I don't like it but it was a deserved red for violent conduct.

I don't like it but it was a deserved red for violent conduct.

 

So which was it, brutal or capable of injuring someone?

Nothing to do with reasoning or what a retired ref says, i've quoted the laws of the game which are of far higher persuasion than yours, mine or anyone elses opinion.

 

If you disagree and believe and could show that his actions could be classified as brutal, or were capable of injuring someone, then yes you may have a relevant point.

 

The laws of the game are open to interpretation and based on my interpretation of the rules, it was a red card. 

 

The fact that a respected ex-referee as well as possibly the most respected pundit in the country agree just reaffirms that. I suppose the breaker will come down to the outcome of any appeal.

 

But that so called force was in no way endangering the opposition player. He would have barely felt it. It's a bouncy ball for christ sake.

 

 

That's the same 'logic' used when players raise their hands to an opponents face. Once you do it, you're walking a tightrope. 

 

Cesc was stupid to do it. There was no rhyme or reason behind it and he deserved the red.

So which was it, brutal or capable of injuring someone?

 

If you need to have it in such literal terms, then it would fall under the banner of being 'capable of injuring someone', although I suspect this will now lead to a discussion on whether or not it could injure someone. Obviously being blindsided by a football being hit at force could lead to a small injury, but I expect you'll say it's impossible.

 

It's why it's best just to agree to disagree. Our views won't change the outcome and I doubt we'll even appeal...because someone at the club would point out it would be a stupid thing to do.

The laws of the game are open to interpretation and based on my interpretation of the rules, it was a red card. 

 

The fact that a respected ex-referee as well as possibly the most respected pundit in the country agree just reaffirms that. I suppose the breaker will come down to the outcome of any appeal.

 

Yes of course they are open to interpretation, but that interpretation is based upon what the laws state, not off someones baseless opinion.

 

An example of interpretation would be: I think this constituted brutality because ____ or this could have injured someone because ____.

 

What interpretation isn't: Yeah f**k what the laws say here's what I think and my opinion is above the codified, universal laws of the game and as such i'm going to ignore them.

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by Jonty

If you need to have it in such literal terms, then it would fall under the banner of being 'capable of injuring someone', although I suspect this will now lead to a discussion on whether or not it could injure someone. Obviously being blindsided by a football being hit at force could lead to a small injury, but I expect you'll say it's impossible.

 

It's why it's best just to agree to disagree. Our views won't change the outcome and I doubt we'll even appeal...because someone at the club would point out it would be a stupid thing to do.

 

Unfortunately i'm no medical expert so my opinion on this again, isn't relevant.

 

That being said, i've played and watched football all my life, and never have I seen someone injured by a gently hit cross striking them on the back of the head. The fact he was quite evidently fine prior to the ref sending off Fabregas is further evidence of this.

Unfortunately i'm no medical expert so my opinion on this again, isn't relevant.

 

That being said, i've played and watched football all my life, and never have I seen someone injured by a gently hit cross striking them on the back of the head. The fact he was quite evidently fine prior to the ref sending off Fabregas is further evidence of this.

 

But you are an expert on the laws of the game? You seemed to imply that we'd appeal. Do you think that one of the best run clubs in the world who haven't been shy in appealing decisions will appeal this one?

 

How much would you bet on your opinion being correct?

If you need to have it in such literal terms, then it would fall under the banner of being 'capable of injuring someone', although I suspect this will now lead to a discussion on whether or not it could injure someone. Obviously being blindsided by a football being hit at force could lead to a small injury, but I expect you'll say it's impossible.

 

It's why it's best just to agree to disagree. Our views won't change the outcome and I doubt we'll even appeal...because someone at the club would point out it would be a stupid thing to do.

 

Like i said in the match thread, the game is petty and babyish. If he is going to send Fabregas off for that, then he has to send Fletcher off for running up to Fabregas and pushing him. He also needs to send Diego Costa and the defender off for grabbing each other and pushing each other, all of these must surely be violent conduct if kicking a ball at player is seen as violent conduct. But in those situations he used common sense, with Fabregas he didn't use common sense.

But you are an expert on the laws of the game? You seemed to imply that we'd appeal. Do you think that one of the best run clubs in the world who haven't been shy in appealing decisions will appeal this one?

 

How much would you bet on your opinion being correct?

 

No, I said that if it were my decision that i'd appeal, I never said that I think we'll appeal and I don't think we will. Please don't quote me, then ignore the post you're quoting, then misquote an earlier comment of mine.

 

And i've also never claimed to be an expert on the laws of the game, i'm merely aware of them which is evidently more than can be said for you.

Like i said in the match thread, the game is petty and babyish. If he is going to send Fabregas off for that, then he has to send Fletcher off for running up to Fabregas and pushing him. He also needs to send Diego Costa and the defender off for grabbing each other and pushing each other, all of these must surely be violent conduct if kicking a ball at player is seen as violent conduct. But in those situations he used common sense, with Fabregas he didn't use common sense.

 

Fletcher pushed him below the neck. That's an important distinction.

No, I said that if it were my decision that i'd appeal, I never said that I think we'll appeal and I don't think we will. Please don't quote me, then ignore the post you're quoting, then misquote an earlier comment of mine.

 

And i've also never claimed to be an expert on the laws of the game, i'm merely aware of them which is evidently more than can be said for you.

 

We've appealed other incorrect decisions. You feel this decision was incorrect. Why wouldn't we appeal? Is Fabregas not that important?  We've had success with others so it'd be odd not to appeal this one.

Fletcher pushed him below the neck. That's an important distinction.

So what, pushing someone is violent conduct, a lot more violent than kicking a ball towards someone.

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by Scott Harris

We've appealed other incorrect decisions. You feel this decision was incorrect. Why wouldn't we appeal? Is Fabregas not that important?  We've had success with others so it'd be odd not to appeal this one.

 

Because despite those prior decisions being incorrect, we still never win any appeals, because as we all know the FA do whatever they want and rarely admit they are wrong.

 

What other ones have we had success over?

 

And, because I see you've now changed the topic, i'm assuming you're in agreement with me over Fabregas not committing violent conduct based on the laws of the game?

Because despite those prior decisions being incorrect, we still never win any appeals, because as we all know the FA do whatever they want and rarely admit they are wrong.

 

What other ones have we had success over?

 

And, because I see you've now changed the topic, i'm assuming you're in agreement with me over Fabregas not committing violent conduct based on the laws of the game?

 

Matic had his reduced and Ivanovic escaped a charge in the Everton one.

 

I absolutely think Fabregas was right to be sent off, and we've got no problem appealing such decisions (in fact the Matic one was the same offence) so can you give me a single reason why we won't appeal it if it's clearly not a red card based on the laws of the game?

Matic had his reduced and Ivanovic escaped a charge in the Everton one.

 

I absolutely think Fabregas was right to be sent off, and we've got no problem appealing such decisions (in fact the Matic one was the same offence) so can you give me a single reason why we won't appeal it if it's clearly not a red card based on the laws of the game?

 

The Ivanovic one wasn't an appeal so is in no way relevant.

 

The Matic appeal was to have his ban overturned and thus wasn't successful either. There was also a media furor around the incident given its possible implications on the title race. This incident was in an end of season friendly when the season is over, and thus there is no public or media pressure on the FA to overturn its own decision, which in the past has been the only reason the FA has actually done so.

 

But anyway, back on topic, you think Fabregas could have injured someone with a gently hit cross? Can you provide examples of any prior instances of this or is this another one of your fanciful interpretations?

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Night.

Regardless of whether it was a red or not, the ref allowed himself to be surrounded by players and completely lost control of the situation, I thought he was fairly poor. I also think he was slightly persuaded by West Brom players throughout the game, we get a bad reputation for surrounding referees, but West Brom players were very guilty of that. Not to mention they did target Costa unfairly and the ref mostly ignored it, the last foul on Costa was arguably a red, a spiteful challenge.

It's in games like this you miss David Luiz...catch em with a few sneaky elbows and some craftily disguised nasty tackles, then wink at the camera afterwards.

One of the most idiotic things I've seen in a while and completely deserved a red. The situation was heated becase of Costa and for some absolutely nonsense reason Cesc kicked the ball while the game was stopped. Brain fart. Does he now actually miss two games next season?

Jose defended him as well as Costa which is pretty normal Jose-stuff but he was absolutely wrong.

Thing is he drove the ball with force at the West Brom players which constitutes violent conduct. It's very good of you to try and defend what he did, but what exactly is his reasoning for kicking the ball with that force in that direction?

Graham Poll agrees, as do most pundits that I've read. Jonty and Scott Harris on the Shed End forum disagree. Does that sum it up?

Then isn't a shot at a goalie violent conduct? If you'll recall certain challenges that have gone unpunished during and after the game this season then perhaps you'll understand the reluctance of some of us to see that as violent conduct.

Unsporting behaviour and quite clearly in my opinion. It was petulant not violent malice.

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by Barry Bridges

Call it what you want, it's a red card. He knew what he was doing and if he didn't then that's even more stupid, you don't kick a ball like that towards a group of players if you just want to restart play.

Yep agreed it's a red, it's really pissed me off that he did it. It's petulant, he's not a child I think he owes the fans an apology.

So he's gonna miss Sunderland, The Community Shield and the opening game of the season right?

He was in the mood last night 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by BelgradeCFC

Had the devil in him last night then... Clearly his heart just wasn't in it. 

The Premier League... where kicking a ball at someone gets a red card and a three match ban, but trying to break someone's leg doesn't.