BFTG Villa

[Nameless]

There are three questions here:

Was it violent conduct - kinda implied intent in that, if not explicit, but very hard to say it is violent conduct IMO, it's not a clear punch /kick/headbutt/push etc
Is it excessive force - not really, he's just running, you'll never convincingly show extra force on that
Is it reckless - this is the more likely to stand up of the three IMO. If I was the FA and didn't like what I saw enough to want to charge him (esp with the previous) this is what I'd go with, but I still think a decent advocate could easily challenge at appeal.

Those are questions applying to different situations though. We aren’t looking to see if he deserves a caution.
Try looking at the Ibrahimovic incident using those questions and then explain how they decided what happened was way, way worse than ‘an obvious punch’
The issue will be whether Mings could or should have avoided stepping fairly heavily on Oliviera’s face.

They have to demonstrate an offence was committed before they can sanction him, so it's very relevant. They decide whether he could/ should have avoided by answering those three questions.

It HAS to be based on the Laws.

I may have missed an option I suppose but I still can't think what it is because I think endangering an opponent is covered by them.

Ok, I re read the regs and you are correct.
There’s really only one question though which is the violent conduct one. It’s what he was charged with and found guilty of last time and no one has come up with any reason why what he did last time is significantly different to this.

[Snowflake Royal]

IMO he wasn't already moving at pace and stumbling and Zlatan was a shorter obstacle lying static and curled up.

That makes it unquestioningly an act of (deliberate) violent conduct.

[windermereROYAL]

Makes you wonder if it would have been the same decision if it happened to Harry Kane in front of the sky cameras?

[Old Man Andrews]

IMO he wasn't already moving at pace and stumbling and Zlatan was a shorter obstacle lying static and curled up.

That makes it unquestioningly an act of (deliberate) violent conduct.

The trip caused by the falling Oliveira is what clouds my judgement of it. I can easily see why that would have changed his stride and take him slightly off balance.

[Old Man Andrews]

Makes you wonder if it would have been the same decision if it happened to Harry Kane in front of the sky cameras?

Well yes because the FA rules are still the FA rules no matter what league.

[Nameless]

IMO he wasn't already moving at pace and stumbling and Zlatan was a shorter obstacle lying static and curled up.

That makes it unquestioningly an act of (deliberate) violent conduct.

He’s not moving at pace in this instance though.
There is certainly a valid interpretation that he looks down to where he is going to place his feet and there is a downward and backward pressure. There’s no attempt to avoid contact.
Personally I think it is a shame that the evidence won’t be properly assessed, they are sticking with a real time, unsighted call from the official and where such a bad injury results they should be investigating. If a proper look concludes no intent or responsibility that would be more acceptable.
The rugby citing process is a hugely better way of dealing with this type of thing and is never seen as under mining officials.

[Nameless]

Makes you wonder if it would have been the same decision if it happened to Harry Kane in front of the sky cameras?

Well yes because the FA rules are still the FA rules no matter what league.

Really ?
Try getting video evidence in tier 7 !

[Snowflake Royal]

IMO he wasn't already moving at pace and stumbling and Zlatan was a shorter obstacle lying static and curled up.

That makes it unquestioningly an act of (deliberate) violent conduct.

He’s not moving at pace in this instance though.
There is certainly a valid interpretation that he looks down to where he is going to place his feet and there is a downward and backward pressure. There’s no attempt to avoid contact.
Personally I think it is a shame that the evidence won’t be properly assessed, they are sticking with a real time, unsighted call from the official and where such a bad injury results they should be investigating. If a proper look concludes no intent or responsibility that would be more acceptable.
The rugby citing process is a hugely better way of dealing with this type of thing and is never seen as under mining officials.

I think he is moving at pace.

What I'd want is some movement and psychology experts to look at it and give an opinion rather than mooks like us.

[Old Man Andrews]

Makes you wonder if it would have been the same decision if it happened to Harry Kane in front of the sky cameras?

Well yes because the FA rules are still the FA rules no matter what league.

Really ?
Try getting video evidence in tier 7 !

There was no video evidence required because the ref saw it. The ref would still see it in Step 7. I know what you're getting at but the ref is to blame here if anything not the FA.

[Nameless]

IMO he wasn't already moving at pace and stumbling and Zlatan was a shorter obstacle lying static and curled up.

That makes it unquestioningly an act of (deliberate) violent conduct.

He’s not moving at pace in this instance though.
There is certainly a valid interpretation that he looks down to where he is going to place his feet and there is a downward and backward pressure. There’s no attempt to avoid contact.
Personally I think it is a shame that the evidence won’t be properly assessed, they are sticking with a real time, unsighted call from the official and where such a bad injury results they should be investigating. If a proper look concludes no intent or responsibility that would be more acceptable.
The rugby citing process is a hugely better way of dealing with this type of thing and is never seen as under mining officials.

I think he is moving at pace.

What I'd want is some movement and psychology experts to look at it and give an opinion rather than mooks like us.

If that was Alex Pearce i’d concede that he had a bit of a shift on but really, he’s just trotting.

[Nameless]

Well yes because the FA rules are still the FA rules no matter what league.

Really ?
Try getting video evidence in tier 7 !

There was no video evidence required because the ref saw it. The ref would still see it in Step 7. I know what you're getting at but the ref is to blame here if anything not the FA.

The FA rules are a significant factor and the FA sets them. They have done away with this idea that the referee is infallible by bringing in VAR. Next stage must be to allow any major decision that is clearly an error to be looked at after the game (not suggesting they would have over turned this one but the principle is there).

[Old Man Andrews]

I'd like the FA to take a look at the whole game and the referees performance in all of it. The alleged stamp aside he was absolutely abysmal from start to finish.

[Nameless]

I'd like the FA to take a look at the whole game and the referees performance in all of it. The alleged stamp aside he was absolutely abysmal from start to finish.

Won’t his assessor be doing exactly that or is it only PL. refs who get assessed every week ?

[Hound]

Obvs a ban for Minge would have done us no good whatsoever anyway

He’s a decent player when not stamping and no doubts Villa have games against our rivals to come

[Old Man Andrews]

I'd like the FA to take a look at the whole game and the referees performance in all of it. The alleged stamp aside he was absolutely abysmal from start to finish.

Won’t his assessor be doing exactly that or is it only PL. refs who get assessed every week ?

I'd like to think that in the second tier of English football they'd be watched every game but something tells me they don't. Worth asking the FA.

[muirinho]

Well yes because the FA rules are still the FA rules no matter what league.

Really ?
Try getting video evidence in tier 7 !

There was no video evidence required because the ref saw it. The ref would still see it in Step 7. I know what you're getting at but the ref is to blame here if anything not the FA.

I'm confused regardless. It's clearly a head injury regardless of whether it was accidental or not. So if the refereee saw it, why did he not stop the game? He's supposed to do that as soon as he sees a head injury, but he didn't stop the game till Mings started waving frantically at him.

If the FA had a review, and their three refs said not a foul, I'd be OK with it. But to not look at it all, when it's obvious the referee could not have seen it properly, foul or not, is ridiculous.

[Oilroyal]

there's a petition online re no retrospective action against Tyrone Mings by the FA if anyone wants to sign it

https://www.change.org/p/the-fa-the-fa-to-ban-tyrone-mings-for-the-stamp-on-n%C3%A9lson-oliveira?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&utm_content=okt_psf_tw_clinks%3Aclink

[Old Man Andrews]

there's a petition online re no retrospective action against Tyrone Mings by the FA if anyone wants to sign it

https://www.change.org/p/the-fa-the-fa-to-ban-tyrone-mings-for-the-stamp-on-n%C3%A9lson-oliveira?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_post_sap_share_gmail_abi.gmail_abi&utm_content=okt_psf_tw_clinks%3Aclink

See this is where it gets silly. What is anyone hoping to achieve by this? Just makes us all look whiney. The decision has been made and we need to move on and get back to focussing on the relegation fight ahead.

[Nameless]

Really ?
Try getting video evidence in tier 7 !

There was no video evidence required because the ref saw it. The ref would still see it in Step 7. I know what you're getting at but the ref is to blame here if anything not the FA.

I'm confused regardless. It's clearly a head injury regardless of whether it was accidental or not. So if the refereee saw it, why did he not stop the game? He's supposed to do that as soon as he sees a head injury, but he didn't stop the game till Mings started waving frantically at him.

If the FA had a review, and their three refs said not a foul, I'd be OK with it. But to not look at it all, when it's obvious the referee could not have seen it properly, foul or not, is ridiculous.

THe footage I’ve seen shows itdifferently.
Clash occurs, ref gives ‘no foul’ signal then stops play. Mings may have been waving as the ref signalled no foul but there was no delay in stopping the game. Possibly play a bit after the ref blew making it look like he played on.

[muirinho]

There was no video evidence required because the ref saw it. The ref would still see it in Step 7. I know what you're getting at but the ref is to blame here if anything not the FA.

I'm confused regardless. It's clearly a head injury regardless of whether it was accidental or not. So if the refereee saw it, why did he not stop the game? He's supposed to do that as soon as he sees a head injury, but he didn't stop the game till Mings started waving frantically at him.

If the FA had a review, and their three refs said not a foul, I'd be OK with it. But to not look at it all, when it's obvious the referee could not have seen it properly, foul or not, is ridiculous.

THe footage I’ve seen shows itdifferently.
Clash occurs, ref gives ‘no foul’ signal then stops play. Mings may have been waving as the ref signalled no foul but there was no delay in stopping the game. Possibly play a bit after the ref blew making it look like he played on.

Didn't seem like that at the time, but fair enough, entirely possible I wouldn't have heard the whistle over the howls of protest.

Either way, it makes no difference to us really - we've played Villa now, we'd want them to have their strongest teams when playing our rivals.