scoobos 297 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Right, so please someone put me straight. Horror tackle on Haidara - ref didnt see it - FA say they cant take retrospective action. Suarez bites Ivanvoic - ref didnt see it - "The FA said the match officials had not seen it during the game at Anfield and it had been "retrospectively reviewed"." ey.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Assistant referee saw the Haidara incident though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobH 0 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) Yeah I'd like to hear an explanation of the 'logic' myself. I don't get the distinction between addressing an incorrect decision and addressing no decision. Both are wrong and surely both deserve the same treatment. Edited April 23, 2013 by RobH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14878 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 If it had been clearly seen the Haidara tackle was serious foul play, and there is a reason why Halsey couldnt see it, he was unsighted. Suarez is violent conduct, and they will make an exception for that it would appear. Ben Thatcher got a booking for a "foul" on Mendez, but it was reviewed and he was then charged with VC. Clear as mud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 297 Posted April 25, 2013 Author Share Posted April 25, 2013 Glad to see we have a little media coverage of this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10017442/You-cant-compare-Luis-Suarez-bite-with-Callum-McManaman-tackle-insists-Roberto-Martinez.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 No one saw the Suarez one so it's pretty simply expained. I don't understand anyones confusion about it. I'm sure they would have made this an occassion where they overturned a referee's decision if he said he saw it but did nothing mind. And that would be the right thing to do tbh. The rat faced cunt deliberately bit an opponent. He didn't just mistime a challenge. Tackles are part of football, his teeth should never be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13906 Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 I don't think McManaman mistimed a challenge either - he went for him. I agree with the Suarez ban but the FA need some consistency - there is no way tackles like McManaman's should go unpunished whether the ref sees it or not. It's not just a foul it's a career threatening tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 It was over strong but I don't think he had the intent to hurt him. Mind you, how could you ever prove intent with something like that. With Suarez, no one could claim he accidently bit him (even with those teeth). The FA will never want to look at any tackle unless the officials say they didn't see it because tackling is part of the game. Biting clearly isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 297 Posted April 25, 2013 Author Share Posted April 25, 2013 I didn't think he had intent, until the coverage from many angles came out the next day - and its pretty obvious that he went in to hit him hard. Maybe not break his leg, but he had intent all over his face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted April 26, 2013 Share Posted April 26, 2013 He definitely went in to hard and recklessly but I don't think he went into it trying to injure him. He just didn't care whether he did or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrossthepond 711 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 From the BBC: The Football Association announces it has changed the retrospective action process ahead of next season. Callum McManaman's tackle on Massadio Haidara From the start of the new campaign, the governing body can decide to take action against players when match officials are not in a position to fully assess an incident. The amendment follows a tackle last season involving Wigan's Callum McManaman and Newcastle United's Massadio Haidara. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 297 Posted July 12, 2013 Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 I don't get it really. The FA has done loads of retrospective stuff. Perhaps this is done just to indemnify them from some possible litigation or something. I'm pleased mind, just seems a bit fishy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OTF 6315 Posted July 12, 2013 Share Posted July 12, 2013 As much as an admission of their incompetence as we'll get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now