Yohan Cabaye

[Dokko]

Aye, this business that the ref is infallible is nonsense.

 

No problem with Cabaye getting a ban, but the system in general is a shambles tbh.

 

Sanity does exist on this forum.

[Guest Wally_McFool]

Aye, this business that the ref is infallible is nonsense.

 

No problem with Cabaye getting a ban, but the system in general is a shambles tbh.

 

Is bang on.

Its time to abolish trial by television.

If the ref sends a player off, fine. If he misses it, hard luck but allowing Stubbs, Hansen, Wilkins or anybody,  to influence matters after the game is finished should stop.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Aye, this business that the ref is infallible is nonsense.

 

No problem with Cabaye getting a ban, but the system in general is a shambles tbh.

 

Is bang on.

Its time to abolish trial by television.

If the ref sends a player off, fine. If he misses it, hard luck but allowing Stubbs, Hansen, Wilkins or anybody,  to influence matters after the game is finished should stop.

 

Been saying this for ages. If the referee misses it then it should be tough luck.

 

Either that or we need independent review of footage of every game, by people who haven't watched live coverage or MOTD.

[Dan Gleebals]

If they insist on trial by tv, then legitimate goals that a ruled out or incorrect goals given should be chalked off?

[JH]

Aye, this business that the ref is infallible is nonsense.

 

No problem with Cabaye getting a ban, but the system in general is a shambles tbh.

 

Sanity does exist on this forum.

 

Can see alot of similar opinions to that on here tbh.

[The College Dropout]

I think all red card decisions, regardless of whether the ref saw it or not should be punished. The infallible ref stuff is bollocks. But to get rid of it completely? Won't happen.

[Hanshithispantz]

I think all red card decisions, regardless of whether the ref saw it or not should be punished. The infallible ref stuff is bollocks. But to get rid of it completely? Won't happen.

But as we've seen it's no where near concistent enough, so we effectively have a few guys from the FA randomly banning people for 3 games which no doubt can and will alter the league table. Yet things such as clear cut penalties/dissalowed goals will never be corrected (and nor should they).

 

Violent conduct can be punished in other ways than 3 match bans if needs be. (And wouldn't it only be a 2 match ban if the referee had saw it anyway?)

[Guest bimpy474]

Trial by TV is ok if they get most decisions right, the Crouch one defies belief, he purposely raked the W.B.A. players eye, yet that isn't violent conduct ?

 

The Van Persie, Balotelli and Cabaye ones are more difficult as its whether the players meant it or not, but two found guilty one not, ok fair enough as they are difficult but going back to Crouch, how clear was that, and what more did they need, the players eye to be hanging out.

 

The right system run by the wrong people.

[The College Dropout]

I think all red card decisions, regardless of whether the ref saw it or not should be punished. The infallible ref stuff is bollocks. But to get rid of it completely? Won't happen.

But as we've seen it's no where near concistent enough, so we effectively have a few guys from the FA randomly banning people for 3 games which no doubt can and will alter the league table. Yet things such as clear cut penalties/dissalowed goals will never be corrected (and nor should they).

 

Violent conduct can be punished in other ways than 3 match bans if needs be. (And wouldn't it only be a 2 match ban if the referee had saw it anyway?)

 

A straight red is a 3 match ban I think.

 

The only thing that is wrong is the "ref saw it so we do nothing" approach. And even then I understand the logic but I still disagree.

[Hanshithispantz]

I think all red card decisions, regardless of whether the ref saw it or not should be punished. The infallible ref stuff is bollocks. But to get rid of it completely? Won't happen.

But as we've seen it's no where near concistent enough, so we effectively have a few guys from the FA randomly banning people for 3 games which no doubt can and will alter the league table. Yet things such as clear cut penalties/dissalowed goals will never be corrected (and nor should they).

 

Violent conduct can be punished in other ways than 3 match bans if needs be. (And wouldn't it only be a 2 match ban if the referee had saw it anyway?)

 

A straight red is a 3 match ban I think.

 

The only thing that is wrong is the "ref saw it so we do nothing" approach. And even then I understand the logic but I still disagree.

I just don't really like bans at all tbh, half of the time they're far too harsh and they very rarely go the way of actually aiding the team that was 'felled' or what not, so when we're adding an inconsistent trial by TV dishing out these 3 match bans it's just too much imo.

[JH]

May sound crazy but I personally think they shouldn't ban retrospectively at all.

 

Are wrongfully disallowed goals added after games? Penalties? Wrongfully allowed goals? No.

 

There either has to be an opportunity to look at all incidents across all games* (which is nigh on impossible) or they just leave it. Not just look at the highly publicised/televised ones. It's not fair.

 

*Or the introduction of video technology.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Bans are far too harsh as a rule anyway. A penalty, straight red card and missing the player for another three games is a ludicrous punishment for one foul.

 

In the case of genuinely violent conduct I suppose they have to be stricter, but the highest sanction should be for punching someone in the face and lesser punishments available for stuff that Cabaye did.

[Fenham Mag]

May sound crazy but I personally think they shouldn't ban retrospectively at all.

 

Are wrongfully disallowed goals added after games? Penalties? Wrongfully allowed goals? No.

 

There either has to be an opportunity to look at all incidents across all games* (which is nigh on impossible) or they just leave it. Not just look at the highly publicised/televised ones. It's not fair.

 

*Or the introduction of video technology.

 

Good point i think (obviously some exceptions such as Racism), when did they introduce retrospective banning anyway?

[Martin Lol]

Assou-Ekotto not facing any charge for his studs over the ball, shin high tackle on Di Santo last night because the ref saw it and took no action. I'm hoping this is some sort of sick joke? The rules have got to be changed for these incidents.

 

I thought only John Terry would get away with a challenge like that.  Quite handy that BAE's got away with it as as he would have missed Liverpool, Newcastle and Arsenal.  Even handier for Spurs that Cabaye will be missing at WHL.

[JH]

May sound crazy but I personally think they shouldn't ban retrospectively at all.

 

Are wrongfully disallowed goals added after games? Penalties? Wrongfully allowed goals? No.

 

There either has to be an opportunity to look at all incidents across all games* (which is nigh on impossible) or they just leave it. Not just look at the highly publicised/televised ones. It's not fair.

 

*Or the introduction of video technology.

 

Good point i think (obviously some exceptions such as Racism), when did they introduce retrospective banning anyway?

 

Of course, goes without saying that criminal activity (racism, assault etc. etc.) should result in retrospective action (including suspension).

[Skeletor]

To be honest the whole 'well the ref saw it' thing just highlights how shit refereeing standards are in this country. If he saw it and didn't punish it then he's a cheat plain and simple.

[Guest]

Disagree. If someone stamps on someone or whatever, he shouldn't be allowed just to get off scot-free if the ref misses it.

[midds]

If the referee has seen that BAE tackle from last night then he should be being asked why he took no action in my opinion. If he didn't see it then fair enough, it's a tough job, but if he did see it then why was no action taken at the time and will he be demoted this weekend?

[Guest ykmkmdd]

Agree with retrospective banning, but only in cases where there is zero doubt. I've watched the Cabaye incident several times and am still not sure whether it was malicious/intentional and IMO the only person who knows this 100% is Cabaye himself, and you can't go banning people on a hunch (as well as effectively branding him a liar)

[James]

Media and managers have too much say over disciplinary decisions and influences who does and doesn't get banned.

 

Cabaye deserved it.

 

However others got off scot free for worse.

 

Perhaps the fairest way is as all matches are recorded and streamed live with highlights etc, every game is screened live to the Premier League premises including replays but without commentary, with matches watched by three anonymous officials who can vote on any disciplinary incident they deem noteworthy.

[Sifu]

If the referee has seen that BAE tackle from last night then he should be being asked why he took no action in my opinion. If he didn't see it then fair enough, it's a tough job, but if he did see it then why was no action taken at the time and will he be demoted this weekend?

 

Thought BAE got booked for that? (It was a blatant red card like).

 

EDIT: Just found out, BAE wasn't even given a yellow card. Scandalous.

[The Prophet]

Brilliant message from the FA: It's alright to eye gauge and throw your elbows, in fact leg breaking challanges are in too (Johnson, Larsson, BAE), but anything that resembles some form of kicking out will be jumped on like a ton of bricks.

 

Consistency at it's finest, fucking cowards.

[Guest VaVaVoom]

If they insist on trial by tv, then legitimate goals that a ruled out or incorrect goals given should be chalked off?

 

Exactly.

 

Should be able to appeal against goals that shouldnt have stood.

 

Opens a massive can of worms like but a total re-write of the rules is needed and maybe even the 4th official looking at video footage as it happens and a decision made there and then.

[Guest Wally_McFool]

 

Cabaye deserved it.

 

 

 

Give over, Cabaye should at worst have been booked along with the big girls blouse who clattered him in the first place.

A 3 game ban for what he did is a joke. If El Abd had been kicked in the face he would have had no teeth left, not a tiny paper cut of a scratch.

 

If Cabaye had been sent off at Liverpool and banned for 3 games fair enough, but he wasn't and just because he got away with it then does not mean he should be banned for what happened at Brighton

 

[Numbers]

I just don't understand the criteria (im presuming its the media), if they watched any game back there would be 4 or 5 possible banning instances...some of the challenges that went in from Brighton for example.

 

Fair enough if they are going to do it but at least make it fucking consistent, a faceless panel doesnt help either at least make it transparent.