FA having the courtesy to contact the club to let us know.

"It is clear from this decision that the current disciplinary procedures are not fit for purpose. Newcastle United, along with other clubs, have had players suspended for incidents reviewed after the game. Whilst not trivialising these incidents, they were not, in our opinion, of the seriousness of Callum McManaman's tackle on Haïdara.

"Whilst we understand that the current procedures give the FA limited options, it cannot be correct that the most serious offences – those which have the potential to cause another player serious harm – can go unpunished, even if the original incident was seen by match officials.

"We will now be making a strong representation to the FA and the Premier League to see how a more appropriate, fair and even-handed disciplinary process can be introduced at the earliest opportunity to prevent incidents of this nature going unpunished in the future."

Llambias also addressed remarks made by Wigan's owner, Dave Whelan, that downplayed the challenge. Llambias said: "I have the greatest respect for Dave, who has been in the game for a long time as a professional footballer and now owner. I am also aware that Dave's career was cut short due to injury. I am therefore disappointed and surprised by the comments he made.

"It is our strongly held opinion that the tackle on Massadio was extremely dangerous and is the type of challenge that has the potential to cause serious harm and such was the force, and reckless and dangerous nature of the challenge, even end a player's career."

Turtyturd

What nationality is McManaman?

Gringo180

Turtyturd wrote: »

What nationality is McManaman?

English, why?

Turtyturd

Gringo180 wrote: »

English, why?

Some subscribe to the theory that the FA are not as tough on homegrown players as they are on foreign players.

Gringo180

Pudsy33 wrote: »

It says "we know it was an accident, let's move on" A three week ban would have been apt, but I have no real issue with this.

As a football fan do you not feel angered that this horror challenge will go unpunished?

SantryRed

I see nothing wrong with this. It's the FA's policy to not undermine officials.

Corholio

SantryRed wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with this. It's the FA's policy to not undermine officials.

Yet they have taken retrospective action plenty of times, as Llambias said in his statement.

Gringo180

SantryRed wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with this. It's the FA's policy to not undermine officials.

They have rescinded red cards on many occasions over the years so I dont buy this. May I ask you have you seen this challenge? Do you not think it should be punished?

LuckyLloyd

Right decision for a fairly lol, but well established reason. Honest play for the ball ultimately.

SantryRed

Gringo180 wrote: »

They have rescinded red cards on many occasions over the years so I dont buy this. May I ask you have you seen this challenge? Do you not think it should be punished?

Yes I have seen it and yes it should have been a red card. But the officials seen it and didn't give a red so it has been dealt with.

People getting up in arms and not knowing the actual reasons for a suspension not being given are really pissing me off.

eagle eye

Yeah well said Santry, its used in cases where the official didn't see anything and didn't take any action. They don't go and undermine officials with replay.

Gringo180

Well then whatever official seen this tackle and did not deem it to be a red card should never be let near a football pitch again. It was one of the worst tackles I have ever seen in all my days of watching football, luckily for the Newcastle player he was not caught with such force on the shin as you would be looking at a serious leg break.

ctrl-alt-delete

From the FA:

"In the case of McManaman, it has been confirmed that at least one of the match officials saw the coming together, though not the full extent of the challenge. In these circumstances retrospective action cannot be taken."

That is the bit I don't like about it,

Based on the above, I don't see how giving the lad a retrospective red card is in any way undermining the officials.

daithijjj

There has been a fair few worse challenges or more cowardly challenges imo that havent been punished properly either. Hutton on Shane Long and this one are just two. The rule is rubbish but its the rule.

Jarrod

I didn't see it live but I've seen replays and think it should have been a red card. However as noted above the official saw it and didn't deem it to be a red so the FA can't change it. It was far from being one of the worst tackles I've ever seen.

On another note, one thing that I find infuriating is when people say 'If he'd had his foot planted it'd be a broken leg'. This gets trotted out every time we see a bad tackle. Really though, we see plenty of people get tackled whilst there foot is planted without legs being broken. It's utter nonsense from people trying to make things seem far more interesting than they are.

Gringo180

Jarrod wrote: »

I didn't see it live but I've seen replays and think it should have been a red card. However as noted above the official saw it and didn't deem it to be a red so the FA can't change it. It was far from being one of the worst tackles I've ever seen.

On another note, one thing that I find infuriating is when people say 'If he'd had his foot planted it'd be a broken leg'. This gets trotted out every time we see a bad tackle. Really though, we see plenty of people get tackled whilst there foot is planted without legs being broken. It's utter nonsense from people trying to make things seem far more interesting than they are.

Its not nonsense, you look at most broken legs you've seen on tv and I would say the vast majority of times the players foot was planted. Its only common sense that it is easier to break a leg while the foot is planted than when it is off the ground.

Mocha Joe

Gringo180 wrote: »

Truely a disgraceful decision to say the least, what kind of message does this send out, there is no place in the modern game for tackles like this.

Like nails on a chalkboard when someone says that. Such a cop-out phrase.

Jarrod

Gringo180 wrote: »

Its not nonsense, you look at most broken legs you've seen on tv and I would say the vast majority of times the players foot was planted. Its only common sense that it is easier to break a leg while the foot is planted than when it is off the ground.

I never said anything about tackles where somebody does break their leg.

I'm talking about the huge number of times that people get tackled whilst their foot is planted and come away without a broken leg. Commentators constantly trot out the line that 'if his foot was planted it's a broken leg' with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Saying that the majority of broken legs occur when a a player's foot is planted (which may or may not be true, I don't know and am not arguing that point) is completely different to saying that the majority of tackles involving a player's foot being planted result in a broken leg(which is not true).

Leiva

Jeez it was a bad tackle but come on. The way some are going on you swear the fella bet the bejesus out of a Granny and stonked off laughing.

Fuzzy_Dunlop

SantryRed wrote: »

Yes I have seen it and yes it should have been a red card. But the officials seen it and didn't give a red so it has been dealt with.

People getting up in arms and not knowing the actual reasons for a suspension not being given are really pissing me off.

I think that's the issue most people have is that this policy is in place. It's a stupid, ignorant way of going about things to take it that the refs are infallible, especially when they don't see an incident properly.

The need to take a leaf out of Rugby unions book with regard to citing people for dangerous behaviour (amongst other issues, diving etc).

Liam O

Failed witch hunt of the week

It'll be back to Rooney, Suarez or Bale next week hopefully.

eagle eye

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

I think that's the issue most people have is that this policy is in place. It's a stupid, ignorant way of going about things to take it that the refs are infallible, especially when they don't see an incident properly.

The need to take a leaf out of Rugby unions book with regard to citing people for dangerous behaviour (amongst other issues, diving etc).

People are watching slow motion replays and getting to watch the play from a lot of different angles. I think this is very unfair to the player as there are many times it looks a lot worse when replayed than it actually was. I'm not talking about this specific incident but in general.

Hercule Poirot

At the end of the day if the FA are forced to 're-referee' all decisions then it would be chaos. The linesman clearly saw the incident, as footage shows, and if he didn't deem it an offense then the FA have to go with him. The bad guy here is the linesman - not the FA. The FA can only punish incidents if they were entirely unnoticed by the officials.

greendom

daithijjj wrote: »

There has been a fair few worse challenges or more cowardly challenges imo that havent been punished properly either. Hutton on Shane Long and this one are just two. The rule is rubbish but its the rule.

Then the rule has to change