Martinelli incident - Southampton vs Arsenal FA Cup QF

sunnycrofter said:

Which then begs the question, why did the match official caution the player?

Click to expand...

Because it was an unsporting and unnecessary action.

I think an "unnecessary" push on a referee is confrontational. But hey, if the FA don't see it that way, that's up to them, it just makes life much harder for referees further down the pyramid. It also makes The FA's life much harder the next time there's a National Serious Case Panel adjudicating on a physical contact with a match official hearing.

sunnycrofter said:

I think an "unnecessary" push on a referee is confrontational. But hey, if the FA don't see it that way, that's up to them, it just makes life much harder for referees further down the pyramid. It also makes The FA's life much harder the next time there's a National Serious Case Panel adjudicating on a physical contact with a match official hearing.

Click to expand...

I don't agree.

Confrontational means to disagree aggressively. Martinelli was neither disagreeing, nor behaving aggressively. I genuinely don't think he commits a sending off offence. 99.99% of physical contact with a match official hearings will relate to actual confrontational actions / abuse.

sunnycrofter said:

It's in black and white in the FA handbook under "offences against a match official":

92.2 Physical contact or attempted physical contact: physical actions (or attempted actions) that are unlikely to cause injury to the Match Official but are nevertheless confrontational, examples include but are not limited to: pushing the Match Official or pulling the Match Official (or their clothing or equipment).

I really can't fathom how anyone can defend Martinelli's conduct in any way shape or form, even if he was trying to take the free kick quickly.

I think I know the reason why The FA won't charge him though; the sanction range for the above offence is 182 days to 2 years, and that will cause a media sh!tstorm.

Click to expand...

Sadly this (and the associated sanction range) is only applicable at Step 5 and below, hence the (IMO) lenient 8 matches that Mitrovic got a couple of years ago.

ARF said:

Sadly this (and the associated sanction range) is only applicable at Step 5 and below, hence the (IMO) lenient 8 matches that Mitrovic got a couple of years ago.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say 8 matches is lenient.

DavidObs said:

I wouldn’t say 8 matches is lenient.

Click to expand...

I'd wholeheartedly disagree with you. Had it been at grassroots level, Mitrovic would have had a minimum 112 days' suspension (would be a minimum 182 days if it happened now). It's ridiculously lenient. Yet, as always, the professionals get treated softer.

ARF said:

I'd wholeheartedly disagree with you. Had it been at grassroots level, Mitrovic would have had a minimum 112 days' suspension (would be a minimum 182 days if it happened now). It's ridiculously lenient. Yet, as always, the professionals get treated softer.

Click to expand...

So you’re not comparing like for like. Whether you agree with it or not, grassroots is grassroots and elite/professional is elite professional, where it has often been the case over very many years that bans in elite/professional is often less than grassroots. The question really is, was his ban appropriate/consistent with others playing the same level of football & overall, I think it was. De canios ban for pushing Paul Alcock was 11 games & although not an incident against a Referee, Suarez ban for biting a Chelsea player was 10 games.