http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/9711430/fa-looking-at-branislav-ivanovic-video-footage-following-chelseas-win-over-everton

 

Ok - that looks like a SKY journalist just making an assumption. Would be nice if the FA posted on their site when they were actually looking at certain incidents.

 

Here's the picture.

 

Howard sprinted fifteen yards to confront Dave, he was already on a booking, he had completely lost it, and it was right in front of the ref.

 

I don't remember the media hoohah but maybe I'm just forgetful ..

 

 

 

 

He wasn't already on a booking and he did get booked for it, which is in my opinion the right outcome.

 

Ivanovic went further by having his arms round someone's neck and pushing in with the head.

 

He shouldn't be banned however, after what happened to Pearson. We'll wait and see.

Sky don't get it wrong often in those circumstances, it was the same with the Costa indecent..
It's all so inconsistent, but Ivan will cop a ban, there's just too much furore going on now for it to not end that way.. again !!! 

Forget Man City. The FA are our real title rivals.

He wasn't already on a booking and he did get booked for it, which is in my opinion the right outcome.

Ivanovic went further by having his arms round someone's neck and pushing in with the head.

He shouldn't be banned however, after what happened to Pearson. We'll wait and see.

I think one of the factors in that is both parties in the Pearson incident dismissed it whereas Everton are very much of the opinion it was violent and haven't backed down.

Good point on the Howard thing. If that was a yellow then I think Ivanovic's is a yellow and a half. Comes down to the ref who I thought had a good game. Another coin toss situation I think. Wouldn't be surprised either way but what's undeniable surely is that Ivanovic should know better.

Two blokes squaring up is not the same as what Ivanovic did in my opinion.

McCarthy was not squaring up to Ivanovic. In fact his head was turned when Ivanovic moves his head forward.

It's a weak argument in my opinion

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/16/article-2582236-1C50E75700000578-149_634x403.jpg

https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SRdpJ8w6EkNEO8MXrY3JJA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/sports/2014-11-02/ffd64450-629c-11e4-a1d4-03a9bb439e24_Hart-oliver.jpg

What about these 2 then? The 1st was a booking, the second was ignored completely. If 2 refs have deemed leaning in with the head a yellow card offense at worse, why is there talk of retrospective action.

He wasn't already on a booking and he did get booked for it, which is in my opinion the right outcome.

 

Nope, he got booked for an incident that had just happened seconds before, it should have been a double booking, but wasn't.

 

Edit: I think the prior incident was him grabbing someone by the throat, it had all calmed down and then he made a beeline for Dave, either way it only resulted in one booking, rather than two, and there was no media rumpus afterwards.

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by Davey Baby

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/16/article-2582236-1C50E75700000578-149_634x403.jpg

https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/SRdpJ8w6EkNEO8MXrY3JJA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/sports/2014-11-02/ffd64450-629c-11e4-a1d4-03a9bb439e24_Hart-oliver.jpg

What about these 2 then? The 1st was a booking, the second was ignored completely. If 2 refs have deemed leaning in with the head a yellow card offense at worse, why is there talk of retrospective action.

The first one should've been a red from what I recall.Lee Mason got it wrong..

The second is a weird one, but hard to say Oliver didn't see it.

Judging Ivanovic's incident by its own merits, I think it's touch and go.

But I'd love for someone to explain what he was doing because in the rush to blame someone, he's getting a free pass and that's coming from someone who reckons he's been one of the best in Europe this season.

Nope, he got booked for an incident that had just happened seconds before, it should have been a double booking, but wasn't.

Edit: I think the prior incident was him grabbing someone by the throat, either way it only resulted in one booking, rather than two, and there was no media rumpus afterwards.

He gets booked 20 seconds after the confrontation with azpi. Moss takes him and Jagielka to one side and shows him the yellow card.

Nope, he got booked for an incident that had just happened seconds before, it should have been a double booking, but wasn't.

 

Edit: I think the prior incident was him grabbing someone by the throat, it had all calmed down and then he made a beeline for Dave, either way it only resulted in one booking, rather than two, and there was no media rumpus afterwards.

 

Watch the video, the ref is walking away with Dave, then Howard runs up to Dave and after the confrontation he gets booked.

The first one should've been a red from what I recall.Lee Mason got it wrong..

The second is a weird one, but hard to say Oliver didn't see it.

Judging Ivanovic's incident by its own merits, I think it's touch and go.

But I'd love for someone to explain what he was doing because in the rush to blame someone, he's getting a free pass and that's coming from someone who reckons he's been one of the best in Europe this season.

I agree Ivanovic shouldn't have put himself in a this situation. But at the same time, he shouldn't be banned if these previous incidents haven't been punished with reds.

You have to seriously question michael oliver's strength as a ref if he failed to send hart off for that. For me that is worse than di canio's push.

I agree Ivanovic shouldn't have put himself in a this situation. But at the same time, he shouldn't be banned if these previous incidents haven't been punished with reds.

You have to seriously question michael oliver's strength as a ref if he failed to send hart off for that. For me that is worse than di canio's push.

My thought at the time was that he bottled it which is a shame because I thought he looked good as a ref. Seems to have regressed.

Again still can't see him getting banned.

 

As silly as you think it may be but Jose wins if the F.A. ban Ivanovic, it plays right into his hands, it will mean Jose is right and he wont let them live it down. Also I don't know what the f**k Martin Keown was saying about why doesn't he just win a title fairly instead of talking about referees or words to that effect before he was stopped. Were was all this talk about Ferguson when he was doing it? No one dared opposed Sir Alex, Mourinho moans and every pundit gets on his back.

 

Every game Ferguson lost he would blame the referees, EVERY GAME. And I didn't see one f**king pundit go on about him the way they've went on about Mourinho 'ruining the game'...

 

The pundits used to laugh at Ferguson when he did that. You would never hear them complain about saint Ferguson.

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by Scott Harris

Not necessarily part of any campaign talk, but liverpool fans were throwing objects onto the pitch against us a couple of weeks ago and the f.a. didn't flinch.

Collicini could have lost his eye yesterday with that coin, and it makes you wonder, if the f.a. had done something about liverpool, then it might have stopped that palace fan from nearly ruining someone's career.

But costa treading on someone seemed more important?

Pinched from The Guardian's comment section:

 

"This is now beyond the pale. Jose was wrong when he alleged that there was a conspiracy in the media against Chelsea: conspiracies have to be hidden. This is a broad daylight case.

 

Ivanovic is, in all likelihood, the reason that McCarthy stayed on the pitch. At no point did he grab McCarthy around the neck, at no point did he lose control: he was keeping control, and preventing McCarthy from joining what was shaping up to be a mounting fracas between the Chelsea players and the Everton players who had been trying to kick them off the field all night. Maybe, had he not done so, McCarthy would've gone and got himself a red card that he actually deserved? Because to say that to move one's head in another's direction is to headbutt them is like saying that tapping someone's shoulder is to punch them in the throat.

 

Your claims that he grabbed the player around the neck are not corroborated at all. And this makes them lies. Not exaggerations, or mistakes; lies.

 

I see Chelsea's form as being epitomised by Hazard and his on-pitch discipline. He cannot be outplayed, just as Chelsea cannot be holistically outplayed by most opponents in most circumstances, and so the other teams resort to tactical fouls, just as the media, managers, pundits and their fat old aunties are resorting to fatuous attempts to get Chelsea players wrongfully banned. And why wouldn't you? It's already worked once, with Diego Costa being banned for an offence when his guilt or complicity could not be proved by any real legal means, while three Liverpool players (Henderson, Lucas, Skrtel) should all have received retrospective suspensions for their own conduct, all of it very evidently pre-meditated.

 

However, like Hazard, Chelsea get up. Chelsea make the fuss they are very much entitled to. Chelsea score. Chelsea win. They have not been very much outclassed this season and the meddling of external sources like this disgraceful paper haven't been able to change that.

 

So a message to all those crying out for the ban and suiting up all for the next witch hunt. If your team ever plays as well as Chelsea have this season (and they won't), they too could fall foul of this treatment. Think about it."

I would like to buy that writer a beer

 Because to say that to move one's head in another's direction is to headbutt them is like saying that tapping someone's shoulder is to punch them in the throat.

 

 

So he was trying to get his attention by leaning his head in. That sounds....iffy.

 

The Mail has a tremendous article up. Tremendous in that those who want to see journalists against us will be in Heaven, as will those who want to see journalists who clearly like or respect our manager. Most fair-minded people will simply see a collection of individuals expressing their own opinions, almost as if journalists were simply humans with things like independent thought and emotions.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2950417/Jose-Mourinho-won-does-touchline-tantrums-far-Sportsmail-experts-discuss-Chelsea-boss-good-Premier-League.html

So he was trying to get his attention by leaning his head in. That sounds....iffy.

 

No that's not what the writer of that post is saying, he is saying that if you are going to sensationalize what Ivanovic did as a head-butt or as The Guardian's Daniel Taylor less subtly referred to as "ramming his head" then you basically giving licences to say not violent actions are in fact violent.

 

If you ban Ivanovic for moving his head where do you draw the line? How is that any more violent an act then when Wenger shoved Mourinho two handed or when Pearson put his hands around McArthur's neck... A gesture that you, yourself defended as non violent and unworthy of retrospective punishment. 

No that's not what the writer of that post is saying, he is saying that if you are going to sensationalize what Ivanovic did as a head-butt or as The Guardian's Daniel Taylor less subtly referred to as "ramming his head" then you basically giving licences to say not violent actions are in fact violent.

 

If you ban Ivanovic for moving his head where do you draw the line? How is that any more violent an act then when Wenger shoved Mourinho two handed or when Pearson put his hands around McArthur's neck... A gesture that you, yourself defended as non violent and unworthy of retrospective punishment. 

 

What I said about Pearson's was the both players said it was nothing and both appeared to see it as a light-hearted moment. Now if you want to defend it on those grounds then that's fine.

 

Except Everton have said he should've seen red. They aren't laughing it off, quite the opposite in fact.

 

Now it's not a headbutt because I don't think there's enough force behind it but if someone can explain what Ivanovic is doing moving his head in that motion then I'd be relieved. You don't have to be a mind-reader, you don't need to give a complete breakdown, simply an interpretation of what he's attempting to do when he's got McCarthy fairly well-restrained already.

 

 

And as for the Stones thing, I'm 99% certain that his hands don't go around Ivanovic's neck until AFTER the alleged 'head movement thingy'.

And as for the Stones thing, I'm 99% certain that his hands don't go around Ivanovic's neck until AFTER the alleged 'head movement thingy'.

So if Ivan headbutted McCarthy and Stones then strangled Ivan (both exaggerated of course), what should happen? Surely both should be banned for violent conduct, or both let off.

 

But no newspaper or BT even highlighted the fact that Stones had his hands around Ivan's neck at all. Nobody caught the damning freeze frame and said Stones 'strangles' Ivan and both teams are dirty? 

I've never seen or heard of a neck butt, assuming Ivanovic's head did eventually make contact with the neck what would it have done?  As I've said before, it's ludicrous.

Now it's not a headbutt because I don't think there's enough force behind it but if someone can explain what Ivanovic is doing moving his head in that motion then I'd be relieved. You don't have to be a mind-reader, you don't need to give a complete breakdown, simply an interpretation of what he's attempting to do when he's got McCarthy fairly well-restrained already.

 

 

And as for the Stones thing, I'm 99% certain that his hands don't go around Ivanovic's neck until AFTER the alleged 'head movement thingy'.

 

Obviously not being involved in person I can only speculate. 

 

That said Ivanovic initially grabs hold of McCarthy to restrain him because he was steaming in to get involved in the Barry sending off, what's ironic about this is that Ivanovic may have saved McCarthy from red card.

 

As for moving his head toward McCarthy, it's not unheard of to do such an action when speaking to someone to better get their attention and really emphasis what you are trying to say to them... If (again, pure speculation) Ivanovic was telling him to calm down after pulling him away from the melee then it's not an unreasonable stretch to suggest his gesture was actually for McCarthy's benefit... The player himself certainly didn't seem to take any particular exception with Ivanovic's actions. 

 

As for Everton claiming it saying it should be a red, I assume you are referring to Martinez who was less than gracious in defeat when we spanked them at Godinson at the start of the season when he also commented on our player conduct in the immediate aftermath of the game, a game in which, as already highlight on the forum today, Howard could arguably have received a red card for a similarly aggressive head movement having already received a yellow card. 

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by ForeverCarefree

Two blokes squaring up is not the same as what Ivanovic did in my opinion.

McCarthy was not squaring up to Ivanovic. In fact his head was turned when Ivanovic moves his head forward.

It's a weak argument in my opinion

 

You are really good. So can you explain why this wasn't dealt with?

or the Charlie Adams incident with Sanchez?

I might be a dumb ass Yank, but in our Pub leagues those are definite bans all day every day - hell I got a 3 match ban for standing my ground & not moving towards an would be attacker.

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by robdog

Obviously not being involved in person I can only speculate. 

 

That said Ivanovic initially grabs hold of McCarthy to restrain him because he was steaming in to get involved in the Barry sending off, what's ironic about this is that Ivanovic may have saved McCarthy from red card.

 

As for moving his head toward McCarthy, it's not unheard of to do such an action when speaking to someone to better get their attention and really emphasis what you are trying to say to them... If (again, pure speculation) Ivanovic was telling him to calm down after pulling him away from the melee then it's not an unreasonable stretch to suggest his gesture was actually for McCarthy's benefit... The player himself certainly didn't seem to take any particular exception with Ivanovic's actions. 

 

 

You know you hear about those stories of people being brought into A+E with aubergines, lamps, Guatemalans etc. lodged up their backside? They get asked how they got there and they say they tripped over a wire and fell....

 

Don't know why, reading that made me think of that.

 

 

 

As for Everton claiming it saying it should be a red, I assume you are referring to Martinez who was less than gracious in defeat when we spanked them at Godinson at the start of the season when he also commented on our player conduct in the immediate aftermath of the game, a game in which, as already highlight on the forum today, Howard could arguably have received a red card for a similarly aggressive head movement having already received a yellow card. 

 

Howard of course lucky to escape a ban because (I assume) a small black hole suddenly opened on the penalty spot of Goodison Park drawing him in through it's extreme gravitational pull.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think your arguments regarding Ivanovic are likely although I appreciate the effort. In my experience around human beings you make that type of head movement in that type of situation for one reason. But of course my knowledge is limited to things I've experienced as any of our's is so your's is of course absolutely valid and I hope that Ivanovic gets off.

You know you hear about those stories of people being brought into A+E with aubergines, lamps, Guatemalans etc. lodged up their backside? They get asked how they got there and they say they tripped over a wire and fell....

 

Don't know why, reading that made me think of that.

 

Speaking from experience perhaps?