Retrospective Action; 3 or 4 match ban?
Chelsea midfielder Ramires faces retrospective action for his ‘incident’ with Sebastian Larsson during Saturdays game.
Retrospective action of this kind by the FA seems to attract a ‘standard’ 3 match ban; obviously it can be more depending on the severity of the incident.
It seems a little incongruous that a player who is sent-off during a game misses the rest of that match (obviously) plus an additional 3 games, whereas a player facing retrospective action apparently receives, what is in effect, a positive dispensation just because the referee missed the incident at the time it happened.
Would a minimum 4-match ban be more appropriate for a player facing retrospective action of this kind?
Retrospective action of this kind by the FA seems to attract a ‘standard’ 3 match ban; obviously it can be more depending on the severity of the incident.
It seems a little incongruous that a player who is sent-off during a game misses the rest of that match (obviously) plus an additional 3 games, whereas a player facing retrospective action apparently receives, what is in effect, a positive dispensation just because the referee missed the incident at the time it happened.
Would a minimum 4-match ban be more appropriate for a player facing retrospective action of this kind?
0
Comments
That’s a fair point; however, using the same logic, if a player ‘gets away with it’ in the 1st minute then he’s gone unpunished and played virtually a full game that he shouldn’t have.
But that's not his fault is it? You are punishing players for the ineptitude of the referee.
Or alternatively, at the moment, one could say the 'offending' player is being rewarded by the ineptitude of the referee.
However, it's not really a case of the ref's ineptitude (or otherwise); some offences can take place so far out of the ref's field of vision that they are often only picked up at a much later stage by one of the many TV cameras.
It's not possible for officials, inept or not, to pick up on every serious incident.
Isn't that why the FA allow retrospective video evidence to be used?
What did Fellini get for his elbows?
Given that so far in a red shirt he hasn't appeared to be able to tell his arse from his elbow i shudder to think what his actual intentions were TBH.
you dont have to go on the attack just because a chelsea player is named. The thread doesnt seem to me to be about ramires specifically, just debating the merits of retrospective action. Calm down.
Or Toure with his little kicks at players ?
The first word in the op is Chelsea .
If it were a balanced thread, it would mention all the teams that this applies to.
It doesn't need to mention all the teams. It mentions one player as an example and then discusses the issue in general.
Only you could see this thread as an attack on Chelsea, welll maybe a few others
and the rest of the post goes on to discuss the situation rather than the player specifically.
for example the post ends with...."Would a minimum 4-match ban be more appropriate for a player facing retrospective action of this kind?"...its not asking should ramires be banned its discussing retrospective action full stop. No doubt the discussion is brought up by the news about ramires but thats the initiation of a discussion, not the whole point of it.
You could try reading posts rather than seeing the word chelsea and going on the attack.
You will actually do anything to avoid a subject that "might" show someone to do with Chelsea in a bad light. It's obvious why the example is being used - it's the most recent one. There are plenty others to pick from should you so wish.
I will start with two clear elbows from Fellaini that were unpunished, even retrospectively.
Has this set a precedent so that no future situations cannot be then acted upon?
You really struggle to understand anything don't you? I'll try to make this simple, I'll use as many short words as possible.
In the examples (sorry - too long a word) times with Fellaini.. If he'd been charged and found guilty, should he have been suspended (sorry - long word again) not got to play for 3 games, or 4?
Can he/she do us a favour and save such unnecessary histrionics for another threead, or maybe another forum?
As some forum members have taken my innocent posts in this forum, i will respond to the op.
I understand what you are saying. In terms of time spent on the pitch, the player that should have been sent off (should the ref, assistants or the 4th official all miss the incident) will, if found guilty by a panel, have a less severe punishment.
This could be anything up to 90 minutes, if the incident occurred moments after the kick off.
Thus asking if a 3 or a 4 game ban would be a just retrospective punishment is, on the face of things, a legitimate one.
However you are missing a very important point.
A player being sent off the field is a positive thing for the opponents. They get to play out the rest of the game against a weakened opposition.
If the incident is missed and the player remains on the field, that weakness is not present and the opposing team have not been allowed to take advantage of the transgression.
If they are then subsequently banned for 3 or 4 games, this could actually turn out to be a huge NEGATIVE for the team the player transgressed against.
Allow me to explain.
At the start of the season Man United are Playing Villa. On 5 minutes after kick off, Benteke, elbows a united player which should have been a red card, but was missed by all.
United are wronged and have to play the next 85 minutes against villa and their star striker.
If Benteke then gets a retrospective 4 game ban from the FA, this may disadvantage United AGAIN.
If villas next 4 opponents are Chelsea, Liverpool, City and Arsenal all of those clubs will have a significant advantage when playing villa without their star player Benteke, and the Wronged club United are thus disadvantaged.
Ironically, it could be argued that unless its before, say 70 minutes on the clock, it is not desirable to have an opposing player sent off!
Counter-intuitive but true.
Please stop spoling threads with your ludicrous victim mentality when no club point is intended.
Ramires is just being mentioned as a familiar recent example. The OP quite obviously wants to discuss a general point.
So to the actual point, I'd say 3 matches is fine for an offense that would have been given a 3 match ban if seen and sent off.
At least retrospective action is taken, and 3 matches is a heck of a lot better han 0. I think you just have to accept the slight anomaly if the offense takes place early in the match. It's not really practical to ban for say 3 matches and 80 minutes ! And 4 matches is just generally unfair.
So, basically, fine as it is.
While much of what you say could be true, it is very dependant on the particular circumstances, and there are numerous possible scenarios re opponents' positions and the positions of the opponents a player would be banned against. To me it's kind of c'est la vie - i.e. not much you can practically do about it.
Would be amusing though if say Man City players tried to plead with a referee not to send off a Southampton player ( let's say Lalana ) late in a match, because they realised that he would then be banned vs Liverpool.
Are these guidelines set up by Uefa/Fifa.
Does seem odd that you can get a bigger punishment if the ref misses it on the day
My point exactly.
And the longer the ban, the more likely this outcome.