A&H

United v United

B

berrygate

New Member
Level 5 Referee
This spitting incident with Evans and Cisse could end up messy ........ no pun.

Evans clears the ball and Cisse is a fraction late and goes down on Evans foot. Clear free kick and probably just careless (had Evans squeeled and held his leg as these pro's do then possibly more ??), slight wresting to get off the ground where Cisse aims a kick at Evans.

Then on to the bad bit.

1st dirty b****** Evans spits in Cisse's direction, intending to hit him ?? or just disrespecting.
2nd dirty b****** Cisse aims one directly in his face.

Anthony Taylor awards Newcastle a free-kick. As Evans only indiscretion in the spitting this would imply he has seen it.

Thoughts please.
 
The Referee Store
There's a slight kick out from Evans which the foul is given for I think.

Both players should receive some kind of punishment.
 
first foul was by Evans.

Both very lucky not to get at least cautioned (for the handbags) or straight Reds for the spitting.
 
Got to disagree with that - the first foul is Cisse on Evans as Evans plays the ball and Cisse comes down on him.
 
berrygate said:
Clear free kick and probably just careless
Click to expand...

Have you seen the replay? He drags his studs down Evans calf. The only decision is what colour the card should be.
Cisse then tries to kick Evans.
They then spit at each other (which despite what the media would have you believe is not worse than punching someone)
Anyway the ref prob saw a "coming together" so no bans.
Unfortunately for the officials it was the cherry on the missed Newcastle penalty and incorrectly disallowed United goal.
Although I'd only ay the penalty was "obvious"
 
I think the charge against both players is correct but are there some double standards at play?
If both players had throw a punch at each other or engaged in another VC/SFP incident, and the ref made the same decision as Taylor did last night. Would the FA take retrospective action bearing in mind it must be in Taylor's report? I think not based on previous incidents (Barnes/Matic for example). So why action in the case of spitting, disgusting action that it is? Is it any worse that a number of flying elbows we regularly see?
Correct me if I'm wrong but George Boyd got 3 games last season for a spit. Was this reported by the ref in his report?
The punishment has doubled since then so 6 match bans are expected.
 
deusex said:
Inane that spitting at someone is more games than elbowing someone in the face
Click to expand...
Not when you consider the potential for the transfer of infection and the unnecessary nature of the action. The throwing of an elbow could occur during a challenge for a ball. Spitting is a premeditated act.
 
deusex said:
Inane that spitting at someone is more games than elbowing somone in the face
Click to expand...
Have to disagree there, someone punches me in the face, that's fine I'll punch back but spitting in my opinion is an absolute no go and is far worse. I personally hate it. I think it is disgusting and unnecessary!!!
 
HullRef said:
Have to disagree there, someone punches me in the face, that's fine I'll punch back but spitting in my opinion is an absolute no go and is far worse. I personally hate it. I think it is disgusting and unnecessary!!!
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this misplaced machoism from the pundits as well.

I would rather be spat at than punched in the face any day of the week.

Noone ever died from being spat at.
Noone was ever left in a wheelchair for life from being spat at.
Noones career was ever ended from being spat at.

If you honestly think spitting is worse than someone using a part of their body to inflict phsical damage on another you are, to be blunt, not a rational person.
 
Last edited:
Brian Hamilton said:
Not when you consider the potential for the transfer of infection and the unnecessary nature of the action. The throwing of an elbow could occur during a challenge for a ball. Spitting is a premeditated act.
Click to expand...

Brian, the odds of catching, lets say, hepatitis or HIV from being spat at are so low as to be negligable.
I refer to elbows like the Jedinak one, which was assault, as opposed to the less black and whire ones that you refer to.
Punching elbowing is also pretty unneccesary.
 
deusex said:
Brian, the odds of catching, lets say, hepatitis or HIV from being spat at are so low as to be negligable.
I refer to elbows like the Jedinak one, which was assault, as opposed to the less black and whire ones that you refer to.
Punching elbowing is also pretty unneccesary.
Click to expand...
Who mentioned life threatening illnesses? There's plenty to catch from spit
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31773054

6 game for Evans. 7 games for Cisse (as he was suspended in December).
Absolute joke. Obv the FA buy into this BS that spitting is worse than breaking someone's leg.
Evans should have got an extra match for a frivolous appeal IMO.
Evans and LVG have embarrassed the club by trying to deny he did anything wrong.
 
deusex said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31773054

6 game for Evans. 7 games for Cisee (as he was suspended in December).
Absolute joke. Obv the FA buy into this BS that spitting is worse than breaking someone's leg.
Evans shousl have got an extra match for a frivolous appeal.
Evans and LVG have embarrassed the club by trying to deny he did anything wrong.
Click to expand...
The punishment for this offence is published at the start of each season. Both players obviously spat at the other and the commission has found them both guilty. They therefore receive the published punishment for that action. I don't see anything to laugh at there. Simple procedure and process.
 
You are right BH, the players have receieved the standard punishment.
My beef is with the standard punishment as opposed to teh FA treating this as a special case.
The level of violence that would be required by a player on an EPL pitch to get 6 matches for VC would be so much worse than spitting.
Ben Thatcher got 8 matches for one of the most disgusting acts of thuggery in the history of the EPL.....
2 match difference between these incidents? Give over.
The FA have let media outcry decide their punishments. That's fine, it's got commercial interests to consider. But how any reasnable sole can think 6 matches is fair is beyond me.
 
if you were making the rules, deusex, how much of a ban would you give a) for spitting - which is almost invariably intentional and b) breaking someone's leg which can sometimes be accidental. how would you decide intent.

had a look at the thatcher incident. noticed that greater manchester police also investigated it and that thatcher also got an additional 15 match ban, suspended for two years. how much of a ban would you have given thatcher?
 
deusex said:
You are right BH, the players have receieved the standard punishment.
My beef is with the standard punishment as opposed to teh FA treating this as a special case.
The level of violence that would be required by a player on an EPL pitch to get 6 matches for VC would be so much worse than spitting.
Ben Thatcher got 8 matches for one of the most disgusting acts of thuggery in the history of the EPL.....
2 match difference between these incidents? Give over.
The FA have let media outcry decide their punishments. That's fine, it's got commercial interests to consider. But how any reasnable sole can think 6 matches is fair is beyond me.
Click to expand...
By special case you mean reduce the punishment?
 
Breaking someone's leg was a poor example by me (as you stated you could be very unlucky in breaking someone's leg), let me swap that for throwing a punch/elbow.
I would be quite content with BOTH being a 6 match ban. I just can't accept ELBOWING someone IN THE FACE gets less time than spitting.
I'd have been content with 9 months for Thatcher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top