Shabir's red card

[alwaysnextyear]

According to SKY sports - I would like to think common sense will prevail, and 3 matches will be enough


The FA calls for Shabir Khan's three-match ban to be increased
By Bryan Swanson, Chief News Reporter | Last Updated: 04/03/15 2:16pm

The Football Association has asked an independent commission to consider increasing the three-match ban imposed on Worcester City’s Shabir Khan.


Khan was involved in a ‘body slam’ incident in the Conference North against Stockport County last month, and the FA believes the standard punishment of three matches for violent conduct is not harsh enough in this case.

The FA wants Khan’s ban to be increased because they believe the automatic suspension is ‘clearly insufficient’.

Khan has denied the FA’s claim, and the case will be analysed by an independent commission.

Khan has requested not to attend the hearing in person.

[leon]

The FA's own stipulations are that if the referee sees an incident and deals with it then no retrospective action can be taken as per the Matic and Barnes scenario. Matic actually had his 3 game ban reduced.
Who in the FA has this come from as their own Disciplinary webpage has 3 games listed?
#Media_witchhunt

[auldreekie]

As I understand it these Independent Commissions include former players and managers who understand the game. I am also sure that the reference up to the Commission will be more detailed than the headlines reported by Sky. My thinking - perhaps naively? - is that while, the FA have seen a punch or a late tackle many, many times before they have referred this incident because of its novelty, i.e. an elegantly executed body slam. It might be different but was it any more dangerous than other red card offences and thus requiring an additional sanction? It is that question I think the Commission is being asked to determine.

[Tim Munslow]

If they review Shabir's conduct will they, as a matter of fairness, review the tackle which sparked off his reaction? That was also, to my mind, worthy of a red card and all he got was a yellow. Could they also review that and award a red?

[leon]

What bugs me is that this comes in the same week that Dave Mackay passed away. Anyone old enough will remember the photograph of him having Billy Bremner by the throat because Bremner had been kicking the leg that Mackay had broken twice. What happened - nothing apart from they both got on with the game probably had a beer afterwards and a laugh about it in later years, no FA bans no mock outrage by the media and pundits who have achieved nothing!

[simples]

Mar 5, 2015 12:07:52 GMT leon said:

What bugs me is that this comes in the same week that Dave Mackay passed away. Anyone old enough will remember the photograph of him having Billy Bremner by the throat because Bremner had been kicking the leg that Mackay had broken twice. What happened - nothing apart from they both got on with the game probably had a beer afterwards and a laugh about it in later years, no FA bans no mock outrage by the media and pundits who have achieved nothing!

I saw the photo and remember reading about the incident some time ago. People viewing 'just' the photo or 'just' the video would not fully understand the reasons for the reaction. However I bet Billy Bremner was fully aware of Mackay's injuries - not sure if the Stockport player was as well informed regarding Shabir.

[auldreekie]

Mar 5, 2015 12:53:32 GMT simples said:

Mar 5, 2015 12:07:52 GMT leon said:

What bugs me is that this comes in the same week that Dave Mackay passed away. Anyone old enough will remember the photograph of him having Billy Bremner by the throat because Bremner had been kicking the leg that Mackay had broken twice. What happened - nothing apart from they both got on with the game probably had a beer afterwards and a laugh about it in later years, no FA bans no mock outrage by the media and pundits who have achieved nothing!

I saw the photo and remember reading about the incident some time ago. People viewing 'just' the photo or 'just' the video would not fully understand the reasons for the reaction. However I bet Billy Bremner was fully aware of Mackay's injuries - not sure if the Stockport player was as well informed regarding Shabir.

Spot on! Apparently Dave Mackay never liked that photograph as he thought it portrayed him as a bully. What the photograph does not show is the reason for the reaction - three minutes into the match and a fellow Scot comes flying in on the left leg that Dave had broken on two separate occasions. Even an experienced referee like Norman Burtenshaw - the ref frantically blowing his whistle in the iconic photograph - did not understand Mackay's reaction. In his autobiography Burtenshaw said that the the foul had been given why react? Well we know the reason! Dave Mackay was tough as nails, a ball-playing half back, a winner and a leader ....... and never sent off! To Burtenshaw's credit he makes the distinction between a "hard" player like Mackay and a "dirty" player. He also further highlighted Dave as one of the  hard men who could take it as well as dish it out.

[ac]

6 Games according to the FA Suspensions list

www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/suspensions

[Tim Munslow]

So, according to that, the Stockport player who committed the original (horrendous) foul goes unpunished!

There's justice for you.

[glevumblues]

Of course. The referee saw it and yellow carded him. As referees are infallible, it seems there's nothing else the FA can do.

[Dodger]

So, the FA works like this then?


The referee brandishes a red card, the FA uphold the referee's decision and takes no further action "because the referee has seen the incident".

So:-

1. - When the Matic (Chelsea) incident occurred, why did the FA have to intervene if the red card was the referee's decision?

2. - Having intervened, why was the sentence reduced? Does this mean the automatic 3-match ban rule is irrelevant?

3. - Why didn't the referee brandish a red card for the initial tackle on Shab? It was an obvious foul as the ref gave a yellow card.

4. - As the ref only gave a yellow, does this mean that this type of 'leg-break' tackle is no longer deemed dangerous?

Lessons learned and options for the future:-

1. - Shab rolls around on the floor so the ref gives the tackler a red card?

2. - Shab gets up, lands a right hook, lays the tackler out and gets himself a red card, but only a 3 match ban.

3. - Later in the game, Shab applies a similar tackle on the player and only gets a yellow (per the ref's precedent already set)

4. - Get Carl H. to phone the FA, speak in a Portuguese accent and get the ban reduced with, perhaps, the promise of some goodies being sent to FA HQ.


Dodger. 
 


 

[glevumblues]

The difference is that a red card means an automatic suspension, but although it's generally 3 games, it's not the ref's decision if the FA decide otherwise. Why Matic had his 3 games reduced to 2 is incomprehensible. Although there were 'mitigating circumstances' which led him to commit the offence, pushing an opponent to the floor is still a red card issue. Unfortunately for Shab, being kicked to the floor and having Stockport's teenage thug attempting to punch him as well doesn't constitute 'mitigating circumstances'. On the video, it also seems that their no.2 grabbed Shab round the neck and threw him to the ground. This warranted no action by the ref or any retrospective action by the FA, even though he had already been booked earlier.

[Croc]

Sadly Coggins has history with refereeing us - always seems to get worse each time he referees us.

[leon]

What is also frustrating about all this is that on the same day a Harrogate player had his leg broken in two places by a bad challenge by a Chorley player who will serve a 3 game ban only!