Tyrone Mings Stamp

[David]

Quote

Bradley Johnson has been suspended for four games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment would be clearly insufficient.

The Derby County player was involved in an incident with Stoke City's Joe Allen during Wednesday's game [28 November 2018] which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.

Johnson denied the charge of violent conduct with an Independent Regulatory Commission then considering The FA's allegation that the three-match sanction should be increased.

In addition to the suspension for violent conduct, the player will also serve a one-match ban for accumulating five cautions.

http://www.thefa.com/news/2018/nov/29/bradley-johnson-charged-291118

[Spanish]

4 minutes ago, David said:

For the scuffle, but no mention was made of the "bite" which was why the FA were able to take action.

The rules stink, they need to be changed and this maybe the incident that triggers it, but for now little they can do. 

Nothing stopping the player from contacting the Police and reporting it as an assault though as far as I'm aware. 

yep I know the rules but the effect is to punish one where the 'victim' has not been injured and not the one where the VICTIM has been 

[David]

1 minute ago, Spanish said:

yep I know the rules but the effect is to punish one where the 'victim' has not been injured and not the one where the VICTIM has been 

If you know the rules then why say they believe Johnson's bite is worse than Mings stamp? They can't just change the rules as they go along.

Quote

 

The FRA (Football Regulatory Authority) has now given its approval so that The FA will be able to consider retrospective action in the two following situations, in addition to those already within the existing charging policy:

firstly, for acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball;

and secondly, in off-the-ball incidents where one or more match official did see the players coming together, but the match officials’ view was such that none of them had the opportunity to make a decision on an act of misconduct that took place within that coming together.

This policy adjustment will be implemented in the Premier League, Football League and Football Conference (National Division) from 22 November, immediately following the international break. The FA has contacted clubs in these leagues to inform them of the impending change.

 

http://www.thefa.com/news/2013/nov/06/not-seen-incidents-extension-retrospective-action

See above, this covers Johnson and Allen's off the ball incident, where as Mings and Oliveria occurred whilst challenging for the ball.

[Ghost of Clough]

23 minutes ago, David said:

No it's not, but the ref didn't see Johnson's shirt bite so the FA were able to take retrospective action. 

"It is sometimes difficult for officials to see such incidents, as they are often concentrating solely on the challenge for possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this. Also, where off-the-ball incidents are concerned, the policy adjustment will allow action to be taken where an act of misconduct could not have been seen by the match officials, even though they may have seen some part of the players coming together." 

http://www.thefa.com/news/2013/nov/06/not-seen-incidents-extension-retrospective-action

 

I interpret this as, the ref saw the collision and deemed the 'carelessness' as yellow card worthy. However, he clearly didn't see any intent (which recently released footage seems to indicate) so could still be punished.

As it happens, the review panel needs to make a unanimous decision. Previous footage may not have been enough to convince all members of the panel to consider it to have been intentional.

There are extraordinary exceptions, such as in the case involving Ben Thatcher in the match between Man City and Portsmouth in 2006.

 

[David]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

"It is sometimes difficult for officials to see such incidents, as they are often concentrating solely on the challenge for possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this. Also, where off-the-ball incidents are concerned, the policy adjustment will allow action to be taken where an act of misconduct could not have been seen by the match officials, even though they may have seen some part of the players coming together." 

http://www.thefa.com/news/2013/nov/06/not-seen-incidents-extension-retrospective-action

 

I interpret this as, the ref saw the collision and deemed the 'carelessness' as yellow card worthy. However, he clearly didn't see any intent (which recently released footage seems to indicate) so could still be punished.

As it happens, the review panel needs to make a unanimous decision. Previous footage may not have been enough to convince all members of the panel to consider it to have been intentional.

There are extraordinary exceptions, such as in the case involving Ben Thatcher in the match between Man City and Portsmouth in 2006.

 

I think this applies more to the Johnson and Allen incident than the Mings as the referee would have noted the coming together but not the bite, where as the referee would have noted that Mings foot connected with Oliveria's face, saw it as an accident and the full incident is covered.

Worth mentioning the Reading manager also thought it was an accident initially.

If we're not going to use technology and allow match officials to check incidents, the rule needs changing where they can take retrospective action on all violent conduct, regardless of what was seen at the time and I think that will come in.

As you say though, a unanimous decision is needed, having seen it multiple times I'm still on the fence to be honest, I don't see it as a clear cut could have avoided, we're talking about a player in full stride having to make split second situations. Trying to look at it as an isolated incident rather than previous for it with Ibrahimovic. 

[richinspain]

8 minutes ago, David said:

I think this applies more to the Johnson and Allen incident than the Mings as the referee would have noted the coming together but not the bite, where as the referee would have noted that Mings foot connected with Oliveria's face, saw it as an accident and the full incident is covered.

Worth mentioning the Reading manager also thought it was an accident initially.

If we're not going to use technology and allow match officials to check incidents, the rule needs changing where they can take retrospective action on all violent conduct, regardless of what was seen at the time and I think that will come in.

As you say though, a unanimous decision is needed, having seen it multiple times I'm still on the fence to be honest, I don't see it as a clear cut could have avoided, we're talking about a player in full stride having to make split second situations. Trying to look at it as an isolated incident rather than previous for it with Ibrahimovic. 

Agree with your last paragraph. I've watched it loads of times and from the various angles available and still can't decide if it was deliberate, clumsy or just bad luck. At slow motion it looks a lot worse, but then any coming together at slow motion looks worse. I think it would be very difficult to prove, and using past crimes as evidence shouldn't be an option. He was punished for the previous stamping, that doesn't mean that this one was deliberate.

[Bob Gnarly]

2 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

if he'd done it to a Premier league player(like he did before) or even a Leeds player, he'd be punished.

We all know that this isn't true, Leeds are always so hard done to! 

The authorities have an agenda to ensure they don't get back to the prem, it's not their fault!

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, David said:

If you know the rules then why say they believe Johnson's bite is worse than Mings stamp? They can't just change the rules as they go along.

http://www.thefa.com/news/2013/nov/06/not-seen-incidents-extension-retrospective-action

See above, this covers Johnson and Allen's off the ball incident, where as Mings and Oliveria occurred whilst challenging for the ball.

jeez I give up you're right as always

[Ambitious]

Mings is actually a great personality off the pitch, one that I have huge respect for, but there is absolutely no chance he didn't mean to make contact with Oliviera. It's not the first time he's done it either, which makes it worse. He's clearly not incontrol of his emotions on the pitch and that's dangerous. He should have been banned for 5-10 games for this incident. 

[RamNut]

The new angle is not as good as the original footage imo but I have no doubt that it was deliberate. A defender trying to intimidate an an opponent by 'leaving one on him'. Could that be proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Probably not.

It seems that the intention of the f.a. rule change is to allow themselves the opportunity to take retrospective action for incidents whether they are on the ball or off the ball, if there is new evidence that the referee either missed, or gives a clearer view. The intention is to protect players without under mining the referee. Would taking action against Mings undermine the referee? No. There is surely a case for the f.a. to act even within the convoluted wording of their own rules. 

The punishment metered out to Johnson was farcical. The lack of action in this case is extremely regrettable. They should be seen to have investigated and had a hearing, even if the result of that is that they could not conclude with absolute certainty that the action was deliberate. Whether it was on the ball or off the ball is irrelevant. I can only assume that they are pre-judging the potential investigation and avoiding their responsibility to be seen to act, due to the ambiguity of the evidence.

yellow card for the f.a. 

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

The new angle is not as good as the original footage imo but I have no doubt that it was deliberate. A defender trying to intimidate an an opponent by 'leaving one on him'. Could that be proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Probably not.

It seems that the intention of the f.a. rule change is to allow themselves the opportunity to take retrospective action for incidents whether they are on the ball or off the ball, if there is new evidence that the referee either missed, or gives a clearer view. The intention is to protect players without under mining the referee. Would taking action against Mings undermine the referee? No. There is surely a case for the f.a. to act even within the convoluted wording of their own rules. 

The punishment metered out to Johnson was farcical. The lack of action in this case is extremely regrettable. They should be seen to have investigated and had a hearing, even if the result of that is that they could not conclude with absolute certainty that the action was deliberate. Whether it was on the ball or off the ball is irrelevant. I can only assume that they are pre-judging the potential investigation and avoiding their responsibility to be seen to act, due to the ambiguity of the evidence.

yellow card for the f.a. 

careful, @Davidwill soon be here blah blah rules blah blah you're wrong on and on and on 

[SaintRam]

I think there is general agreement that the system of rules for retroactive action needs work.

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

I think there is general agreement that the system of rules for retroactive action needs work.

Yes perhps, but ......surely this covers it 

Quote

firstly, for acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball

 

[Rev]

You only need one rule.

Don't be a knob.

[Chester40]

Personally I don't see how retrospective action, what the ref saw etc matter... no matter how much I want to say ban him for life, I just can't see how that looks 100% deliberate.  Without the history I would say I was 50-50. Horrible to think someone could do it in purpose, but I can't say for sure he did.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

Personally I don't see how retrospective action, what the ref saw etc matter... no matter how much I want to say ban him for life, I just can't see how that looks 100% deliberate.  Without the history I would say I was 50-50. Horrible to think someone could do it in purpose, but I can't say for sure he did.

So ban him for a few games for carelessness at least. 

[Wolfie20]

2 hours ago, Chester40 said:

Personally I don't see how retrospective action, what the ref saw etc matter... no matter how much I want to say ban him for life, I just can't see how that looks 100% deliberate.  Without the history I would say I was 50-50. Horrible to think someone could do it in purpose, but I can't say for sure he did.

Agree, only he knows for certain whether it was accidental or not but the fact that it was his second involvement in this type of incident tips the balance towards it being deliberate - a cowardly act.

[R@M]

His stride was approx 2m, he looked down when over Oliveira’s head, broke his stride at about 1m, angled his lower leg back which is something you would never do to try and steady yourself, made sure he connected, and then put in a full stride with left leg forward to land and balance. 

Mens rea would be hard to prove in a court, but negligent actual bodily harm on the basis of recklessness I would think is possible. 

[68 Guns]

Only seen the footage today. A true act of cowardice.

From 15 years old to 45 years old I played at varying levels, from Pub league to semi - pro. It will never be proven whether he meant to tread on him or not but based on my playing experience, the guilt is totally proven. 

A 100% avoidable situation.

Unless you don't want to avoid it that is.

Mings is a cowardly thug. Praise be that he didn't come to Derby.

[BriggRam]

Just seen that Barnsley’s Cameron McGeeham has been banned for three matches for a stamping incident caught on tv but not seen by match officials, ive not actually seen the incident itself but can’t imagine it being anywhere near as violent and as damaging as this assault my Mings