I certainly don't remember Stephen Hunt getting the amount of stick for very nearly killing Petr Cech, that Costa has got for treading on Emre Can.

And Sonko poleaxing Cuddicini and putting him in Hospital in the same game, was not treated to banner headlines, about being a nutter etc.

The only thing remembered about those incidents is Jose's criticism of the amount of time it took the emergency services to react.

He expressed concern that when the Ambulance actually got to the ground there was a problem, and he hoped all clubs, including Chelsea had measures in place to deal with a serious incident if there was a problem with the Ambulance getting through.

 

Apparently those comments were taken on board and his remarks were cited when Fabrice Muamba got such quick treatment...

Apparently Costa's ‘stamps’ (bearing in my mind he was cleared of one apparent stamp), are worse than any of the bites from Suarez:

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/diego-costas-stamps-were-worse-than-any-of-luis-suarezs-bites--patrick-barclay-on-chelsea-v-liverpool-10007825.html

He's saying a stamp is more dangerous to the opponent than a bite which it is but then a studs up sliding tackle is equally dangerous and a two footed lunge even more so.

Suarez's bites were animalistic and almost unseen in football before and so I'm not really sure what point if any Barclay is trying to make?

He's almost trying to insinuate Coata's behaviour is worse than Suarez's but I don't think you will find many people going along with that.

You're right Shelly, most of the focus was on Jose's comments, which had no malicious intent, comments which ended up saving that Bolton player's life, Muamba was it?

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Davey Baby

Neil Ashton is reporting that Chelsea have "gagged" Mourinho, but then goes on to say Steve Holland won't be appearing for the presser either...Errmmm

It was a trample, not a stamp.

Does anyone remember the last time a player was punished retrospectively for a foul on a Chelsea player?

I remember Bardsley, a few years ago, got a 3 game retrospective ban for an appalling stamp on Mata.

Why do I mention it? Because I remember watching MOTD that night to see what they had to say about it.

Guess what? They didn't even show it.

I dare say a few of you have forgotten about it too. The media don't like to focus on such things.

https://twitter.com/GNev2/status/560844645434134528

 

My personal view is that Costa in a process should get off his charge. Impossible to prove he meant it and he doesn't look at the player.

Does anyone remember the last time a player was punished retrospectively for a foul on a Chelsea player?

I remember Bardsley, a few years ago, got a 3 game retrospective ban for an appalling stamp on Mata.

Why do I mention it? Because I remember watching MOTD that night to see what they had to say about it.

Guess what? They didn't even show it.

I dare say a few of you have forgotten about it too. The media don't like to focus on such things.

 

Remember the game against West Ham a couple of weeks ago ? Ivanovic was getting moaned at for a dive, it was in the papers, on Sky, on MOTD, which of course is fair enough............but they forget that in this very same match, Sakho pulled off an equally ridiculous dive and it wasn't ever highlighted on Sky or MOTD.

 

That right there is media bias. How can we get singled out when the opposition does the same thing in the same game ?

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Scott Harris

Remember the game against West Ham a couple of weeks ago ? Ivanovic was getting moaned at for a dive, it was in the papers, on Sky, on MOTD, which of course is fair enough............but they forget that in this very same match, Sakho pulled of an equally ridiculous dive and it wasn't ever highlighted on Sky or MOTD.

 

This right here is media bias. How can we get singled out when the opposition does the same thing in the same game ?

 

Because it fit in with the existing narrative of us diving because we had 2 players booked for it and one who should've received a second for it a week before.

 

https://twitter.com/GNev2/status/560844645434134528

 

My personal view is that Costa in a process should get off his charge. Impossible to prove he meant it and he doesn't look at the player.

 

He's got a point but I think Costa's reputation will go against him. 

Edited January 29, 201511 yr by Blue Daze

Can't believe Costa is appealing, what happens in these instances. . Do Jose and him compile a few statements etc ? I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, but don't they add on more games if they deem it 'frivolous'. Bunch of arseholes.

 

The process is

 

1. The FA summon the referee and ask them if they saw the incident they are investigating (Costas stamp)

2. If the referee says he did not then the player is charged.

3. If the player does not contest the charge then the FA will hand down a punishment.

4. If the player believes the charge is unfair then it is contested.

5. The FA hear the contest (player,manager, witnesses etc ) and decide on the punishment and if it needs to change.

 

So - unless Costa contests the fine he is just assumed guilty. That is why he is doing it - because he believes the charge is unfair.

 

As someone has said - there is a case where he could argue that the stamp was an accident and he was placing his foot to get drive to get to the ball, not knowing the players leg was there as his eye was only on the ball.

He certainly has a case to show he didn't mean it, but JT also had a case being declared innocent in a court of law.

 

We'll have to wait and see.

https://twitter.com/GNev2/status/560844645434134528

 

My personal view is that Costa in a process should get off his charge. Impossible to prove he meant it and he doesn't look at the player.

 

This is the same conclusion I came up with yesterday, refreshing that we have some non Liverpool pundits out there. Had FA included the Skrtel "stamp" for some proof that it happened twice in the same game, then they might have had a small case. The Can situation alone is impossible to prove.

Gary Lineker @GaryLineker · 15m15 minutes ago

Only Diego Costa knows if his stamp was intentional, he certainly wasn't looking in that direction, therefore it's difficult to ban him.

At last, somebody in the media says it as it is.

Hats off to Gary Neville.

He just speaks the simple, unarguable truth.

The fact that it has got this far is nothing short of scandalous, and has been wholly driven by the media.

Gary neville just tweeted that he should get off as hes not even looking at him when he treads on him so therefore hard to prove intent.

Chelsea cancelled there press conference for tomorrow

This could get ugly me thinks

So Lineker and Neville think Costa shouldn't be banned and Collymore does.

 

Hmmm, whose opinion does the world value least? Yep, the woman beater.

Wow. Lineker too.

Will sanity prevail?

Free Diego Costa.

So the pundit with more integrity and knowledge than the rest of these f**king clowns put together sees it as a lot of us do. For all those on here accepting he should be banned go and have a cold shower

Wow. Lineker too.

Will sanity prevail?

Free Diego Costa.

 

#justicefordiego

Gary Neville ?@GNev2  6m6 minutes ago

The results are in on Costa tweets from fans = hated by Liverpool, city think I want him to play v them- Chelsea inviting me for a drink!

At least he's got supporters, glad he's contesting it

Diego Costa the Elephant Man.

 

It is a thread named on RAWK. Oh my god they're such pathetic and desperate c**ts.

Neville could have puckered up to his Sky colleague Redknapp, but he hasn't and that makes his comments so much sweeter.

There is doubt Jamie, that's the point Gary's making, and it's the one you singularly failed to grasp.

f**k me I love Gary Neville. Seriously.