(16-02-2016, 07:00)St Charles Owl Wrote:

Quote:Beefy 1965

I agree any player of violent behaviour should be banned,
However if everybody including his dog has missed it, I don't think it's right for the opposing manager to bring it to the authorities attention,
It could set a dangerous president,
I can guarantee managers will be saying Tom, Dick or Harry should have been sent off for that if this is carried out,
Unknown waters we are crossing here   

Surely the only precedent it will set is the one where players who do sneaky stuff away from or out of sight of the officials and still get called on it through video evidence.  It doesn't matter who brings it to the attention of the authorities, surely the important thing is that it is brought to the attention of the authorities and that if the player is guilty he be punished.  A manager making false claims won't happen as there has to be video evidence of the incident for a charge to be brought.

(16-02-2016, 16:43)drewks Wrote: Agree with The Owl - players deserve to be PUNISHED for violent conduct, especially when it's off the ball. IMO it's immaterial who brings it to the attention of the powers that be.
It happens in Rugby Union when a player is cited after the game, and works well.
This is ONE development in football that I actually agree with

---

Excellent news he's  been cleared tho

(17-02-2016, 01:21)Beefy 1965 Wrote:

(16-02-2016, 16:43)drewks Wrote: Agree with The Owl - players deserve to be PUNISHED for violent conduct, especially when it's off the ball. IMO it's immaterial who brings it to the attention of the powers that be.
It happens in Rugby Union when a player is cited after the game, and works well.
This is ONE development in football that I actually agree with

---

Excellent news he's  been cleared tho

I agree they should be punished but by a opposing team saying they should be sent off
I can see the panel being very busy from now on,
In rugby union the players are cited by match officials who already have video evidence not a squawking upset opposition coach and because of this they very rarely get overturned   

I agree that the WAY that people like Martinez throws an accusation up should be done with more thought - ie make it to the FA and NOT to the press! - but IMO the opposing club should have a right to cite a player for violent conduct; NOT if a goal was offside, or an opposing player's bootlaces were an offensive colour, or any other reason 

(17-02-2016, 06:50)aries22 Wrote: Beefy 1965
None of the panel after viewing video evidence say that it constitutes Violent conduct 

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/816592656?-11200:789:0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. The decision of the panel of referees has to be unanimous for the FA to take action. Their decision was not unanimous. This means that their decision could have been 2-1 that Berahino's actions were foul.
Tony Pulis did the same thing in his comments after the Leicester game when he said Albion should have been awarded a penalty and the Leicester player concerned sent off.

(17-02-2016, 13:39)Beefy 1965 Wrote:

(17-02-2016, 06:50)aries22 Wrote: Beefy 1965
None of the panel after viewing video evidence say that it constitutes Violent conduct 

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/816592656?-11200:789:0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. The decision of the panel of referees has to be unanimous for the FA to take action. Their decision was not unanimous. This means that their decision could have been 2-1 that Berahino's actions were foul.
Tony Pulis did the same thing in his comments after the Leicester game when he said Albion should have been awarded a penalty and the Leicester player concerned sent off.

Agree mate 
But did Huth face a FA charge before a disciplinary commission ?
Nope 
Why ?
Again why is it aimed at some and not others whats the difference ?
Oh hang on because the referee saw it and didn't give a penalty !!
It's a farce,
So pulis's comments would have made no difference anyway ?
crazy  

(18-02-2016, 07:47)aries22 Wrote:

(17-02-2016, 13:39)Beefy 1965 Wrote:

(17-02-2016, 06:50)aries22 Wrote: Beefy 1965
None of the panel after viewing video evidence say that it constitutes Violent conduct 

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/816592656?-11200:789:0

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. The decision of the panel of referees has to be unanimous for the FA to take action. Their decision was not unanimous. This means that their decision could have been 2-1 that Berahino's actions were foul.
Tony Pulis did the same thing in his comments after the Leicester game when he said Albion should have been awarded a penalty and the Leicester player concerned sent off.

Agree mate 
But did Huth face a FA charge before a disciplinary commission ?
Nope 
Why ?
Again why is it aimed at some and not others whats the difference ?
Oh hang on because the referee saw it and didn't give a penalty !!
It's a farce,
So pulis's comments would have made no difference anyway ?
crazy  

It depends. Did the referee take action against Huth at the time, e.g. did the ref give a free kick to Albion instead of a penalty? If so, the ref is deemed to have seen the incident and dealt with it. The ref's mistakes in those instances don't count.
It's when the ref misses an incident altogether that foul play can subsequently be referred to a panel.