BFTG Villa

[Nameless]

JUst seen a wider angle of the incident.
The referee does signal ‘no foul’ very quickly although you can’t tell if that was for the original tussle or the wholly accidental careful placing of the foot.
His view is not great, you need to be side on really and he is directly behind. He clearly believes he called it right but then I bet he th8nks he got everything right on the day. All that matters is by the letter of the law he has the final say and the matter is closed, although unsatisfactorily.

[Nameless]

You get some crazy disciplinary outcomes.
Anyone remember the game at Cardiff where each side had a playersent off ?
Cardiff appealed to the FAW using video evidence from their own cameras. By coincidence when we asked for footage of our red card they were unable to find any....

[Barney]

Having very recently watched the 1985-86 RFC season highlights.....I wish Mings had tried THAT challenge on Terry Hurlock.

[Greatwesternline]

If the ref says had he seen it from the angles now available he would have changed his mind the FA can still act.

As i said with the Ben Thatcher decision they did decide to overrule anyway.

We shall see.

[Maneki Neko]

What is it about the Oliviera incident that makes it different to the Ibrahimovic incident ? He was not only found guilty of the Ibrahimovic one but given 2 extra game ban because of the seriousness of the incident.
The key is not did he got out to assault Oliviera but did he take all reasonable care not to do something that would cause injury. Personally I think he may have just left his leg in with the intention of giving Oliviera a bit of a tap and got it badly wrong. Players do that sort of thing all the time, winding up your opposite number is part of the game but when it goes wrong you have to take responsibility.

nothing. I don't think its possible to discern that he did either deliberately, and its very possible that both were entirely accidental.

personally I don't think either was deliberate, though that's based on the same data that I don't think is reliable enough to charge anyone over, so is just opinion. just like those judgements.

when you're falling and tangled up with someone, sometimes you don't have time, or are just not able to change your foot placement in time. I think that's what has happened here. but I don't think anyone but Mngs is able to say for sure if that is what did or didn't happen.

all of the people who are suddenly experts on the physical mechanics of movement/falling are just guessing

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.

[Hound]

its feasible it was accidental. It just really doesn't look like it to me.

Split second of madness decision by Mings to stamp the foot down, and no doubt shat himself the minute he realised what he had done

[Maneki Neko]

"stamp the foot down"

or just put the foot down in the place/at the velocity dictated by his loss of balance and momentum.

[Gunny Fishcake]

No action will be taken by the FA as the ref saw the incident.

I get that you don't want to undermine referees, but what a terrible rule that is.

Are you oxf*rd kidding? What's the source? (don't mean to question you personally genome)

Official Reading FC Twitter account.

Rather late to this discussion, but I think he mean't do do it , but not inflict as much damage as he did, I find it hard to believe a fellow pro would do that to another pro resulting in surgery, particularly as there's no previous history.

The fact the the FA will not investigate because and incompetent referee judged it ok is shocking. If anybody deliberately caused that damage in the street they'd by charged with GBH.

[Greatwesternline]

nothing. I don't think its possible to discern that he did either deliberately, and its very possible that both were entirely accidental.

personally I don't think either was deliberate, though that's based on the same data that I don't think is reliable enough to charge anyone over, so is just opinion. just like those judgements.

when you're falling and tangled up with someone, sometimes you don't have time, or are just not able to change your foot placement in time. I think that's what has happened here. but I don't think anyone but Mngs is able to say for sure if that is what did or didn't happen.

all of the people who are suddenly experts on the physical mechanics of movement/falling are just guessing

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.

[Zip]

I’m very surprised with the outcome. It is very rare for a player to be stamped in the face or head. Incredibly rare. Yet we have a player who has a managed it twice in two years.
Words fail me.

[Maneki Neko]

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.

I'm saying its not a stamp at all. I'm saying he got tangled up with oliviera and was not able to change his foot placement in time to avoid his head.ie he had no control over it

its possible that something about his physical style and willingness to bulldoze over/through a player to get to the ball makes it more likely that treading on heads happens more often than the average. That may be viewed as reckless, but I don't think that's the same as deliberately doing it.
I understand you and I disagree and neither of us can say for sure either way. we are both guessing.

[Nameless]

"stamp the foot down"

or just put the foot down in the place/at the velocity dictated by his loss of balance and momentum.

Or neither..... which has been my view all along.

But now purely a theoretical arguement

[Old Man Andrews]

Think as a club we have to move on now, no point in going on about it. Let's use the injustice it to drive us on rather than dwell on it and be bitter.

[Nameless]

Does Mings have a brother playing in the Championship ?

Would be great if he played for Sheffield Wed and someone could sit the players down and explain who the Futchers were.....

[sandman]

If he saw that and didn't act then he wants firing.

[10539.4 Miles Away]

If he saw that and didn't act then he wants firing.

'greed.

But he didnt see it, It was off the ball and he missed everything off the ball all match, I'm sorry there's no way that 'the ref saw it' can be an excuse for this.

[Snowflake Royal]

in which case its even harderto prove anything.
there was a coming together, he got a bit tangled up and fell over oliveira, and in a split second his foot came down on his face.
for me any charge would only be down to the seriousness of the injury rather than any certainty about mings doing him on purpose, which seems a bit off. for me.
hunt didn't mean to do it, but in real time and slow mo to anyone who isnt a one eyed reading supporter) it looked like he probably dropped his knee into Czechs head on purpose.

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.

[Sutekh]

If he saw that and didn't act then he wants firing.

'greed.

But he didnt see it, It was off the ball and he missed everything off the ball all match, I'm sorry there's no way that 'the ref saw it' can be an excuse for this.

Lino in front of the East Stand really should have seen it though.

[biff]

Farce.

[Hound]

"stamp the foot down"

or just put the foot down in the place/at the velocity dictated by his loss of balance and momentum.

Well exactly, which is where we differ on our views of it. Imo he clearly changed direction of his foot and pushed it down on his intended target

I can understand someone arguing otherwise though