there have been plenty of other stamping bans that weren't five games and would be more comparable to this incident.

------
you're saying other stamps are comparable to this?

comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by LQ (U6305)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 5 minutes ago
Are you the female maff?
______________

No idea what this means. You biting again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mafs a fookwit that doesn't answer questions and just talks rubbish with no basis in truth.
________________

Thanks for clearing that up, Maf...

You obviously mistook me for someone who cares.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I mistook you for a biased fookwit, an easy mistake to make👍

Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)

What I'm saying is quite clear.

If you can't understand it then maybe you should find a childrens forum.

there have been plenty of other stamping bans that weren't five games and would be more comparable to this incident.

------
you're saying other stamps are comparable to this?
_________________-

You're repeating what he wrote?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 22 seconds ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

I don't know. I'm not the one claiming to know.

I would imagine it's because of the dangerous nature of the stamp i.e. aimed at the head. His frivolous appeal probably didn't help either.

What I'm saying is this incident isn't similar at all and there have been plenty of other stamping bans that weren't five games and would be more comparable to this incident.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The info we do know is that Mings argued it wasn't intentional. This much is clear from the statement Bournemouth released. The FA rejected this and extended the ban by 2 matches. They've not said it was extended because of the appeal. The reasons stated are below;

http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/mar/08/tyrone-mings-suspended-080317

Rojo's stamp was as bad as Mings in yes it was the heat and not head, so could be argued as less severe, but Mings claimed his stamp was not intentional. Rojo's clearly was. Deserves a 5 match ban IMO.

Chest not head*

Bloody autocorrect

there have been plenty of other stamping bans that weren't five games and would be more comparable to this incident.

------
you're saying other stamps are comparable to this?

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

The fact he argued based on intent doesn't mean the extended ban was based on intent.

"Rojo's stamp was as bad as Mings"

Maybe in your view but not in mine.

You have no basis to claim that Rojo deserves a 5 match ban.

You're only saying that because Mings was banned for 5 games, conveniently ignoring any other incident similar to last nights where the player has not been banned for 5 games.

Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)

I'm saying other incidents dealt with as stamps by the FA are similar to this, yes.

Ok, so really the FA could see it as a stamp?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

The fact he argued based on intent doesn't mean the extended ban was based on intent.

"Rojo's stamp was as bad as Mings"

Maybe in your view but not in mine.

You have no basis to claim that Rojo deserves a 5 match ban.

You're only saying that because Mings was banned for 5 games, conveniently ignoring any other incident similar to last nights where the player has not been banned for 5 games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bournemouth have said it was because the FA disagreed with it not being intentional. The FA reasons don't explicitly state the extension was because of intent but say it was insufficient because;

"The player denied both the charge and the claim, however, both matters were found proven and a two-match suspension was added by the Commission to the standard sanction for violent conduct."

Why doesn't Rojo's stamp fall into the above category?

Can you name these 'similar incidents' you keep alluding to?

Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)

No, the FA will see it as violent conduct.

Stamp / stood on / kicked... it's all irrelevant terminology as far as an FA panel would be concerned.

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

The appeal was rejected because they didn't agree.

That has nothing to do with why the ban was 5 games.

Think about what you're saying - if intent means 5 games, that means players who get three games what... didn't intend it?

You're not engaging your brain.

Similar incidents?

I'm glad you asked.

Step forward your very own Martin Skrtel.

Three game ban for treading on De Gea.

A much more similar incident than Mings in my view and an example of why you're talking absolute nonsense by screaming for a 5 game ban.

Winston

I'm only going off what Bournemouth said in their statement after the charge was made. Plus what Mings himself said. The FA decided the incident warranted an extra 2 matches to the standard for violent conduct.

I think Rojo's falls into the same category as it was obviously malicious. He didn't accidentally stamp on Hazard did he.

"You're not engaging your brain"

Oh dear, says the lad who claimed it wasn't a stamp. I've based my argument on information from Bournemouth, Mings and the FA. You've based yours on, well nothing.

So a stamp to the head can't be compared to a stamp to the chest, your words. Head being more sever than chest apparently. But a stamp to the leg can be compared to a stamp to the chest. Ok then.

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

You're taking two things that aren't related and trying to squeeze them together.

The fact he appealed based on not intending to do it does not mean that is the reason for the extra games.

Are you saying Skrtel's wasn't obviously malicious?

If so, why did the FA even charge him? If it was accidental he wouldn't be charged with violent conduct, would he?

Let me know when you catch up.

Stamp??

Ffs, get a grip

Winston

A stamp to the head deserves a 5 match ban. Skrtel's stamp on De Gea's leg got 3 matches. Using your logic on severity Rojo should get 4 matches then.

But hang on, it wasn't a stamp.

Let me know when you make your mind up. Got to go. Nearly time to go home.

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

How did you get to 4 matches?

Whether it was a stamp is irrelevant - it will be categorised as violent conduct.

In my view, it's a standard case of VC and it'll be dealt with by a three game ban, as was Skrtel's.

You tried to make out that the FA increased the ban because of it being intentional. As the Skrtel ban shows, that was utter nonsense and I suspect you now realise that.

A more likely reason for the extra two games is the severity of the incident - I think anyone with half a brain can see why a stamp/tread on the head would be classed as more severe than Rojo and Skrtel.

Winston

"A more likely reason for the extra two games is the severity of the incident - I think anyone with half a brain can see why a stamp/tread on the head would be classed as more severe than Rojo and Skrtel."

Surely a stamp to the chest is 'more severe' than a stamp to the leg?

"You tried to make out that the FA increased the ban because of it being intentional."

According to Bournemouth and Mings himself that's exactly what happened. I haven't tried to 'make out' anything. Just gone on the information available.

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

I don't think it is, no - not watching the two incidents.

No, according to Bournemouth he lost the appeal because the FA feel it was intentional.

There's no suggestion that they increased the ban because of intent.

As I said, if that were the case, surely it implies they didn't think Skrtel intended it?

You're all over the shop.

Winston

Of course a stamp to the chest is more severe. Why do you think it isn't?

"There's no suggestion that they increased the ban because of intent."

You know a 5 match ban was always on the cards do you? You initially thought it was extended because of the frivolous appeal. You're the one 'all over the shop' here lad.

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

Why is it more severe?

No, I don't know a 5 match ban was on the cards. I haven't claimed to know anything.

I didn't say it was because of a frivolous appeal. I said it may have been.

You still haven't responded to the point that Skrtel's stamp was obviously deemed intentional, so why no 5 games ban?

Your original point made no sense and you're all over the place.

Let me know when you catch up.

Winston

The same reason a stamp to the head is more severe than a stamp to the legs. Stamping on legs could be deemed accidental as your legs are likely to be in a position to come into contact with a players foot. Can the same be said of a players head or chest?

"No, I don't know a 5 match ban was on the cards. I haven't claimed to know anything"

I think here lies the problem with this debate. Your argument is based on not knowing anything.

"You still haven't responded to the point that Skrtel's stamp was obviously deemed intentional, so why no 5 games ban?"

Did Skrtel argue it wasn't intentional, or did he accept the 3 game ban?

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

When they're lying on the floor, it's the same likelihood.

No, my argument is based on logic.

Yours isn't.

Skrtel and Mings were both found guilty of violent conduct because the FA felt the stamp/tread was intentional.

Being intentional is a prerequisite of the violent conduct charge.

Do you not understand that?

Skrtel appealed on the basis that it was accidental. The FA rejected it and handed him a 3 game ban.

Mings appealed on the basis that it was accidental. The FA rejected it and handed him a 5 game ban.

Now, it doesn't take a genius to work out that intent is not the basis for the extra two games, does it?

Jeez. I can't believe you don't understand this.

comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 40 minutes ago
Stamp??

Ffs, get a grip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? It was a stamp funny how much the attitudes of united fans have changed in a week about a stamp.