Was Rojo stamp worse than Tyrone?

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

What they said was irrelevant.

You misinterpreted what they said because you know very little about the law.

That much is clear.

I find it astounding that you don't realise anyone charged with violent conduct is deemed to have intended it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm no. There's nothing to misinterpret. They felt the length of ban was unjust because what Mings did wasn't intentional. I'd suggest you read their statements again.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

I'd say that what Rojo did wasn't particularly dangerous.

If he'd stood there and put his full weight through a stamp onto the chest then it would be different, but he didn't.

As I said, the FA will generally categorise most things as standard - elbows, treading on opponents etc.

They obviously classified Mings as more serious.

Makes perfect sense to me and to anyone with common sense, I suspect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah right an intentional stamp to the chest isn't dangerous. You ok then.

Mings didn't put his 'full weight' into the stamp on Ibrahimovic. Also not dangerous then. Skrtel didn't put his 'full weight' onto De Gea, same applies.

You still haven't answered my question about intentional elbows to the head, and how dangerous they are by comparison.

No action to be taken

For once, common sense prevails

Joke decision by The FA. 3rd one he's got away with.

Another pint of bitter sir?

Not surprised

What we do know is;

Winston can calculate psi pressure by sight,

The FA are one hooky organisation,

There will be many smug "agent Gill" references over the coming days

Coutinho's Happy Feet (U18971)

I know what they felt and you're trying to get out of your mistake - I won't let you.

You thought the extra games was related to the fact that the FA thought it was intentional.

That is nonsense because all cases of violent conduct are deemed intentional e.g. Skrtel.

So the extra games must have been based on something else.

Let me know when the penny drops?

"Ah right an intentional stamp to the chest isn't dangerous"

Did I say that?

Fact is that most cases of violent conduct are dealt with by giving a three game ban.

Rojo's offence didn't look particularly serious to anyone with an ounce of common sense (or without an anti United agenda), and a three game ban would have been the norm.

You're only calling for a five game ban because Mings got one, which is somewhat childish and certainly illogical.

The Mings incident was a stamp.

Rojo's was a pre-paid envelope.

Big difference.