Right thing to do?

It will not undo the ban you are right Maid, it is though a matter of principle surely.

It appears that the FL are now saying it's OK to abuse refs and they have set a dangerous precedent. Is the benchmark Pontus or Adams?.

In my mind, there should be a zero tolerance to abuse of refs because of the knock on effect for sunday league and kids games. Pontus was out of order and deserved the ban but Adams shouldn't be allowed to get away with abusing refs scot free.

I wonder if it had happened the other way round, whether the ban would have been imposed. I guess not as the precedent of Adams would have been the benchmark.

This is a dangerous thing for the FL to do because it potentially opens the floodgates for greater abuse of refs.

To me the context is Charlie Austin is saying the ref and his officials cost Southampton 2 points but their error was not done deliberately and they need help with VAR. so constructive criticism. NO FINE NO BAN

Pontas on the other hand with the use of industrial language implied the ref deliberatly made wrong decisions against Leeds calling into question the ref's character and integrity resulting in a valid punishment.

I think the Brentford headbutt going unpunished was ridiculous and that should have been challenged rather than trying to score points with the FA now as they will see this as unnecessary irritation and only reply with a repeat of their original reason for Charlie Austin in my opinion rightfully not being punished.

Austin did say that the referees cheated them out of the points though. That is suggesting that the referee cheated, no?

Lubo, spot on.

He still criticised/blamed the officials but yeah it wasn't as bad as Jansson's.

I thought Austin’s was much worse. Pontus was still on the pitch with a microphone shoved in his face - so Adrenalin still pumping. Austin was a while after - he had chance to take stock before ranting & tearing into the ref....

If you actually listen to Charlie Austin's rant after the game his exact words are "the officials cost us 2 points" he did not say that the referee cheated them out of 2 points.

If he had said that then I agree he should have been punished.

comment by Macca: Emily Bishop's love child (U8194)
posted 11 hours, 32 minutes ago
If you actually listen to Charlie Austin's rant after the game his exact words are "the officials cost us 2 points" he did not say that the referee cheated them out of 2 points.

If he had said that then I agree he should have been punished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it was also about the body language. Austin looked like at any point he might give someone a smack. He was agressive and did imply that the referees ruled out a goal to cost his side the points.

It's a subjective thing though. Yesterday Lee Johnson was very scathing about the referee saying that he was impacted by the crowd and that they have had lots of decisions against them the last few weeks because of poor refs.

Does this not constitute as abusing referees? He's essentially said that one only gave a decision because of the home crowd (cheating) and then said that repreated decisions have been given against his team, seemingly implying that it is a deliberate thing.

Not saying he should get banned, but the Pontus decision has surely opened a box for the EFL and FA on how they deal with these sorts of things.

I think he’s asking for clarification. Why one ban and not the other?

However it seems Jansson’s use of the word “robbed” is their get out clause. It implies the officials were complicit rather than inept.

Best we just tell the players to be boring in Sky interviews straight after the game and they might get the message.

Just tell them all to speak in their native language. Sky will soon get the message and the point will be proven. Be as irritating as possible and eventually people drop the issue