BFTG Villa

[andrew1957]

Interesting. Mings stamps on Man Unt player and gets a 5 match ban. Mings stamps on a Reading (who gives a shit about RFC as we are not a top 6 club) and no action.

If he had done this to a top 6 player I am sure the FA would have taken action irrespective of whether the ref saw it or not.

To me the slow motion shows absolute intent to stamp on Oliveira. I am sure he could have avoided the player.

Shocking by the referee and the FA.

[Maneki Neko]

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.

Lol at unquestioningly/unquestionably

[Nameless]

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.

I had a picture in my mind of the ref turning and chasing play back upfield oblivious to the injury, but it’s clear that it didn't happen Like that. I find it odd that my heat of the moment take of the situation was wrong, there is a first time for everything though.

[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- ... ks%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.

Silly is a term I use for those who do nothing if they believe Mings stamping down on a player’s face was not accidental. Signing a petition will hardly prevent us giving 100% in a relegation battle although, without Oliveira for the next few weeks isn’t going to be easier.

Shocking decision by the ref and appalled by the FA for not wanting to even review the situation

[Zip]

Interesting. Mings stamps on Man Unt player and gets a 5 match ban. Mings stamps on a Reading (who gives a shit about RFC as we are not a top 6 club) and no action.

If he had done this to a top 6 player I am sure the FA would have taken action irrespective of whether the ref saw it or not.

To me the slow motion shows absolute intent to stamp on Oliveira. I am sure he could have avoided the player.

Shocking by the referee and the FA.

+1

[Westwood52]

I absolutely agree with you-if the Ref had seen it, he is required to stop the game if there is a possibility of a head injury.
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.

[Old Man Andrews]

Interesting. Mings stamps on Man Unt player and gets a 5 match ban. Mings stamps on a Reading (who gives a shit about RFC as we are not a top 6 club) and no action.

If he had done this to a top 6 player I am sure the FA would have taken action irrespective of whether the ref saw it or not.

To me the slow motion shows absolute intent to stamp on Oliveira. I am sure he could have avoided the player.

Shocking by the referee and the FA.

+1

Isn't the difference here that the referee didn't see the Man Utd one? The ref on Saturday has either lied and said he did see the incident when he didnt and deemed it a coming together so that he doesn't get any flak or he genuinely saw it and thought it was an accidental coming together. I disagree with the rule, everything should be able to be viewed retrospectively but what can we do? It's done now, no amount of complaining changes the decision.

[royal_rumble]

All I can say is that I've seen alot of these types of coming together, player stumbling whilst running side by side. Never seen a guy stamp on the other guys face with such force, seemingly no attempt by Mings to even avert... no change in his momentum, footing etc. In isolation it looks very bad. In view that he has previous, even worse. Nothing short of assault.

[Zip]

Interesting. Mings stamps on Man Unt player and gets a 5 match ban. Mings stamps on a Reading (who gives a shit about RFC as we are not a top 6 club) and no action.

If he had done this to a top 6 player I am sure the FA would have taken action irrespective of whether the ref saw it or not.

To me the slow motion shows absolute intent to stamp on Oliveira. I am sure he could have avoided the player.

Shocking by the referee and the FA.

+1

Isn't the difference here that the referee didn't see the Man Utd one? The ref on Saturday has either lied and said he did see the incident when he didnt and deemed it a coming together so that he doesn't get any flak or he genuinely saw it and thought it was an accidental coming together. I disagree with the rule, everything should be able to be viewed retrospectively but what can we do? It's done now, no amount of complaining changes the decision.

Yes the only explanation is that he definitely saw it and thought it accidental BUT why did he not immediately see Oliveira was hurt if that was so because he didn’t. I know complains won’t change anything but it still makes a point.

[Old Man Andrews]

+1

Isn't the difference here that the referee didn't see the Man Utd one? The ref on Saturday has either lied and said he did see the incident when he didnt and deemed it a coming together so that he doesn't get any flak or he genuinely saw it and thought it was an accidental coming together. I disagree with the rule, everything should be able to be viewed retrospectively but what can we do? It's done now, no amount of complaining changes the decision.

Yes the only explanation is that he definitely saw it and thought it accidental BUT why did he not immediately see Oliveira was hurt if that was so because he didn’t. I know complains won’t change anything but it still makes a point.

Like I said I strongly disagree with the rule about not taking a closer look just because the officials saw it. Essentially what that says is a referee can never, ever be wrong. Dangerous.

[Oilroyal]

Interesting. Mings stamps on Man Unt player and gets a 5 match ban. Mings stamps on a Reading (who gives a shit about RFC as we are not a top 6 club) and no action.

If he had done this to a top 6 player I am sure the FA would have taken action irrespective of whether the ref saw it or not.

To me the slow motion shows absolute intent to stamp on Oliveira. I am sure he could have avoided the player.

Shocking by the referee and the FA.

+1

Isn't the difference here that the referee didn't see the Man Utd one? The ref on Saturday has either lied and said he did see the incident when he didnt and deemed it a coming together so that he doesn't get any flak or he genuinely saw it and thought it was an accidental coming together. I disagree with the rule, everything should be able to be viewed retrospectively but what can we do? It's done now, no amount of complaining changes the decision.

We stick together as fans and make our voices heard. I know it’s an 80’s thing but that what fans do. Or pop along to the next game and sing Reading till I die and then do go home and have ya tea and tap away on HNA and disagree with the next nobber .

[Snowball]

Yeah thought it would be hard for the FA to overrule the ref.

yet VAR...

[Denver Royal]

If you remove the red herring of it being deliberate how do you feel ?
Has Mings TWICE been the victim of a terrible misfortune, or has he been very careless and not taken care to avoid injuring an opponent ?
These often can’t be decided on facts (although I’m a bit surprised Ian hasn’t tried to insist someone gives him a way of measuring intent). It’s going to be opinion that decides what happens but it won’t be our opinion, it will be experienced officials and ex players with a lawyer in the mix somewhere.
I think the fact that Mings has done this twice means the FA have to charge him. He was guilty once and natural justice would demand it is properly investigated a second time. If he’s found not to have committed an offence then fairbenough, although whatever, he needs to be told very clearly he won’t be allowed a third unlucky accident

I find it impossible to remove the deliberate element.
looking at whether he did what he could to avoid it is just another way of asking if it was deliberate.
I think he was probably innocent both times(but also that its impossible for anyone to really tell) and id imagine most footballers have trodden on another player at some point.multiple times.
how do you investigate? id be up for a lie detector test, but even they aren't entirely reliable.looking at both incidents I think its pretty clear that both could quite feasibly be accidental.
it happening twice means nothing to me. a lottery winner is just as likely to win the lottery a second time, as anyone else.
same with a man accidentally treading on a mans head.

But a lottery winner has no control over them winning or not, there is no behavioural element to the probability.
If one player is involved in stamping on someone's head twice, it becomes much more probable that in fact they are doing it deliberately. I think.

Agreed, unless one believes that Mings is very unlucky, and that trouble just happens to follow him around, then I think with the human behavioral element, his recurrence relative to other players has to considered. Put another way, what's the breaking point? How many incidents would Mings have to be involved in before a different determination would be made?

(Btw, what about former ref Mark Halsey's statement that 'intent' has been removed from the laws anyway?)

[Old Man Andrews]

+1

Isn't the difference here that the referee didn't see the Man Utd one? The ref on Saturday has either lied and said he did see the incident when he didnt and deemed it a coming together so that he doesn't get any flak or he genuinely saw it and thought it was an accidental coming together. I disagree with the rule, everything should be able to be viewed retrospectively but what can we do? It's done now, no amount of complaining changes the decision.

We stick together as fans and make our voices heard. I know it’s an 80’s thing but that what fans do. Or pop along to the next game and sing Reading till I die and then do go home and have ya tea and tap away on HNA.

We'd be better off making our voices heard in the stadium by getting behind the team, we can't let the perceived injustice take everyone's mind off the job in hand. We have a responsibility to get behind the team at this tough time and the players need to stay focussed on picking up points. We could be in danger of letting this Oliveira incident overshadow the real fight which is the fight against relegation.

[Old Man Andrews]

Yeah thought it would be hard for the FA to overrule the ref.

yet VAR...

That's at the time though not two days later. Would have been very interested to see what would have been given if VAR was in place. I still think they would have gone with the ref.

[Snowball]

Yeah thought it would be hard for the FA to overrule the ref.

yet VAR...

That's at the time though not two days later. Would have been very interested to see what would have been given if VAR was in place. I still think they would have gone with the ref.

Whether there is a minute or a week, both cases are over-riding the ref's opinion/decision

[Old Man Andrews]

yet VAR...

That's at the time though not two days later. Would have been very interested to see what would have been given if VAR was in place. I still think they would have gone with the ref.

Whether there is a minute or a week, both cases are over-riding the ref's opinion/decision

It's a decent argument to make. The club could write to the FA making that point for sure. I guess the response would be the referee didn't make a clear and obvious error.

[Hound]

It is an odd one all round - like as mentioned above, if the ref had clearly seen it, why didn’t he rush over to check someone who had (accidentally) had their head stamped on was ok?

It’s all a bit arse covering. Think as mentioned by another poster, if it had gone before a panel and they decided they couldn’t ban him as they couldn’t prove it was deliberate - fair enough. But the ref saw it, so they can’t review? Clearly he didn’t see it that well...

Still it’s done now. Likelihood is Nelson will be back without missing more than a game or so and Mongs will carry on knowing that he has been very lucky a) not to end someone’s career and b) not to have virtually ended his own career

[download]

Whilst its understandable that we would want Mings banned, in a way that could end up hurting us. A weakened Villa could result in points going to our rivals.

I suggest we vent our anger towards making sure we back the team (and perhaps making sure that all refs feel they owe us one for 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.

Lol at unquestioningly/unquestionably

Fair.