QuoteHe'll miss the FA Cup Final for that. And he should. No need for that sort of stuff.
Originally Posted by geysir
Yeah - then they could have hugged it out!
He'll miss the FA Cup Final for that. And he should. No need for that sort of stuff.
"Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
"Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.
It looks bad, but the way Janusaj flicked the ball away, Meyler started his step without knowing Janusaj's leg would end up where it did.
He did take his time moving his foot though. That bit did look a bit 'stampy' alright.
Mirror has the right priorities anyway: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...fa-cup-3507135
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Watching that vid embedded in the mirror article makes me rethink the stamp. He put his foot exactly where the ball had just been and wasn't expecting Janujaz to flick it away. The way he stepped in all his weight was forward so once his foot landed it was planted.
That's how I'd defend him in court anyway!
BREAKING: Hull's David Meyler escapes FA action for stamp on Adnan Januzaj – meaning he is free to play in the FA Cup final.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...medium=twitter
Looked more tired and careless to me rather than intending to harm; 'twas the 89th minute of play. Still very dangerous though. He's lucky he'll play in the FA Cup final.
So the rule is that if the ref says he saw it but took no action, then there can be no retrospective action?
Of course the ref could cop out and claim he didn't see it, or didn't see it in its entirety, considering the frenzied tabloid reaction leading public opinion to be frothing at mouth on the matter. Fair fcks to the ref who kept his bottle and went with his reaction to it, made in real time.
Well the ref gave it as a foul against Januzaj, as far as I know, so he has to say he saw the incident regardless of whether he missed the stamp or not.
They say in the Guardian.
'Pawson, in his report submitted to the ruling body on Wednesday, said he was looking directly at Meyler as the player made the challenge. As he had a clear, unobstructed, view – albeit without the benefit of television replays from assorted angles – no sanctions can be imposed.'
It's close to what you say, if the ref had a clear view of the incident and decided there and then it was nothing, then he can't change his mind with the benefit of replays and extra slow motion giffs. And if as you say, he had already blown up for a foul by Januzaj, why were all you guys so sure that Meyler would get busted?
I can't speak for anybody else but I only read later that the ref gave it as a foul. I only saw the gif replay.
Like Charlie, I'd only seen the GIF. I wasn't up-to-speed with the relevant rules and was putting my unquestioning faith in the knowledge of these hopeless other guys, so I have to put my thinking of Meyler as being lucky to escape a ban down to that unfortunate combination of circumstances. Shame on the rest of you!
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 07/05/2014 at 10:01 PM.
By the way, why does the Daily Mail headline in the link above tell us he will escape "further" action? There was no action taken in the first place. I see he was booked during the game, but that was unrelated, right at the beginning of the second half.
'Further action' is one of those football inanities that people say without really thinking through. They, of course, mean any action.
It was his right foot I think.
Excuses excuses, 'i only saw a bit of this' 'a bit of that' 'I was misled by my more ignorant fellow board members.'
That's why Meyler looked super cool and didn't betray a morsel of guilt, he didn't even look back at the prostrate helpless figure of Januzaj, who was wailing like the spineless Oscar Pistorius. Meyler had it all sussed, he didn't even have to say sorry. As soon as the ref blew his whistle for a foul against Januzaj, he knew he was in the clear. He knew the ref saw exactly what went down and would not be budging an inch from that line.
Initial action - checking the referee's match report and talking to the referee (who, after watching the replays, said he'd have treated if differently if he'd seen it better, but, crucially, said he had seen the incident).
No further action - decision reached as a result of findings the initial action.
So the retrospective rule is, if the ref is under the impression that he saw the incident properly from his angle of vision at the time, then no further action is taken, even when faced with proof (which he accepts) that he didn't actually see the entirety of the incident, and even when that proof (in his opinion) highlights a dastardly deed.
That's a good retrospective rule.
No further action can be taken, I think the rule is. It's part of the whole 'protect the integrity of the ref by not allowing too many decisions to be questioned' thing that FIFA see as so sacred.
I can understand the logic behind the rule in the face of aninevitable slew of appeals over minor errors otherwise, but this highlights how the rule itself can be stupid too.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks