[Football] Lukaku - Retrospective Action

[m20gull]

So deliberately kicking an opponent twice is no longer a red card. I must have missed that rule change.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Seriously, forgetting the build up to this. How the HELL can he get away with that?

This wasn't a controversial stamp/no stamp, dangerous play/accidental, dive/contact, elbow/forearm debate here.

He tried to kick Bong twice and succeeded at the second attempt. If Bong had gone down in agony like 99% of other players would have done it would have been a free-kick and maybe a ban. But because he chose to stand up and defend for his team it's nothing and the Man United player gets away with it.

Mind boggling decision.

 

[Chicken Run]

Who is surprised ? Like anything else , one rule for the rich and powerful and another for the small guys

Ridiculous analogy, to the vast majority of the 78% of teams that aren’t in the Premier League we are rich and powerful!!

 

[Nixonator]

Consistent? Yes, Barton found not guilty of stamping, Stephens' appeal summarily rejected, Hemed found guilty quicker than the FA have ever previously moved in history, and Lukaku found not guilty of kicking a Brighton player when he clearly did... ... ... ... hmmmm ... ... ... I would say there's definitely a pattern emerging there.

Don't forget Murphy's slip which was more baffling than any of the above. I think that will remain the lad's one and only sending off in his career.

 

[GT49er]

Ridiculous analogy, to the vast majority of the 78% of teams that aren’t in the Premier League we are rich and powerful!!

We weren't playing one of those!

 

[GT49er]

Don't forget Murphy's slip which was more baffling than any of the above. I think that will remain the lad's one and only sending off in his career.

I had forgotten that - time's a great healer, eh? But you're quite right, it's another example of a consistent pattern.

 

[Barry Izbak]

As others say it doesn't matter to us whether Lukaku gets a ban or not, but how the F can the independent panel of refs ban Tomer Hemed for a step on a player and not punish Lukaku for a double kick out off the ball? I know we will never get an answer.

But what really upsets me, is that I find myself agreeing with this prick
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...melu-Lukaku-banned-kick-says-Graham-Poll.html

 

[hoveboyslim]

Is there a way the club can ask for further details on the panels decision. Nothing will change but at least they should make their feelings felt.

The inconsistency is frustrating, but why should the club get involved? It could be construed that the club are trying to get Lukaku banned; that may not help our cause should we want to loan one of Man U's players someday.

 

[El Presidente]

There's a potential broader issue at play here (and by all accounts call me a conspiracy theorist).

When the ref missed it panel (hereafter RMIP) was introduced at the start of the season, it had to be seen to be a success. Therefore the rulings on players such as Hemed vindicate the decision to set up the RMIP, and so the ban was given to great fanfare.

At present the EPL are in discussions with broadcasters in relation to a new TV deal, commencing 2019/20. Clearly they want the best price, for a competitive product. It will not help negotiations if City effectively have the league sown up by mid December, which there is a danger of happening (United's next three fixtures are Watford and Arsenal away, and City at home).

Personally I thought Lukaku stank the pitch out on Saturday, but, overall, I suspect he would be more of an asset than a liability if available for those three fixtures. There could be 'soft' pressure put on the RMIP by both the EPL and broadcasters to give Lukaku the benefit of the doubt over Saturday's act of petulance, as otherwise it increases the (already high) probability of City walking away with the league relatively early, with implications for viewing figures and the TV deal.

I'm off to the grassy knoll now, with evidence that the moon landings were fake.

 

[Fungus]

The inconsistency is frustrating, but why should the club get involved? It could be construed that the club are trying to get Lukaku banned; that may not help our cause should we want to loan one of Man U's players someday.

The club didn't get involved in the first place (as far as I know), and they can't appeal or "get Lukaku banned".

All they can do is ask for clarification, which is entirely reasonable.

 

[maglers]

There's a potential broader issue at play here (and by all accounts call me a conspiracy theorist).

When the ref missed it panel (hereafter RMIP) was introduced at the start of the season, it had to be seen to be a success. Therefore the rulings on players such as Hemed vindicate the decision to set up the RMIP, and so the ban was given to great fanfare.

At present the EPL are in discussions with broadcasters in relation to a new TV deal, commencing 2019/20. Clearly they want the best price, for a competitive product. It will not help negotiations if City effectively have the league sown up by mid December, which there is a danger of happening (United's next three fixtures are Watford and Arsenal away, and City at home).

Personally I thought Lukaku stank the pitch out on Saturday, but, overall, I suspect he would be more of an asset than a liability if available for those three fixtures. There could be 'soft' pressure put on the RMIP by both the EPL and broadcasters to give Lukaku the benefit of the doubt over Saturday's act of petulance, as otherwise it increases the (already high) probability of City walking away with the league relatively early, with implications for viewing figures and the TV deal.

I'm off to the grassy knoll now, with evidence that the moon landings were fake.

Benefit of what doubt? Is there really any doubt about what Lukaku was trying to do?

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

How many minutes of watching the following gif does it take for you to see that Lukaku didn't mean it and it was all just bantz?

I'm on 1037 and counting...

[tweet]935167019468644356[/tweet]

 

[jackalbion]

This decision is dire, niasse gets a two game ban when contact is made, Lukaku gets away with it despite trying to assault someone but failing.

 

[vegster]

There's a potential broader issue at play here (and by all accounts call me a conspiracy theorist).

When the ref missed it panel (hereafter RMIP) was introduced at the start of the season, it had to be seen to be a success. Therefore the rulings on players such as Hemed vindicate the decision to set up the RMIP, and so the ban was given to great fanfare.

At present the EPL are in discussions with broadcasters in relation to a new TV deal, commencing 2019/20. Clearly they want the best price, for a competitive product. It will not help negotiations if City effectively have the league sown up by mid December, which there is a danger of happening (United's next three fixtures are Watford and Arsenal away, and City at home).

Personally I thought Lukaku stank the pitch out on Saturday, but, overall, I suspect he would be more of an asset than a liability if available for those three fixtures. There could be 'soft' pressure put on the RMIP by both the EPL and broadcasters to give Lukaku the benefit of the doubt over Saturday's act of petulance, as otherwise it increases the (already high) probability of City walking away with the league relatively early, with implications for viewing figures and the TV deal.

I'm off to the grassy knoll now, with evidence that the moon landings were fake.

I see where you are coming from, but, think back a few years when Man Utd were winning the Premiership year after year nothing was ever allowed to derail the mighty Man U and they boringly won title after title. Was it 6 years between an away team winning a penalty against Utd at old Trafford ? They got away with so much and that's before the famous " Fergie Time " is thrown in to the mix.

I think the truth is that the Beeb has only just got over the trauma of when Fergusson used to refuse interviews with the BBC and gave them all the cold shoulder. I think Jose is of the same mould and would not take kindly to MOTD pundits getting his star player banned retrospectively and therefore creating another long term spat. I think the BBC experts have just thought it's not worth the risk.

 

[Me and my Monkey]

To me there's no denying that it is an odd decision that no action will be taken - if any significant physical contact had been made it could have been quite nasty. But on the positive side, Bong did not wail and whine like a three year old at the time of the incident, and our manager has not used it as an excuse for a public post match moan-fest (like someone I could mention). Both have behaved with impeccable professionalism, and I find that quite refreshing.

 

[Seagull58]

One rule for the big clubs and another rule for the rest.Nothing new.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

No ban..http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42135484

There will be no action taken against Manchester United striker Romelu Lukaku for allegedly kicking out at Brighton defender Gaetan Bong.

The alleged incident happened in United's 1-0 win on Saturday, but was not seen by referee Neil Swarbrick.

alleged/allegedly?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To me there's no denying that it is an odd decision that no action will be taken - if any significant physical contact had been made it could have been quite nasty. But on the positive side, Bong did not wail and whine like a three year old at the time of the incident, and our manager has not used it as an excuse for a public post match moan-fest (like someone I could mention). Both have behaved with impeccable professionalism, and I find that quite refreshing.

This.

 

[horshamite]

Outrageous but predictable decision.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Joke

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk