[Football] Who should have the longer ban?

[US Seagull]

Based on what we know, I say Mitrovic.

I don't gamble (beyond an occasional lottery ticket and those tipping point machines with 2p/10p coins on the incredibly rare occassion I find my self in an arcade). The amount of gambling advertising and the strong link between gambling and sport (and with so much sponsorship within football in particular) it really sends mixed signals to punish someone for doing something that is so intrinsically linked to football these days. I appreciate there are issues with gambling addiction for some people, but that hasn't stopped numerous clubs wearing shirts with gambling company logos splashed across their shirts, while every other advert before and during a match is for one bookmaker or another. Laws in place stop (or should stop) children being influenced by Toney. There has not yet been any suggestion that Toney is throwing matches to help him win his own bets, so with that caveat in place, lower league players also gambling on football (without it impacting their own performances) isn't really an issue for me because it doesn't impact on the game.

Mitrovic manhandled the referee for making a textbook discussion (with the advantage of video replay, so there's no mitigation about an unjust decision). People lower down the pyramid will copy that and it will have a negative impact on the game, increasing pushing away lower level refs, etc.

Of coure, Brentford are probably stronger than Fulham and it would weaken them more to lose Toney than losing Mitrovic would weaken Fulham (or at least Fulham look like they will fall away with or without their talisman), and I wonder how much that impacts people's views.


EDIT: That is my view. Looking at historic bans, lack of action against Fernandes v Liverpool. It would appear the FA view gambling as the worse issue (but not so bad they won't accept the sweet, sweet sponsorship moolah).

There are definitely mixed messages around gambling, but Toney's infraction is definitely more troubling from an integrity of the game perspective. Even if Toney isn't gambling on games he's directly involved in (and AFAIK, there's no suggestion that he did), it's still a huge problem. Because football players know each other. You could easily invison a situation where player A doesn't bet on their own games, but they do bet on player B's games. And in return, B bets on A's games. And they are both in a position to do each other a favor.

I'm not, for a second, suggesting this might have happened, but it could, and it would be tricky to catch.

 

[LamieRobertson]

AND has been called up by England.

#scratcheshead

Not quite England to be pedantic….but that Wally Southgate who defended it by saying that it was on football grounds and he wasn’t there to judge Ivan the Terrible of something that he hadn’t been tried of …so guilty by admission needs to be proven first eh Gareth

 

[7dialssouthpaw]

Paolo di Canio ban was 11 games - Mitrovic's offence is very similar.

 

[5Ways Gull]

Mitrovic lost his head. He absolutely should get a lengthy ban to set an example. You can't physically attack the ref.

But Toney actually brought the game into disrepute. If we turn a blind eye to betting on a game then we can't trust any results.

Therefore Toney should get the larger ban.

If he has admitted to these betting charges that suggests everything is out in the open and there's nothing else to reveal, which in turn suggests nothing else is going to happen, otherwise I think Southgate would have been advised against picking him for the squad.

 

[dazzer6666]

Mitro 5-10 games
Toney 12-24 months

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Not quite England to be pedantic….but that Wally Southgate who defended it by saying that it was on football grounds and he wasn’t there to judge Ivan the Terrible of something that he hadn’t been tried of …so guilty by admission needs to be proven first eh Gareth

Similar to Kyle Walker, although his has been settled by a caution.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If he has admitted to these betting charges that suggests everything is out in the open and there's nothing else to reveal, which in turn suggests nothing else is going to happen, otherwise I think Southgate would have been advised against picking him for the squad.

He’s admitted some but not all.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

It is ridiculous that Toney can still play and score goals for Brentford when he has admitted something he should be banned for

 

[Hugo Rune]

It is ridiculous that Toney can still play and score goals for Brentford when he has admitted something he should be banned for

I agree.

Sadly, Southgate has been given the green light to pick him which indicates to me, his hearing will probably be at the end of May. A 3 month ban seems the most likely option.

I suppose there must be some feeling inside the FA that they don’t want to punish Brentford football club or their fans by taking away their talisman this season. Without Toney, Brentford would not be in the top 10.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

The importance thing is they are both banned. Whataboutery by Brentford fans about Mitrovic or Fulham fans about Toney is just irrelevant. I don’t actually care which one has the longer ban.

 

[Icy Gull]

The importance thing is they are both banned. Whataboutery by Brentford fans about Mitrovic or Fulham fans about Toney is just irrelevant. I don’t actually care which one has the longer ban.

Quite, however long their bans are, now is the time for them to start. Holding off on banning Toney is to the potential detriment of all the teams Brentford have to play until they do. I imagine Mitrovic will be banned before Fulham play again too.

 

[BrightonCottager]

Mitro 5 games
Toney 18 months
And Willian's and Silva's reds changed to yellows after appeals.

 

[Sheebo]

Ivan Toney accepts breaking FA betting rules and faces lengthy ban

The Brentford striker could miss several months for breaching FA’s betting rules while the punishment would also deal a blow to his England future

www.theguardian.com

Toney was first charged in November with conducting 232 breaches of the FA’s rule E8 between 25 February 2017 and 23 January 2021. The following month he was charged with breaching the same rule a further 30 times between 14 March 2017 and 18 February 2019. The alleged breaches began when Toney was a Newcastle player on loan at Scunthorpe, stretching to his current employment with the Bees.

Not sure we’re 100% sure if he was involved in any of those matches? I’m guessing not, but the rule doesn’t specify that? If he was involved or indirectly involved or sent texts to anyone involved in the games, it becomes a whole lot worse - that’s the point I was making. It’ll prob come out when he gets banned.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Not sure we’re 100% sure if he was involved in any of those matches? I’m guessing not, but the rule doesn’t specify that? If he was involved or indirectly involved or sent texts to anyone involved in the games, it becomes a whole lot worse - that’s the point I was making. It’ll prob come out when he gets banned.

Yes. I really don't see what the delay is, myself. He has admitted a fair proportion of the 252 breaches of the FA law, so any that he doesn't admit to can be sorted whilst serving the ban for those he's already guilty of. Surely admitting a number of offences is enough, and a ban can always be lengthened if he is found guilty of the others?

 

[Frankie]

Any ban that Mitrovich gets won't be enough,yes he was obviously frustrated and angry but you simply can't be doing that at any level of the game, 10 games will be the least I expect him to get.

The Toney one is far more complicated and I doubt any ban will happen until after the season ends anyway so a 5 match suspension minimum looms for Ivan the not really that terrible next season I think.

 

[Sheebo]

Yes. I really don't see what the delay is, myself. He has admitted a fair proportion of the 252 breaches of the FA law, so any that he doesn't admit to can be sorted whilst serving the ban for those he's already guilty of. Surely admitting a number of offences is enough, and a ban can always be lengthened if he is found guilty of the others?

100%. Only thing I can think of other than the FA being rubbish is there may be more to it - ie if he had an interest in any games by playing in them or had friends playi by in them etc. may have to check phone records etc etc….

 

[JackB247]

On a line through Joey Barton and Kieran Trippier, who both got 6 months for numerically far less breaches, Toney has got to be looking at 9 months off at least, possibly a year.

 

[US Seagull]

Quite, however long their bans are, now is the time for them to start. Holding off on banning Toney is to the potential detriment of all the teams Brentford have to play until they do. I imagine Mitrovic will be banned before Fulham play again too.

Mitro is automatically banned from the next three games for the red card anyway. He won't play in the next game either way. The only question is whether the FA decide to make the ban longer (or, much, much more unlikely, Fulham successfully appeal and get it reduced).

 

[US Seagull]

Mitro 5 games
Toney 18 months
And Willian's and Silva's reds changed to yellows after appeals.

I'd be surprised if Willian or Silva's red get successfully appealed. Maybe a slightly better chance for Silva, but AFAIK, Willian's red was entirely inline with the letter of the law. So what's the basis for an appeal?

 

[Sirnormangall]

Difficult choice. I’ve been involved in writing “non gambling” policies: everyone involved in pro football ( players and non players) will have known for many years that it’s a no no. We can’t allow the outcome of matches to be influenced by gambling.
But I voted for the Mitrovich incident because of the impact it has on referees and the poor example it sets for youngsters - in my view, youth football is seriously influenced ( adversely) by the behaviours of pro footballers.