Puncheon

[bloovee]

commentator says could have been red "under new rules".

Missed by both officials (I missed it and i was nearer than either!)

How much of a kick rather than trip would it have to be to be violent conduct and eligible for retrospective action? How much force is excessive when no force at all was legitimate?

Of course the Palace fans then booed Zabaleta for the rest of the game.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

Such an easy one to miss, there is no way it could be justified as a red card, typical commentators knowing so much about those "rules". For me that was a trip and a caution. Excessive force would have to be a kick, swing of the leg, a swipe. Yes Puncheon knows exactly what he is doing so its a caution all day long but nothing more.

 

[es1]

definitely not a red (coming from a city fan) but that hasn't stopped many i know saying it's an FA conspiracy that they're not going to charge him / nothing's been made of it in the media!

 

[es1]

definitely not a red (coming from a city fan) but that hasn't stopped many i know saying it's an FA conspiracy that they're not going to charge him / nothing's been made of it in the media!

 

[Matthew]

Another City fan here. Don't understand the misconception that it has to be a red because it's off the ball; very difficult to argue violent conduct/excessive force. It's a trip, magnified by the speed at which Zabba was running, yellow card.

 

[bloovee]

I was surprised the FA even looked at it. And surprised at commentators / fans spouting about "new rules" (I'm not precious about using "laws"...) without being able to say what they are!

Of course the conspiracy theorists would say the FA looked at it, knowing it was never a red, in order to show they don't have a conspiracy against City (but that doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy!)