Fatherhood has smoothed me out somewhat over the last couple of years and I seldom feel irritated enough to spend an hour writing about the laughable horseshit I hear & read in the sports press, but I've been listening to Shaun Custis talking utter drivel all week and feel compelled to raise one particular issue regarding certain comments he (and others on the panel) made on Radio 5's MotD2 extra today.
So, Yaya Toure's "kick" on Ricky van Wolfswinkel; cards on the table, I watched the game live and in the manner of Arsene Wenger I really didn't see what happened: it all looked pretty innocuous to me in real time, if I'm totally honest, as many of these incidents do.
However, when seen in super slo-mo, the smart-arses on the sidelines cry "how did the ref miss THAT???" as they show the incident for the 14th time from another angle that the ref couldn't possibly see due to the intractable laws of physics.
All that notwithstanding, we can look at the incident retrospectively either way; as I understand it, if the ref has genuinely missed something, the door is open for the FA to act. If not... who knows? The FA seem to make that sort of shit up as they go along, but with the press howling that they should take action I have a pretty good idea what is likely to happen.
But let's assume the ref saw it and didn't notice anything untoward, hence letting play continue without action, what happens then? Do we simply consider the video evidence, and charge a player purely on this subjective basis?
Well, let's look at another incident on the 29/01/2014 where Tottenham Hotspur hosted City. If you follow either club you'll be aware of the incident I'm talking about but I'll quote Sam Wallace of the Independent:
(The Independent) Tottenham 1 Manchester City 5 match report: City charge to the top of the Premier League after five-goal demolition of 10-man Spurs
"..Martin Demichelis was unfortunate that referee Marriner did not get a proper sight of his challenge on Adebayor late in the first half. At first glance it looked like a foul by the City defender but it became clear from the replays that Adebayor had seen him coming and stamped down on his opponent."
So that's one paragraph on the incident. If you're as dull as I am please have a quick Google and see if you can find the press outcry to have this wrong put right via retrospective action. I will make the point right now that I couldn't give a shiny shite, but ponder this from way back in September 2009:
(The Guardian) Robin van Persie accuses Emmanuel Adebayor of 'malicious' stamp
Manchester City's sensational 4-2 victory over Arsenal, maintaining their 100% winning start to the season, was soured tonight when Arsenal's Robin van Persie accused his former team-mate, Emmanuel Adebayor, of committing a "mindless and malicious stamp" on him.
Adebayor, who scored City's third goal, looked lucky to stay on the field in the 70th minute when his apparent assault went unseen by referee Mark Clattenburg. Replays suggested that Adebayor knew what he was doing when his right foot made contact with a prone Van Persie, though he denied it after the game. If Clattenburg confirms he did not see the incident, the FA could ban Adebayor on video evidence.
There was clearly contact close to the Dutchman's eye and he needed treatment for a facial wound. Van Persie said: "I knew he was aiming for a collision because he changed the angle of his body to allow contact to be made.
"He moved backwards when his natural momentum would have taken him forward. I find that deeply disrespectful. He has shown a real lack of class today, to me and the fans."
(CNN) -- Manchester City striker Emmanuel Adebayor has been handed a three-match suspension for his stamp on Arsenal's Robin Van Persie last weekend.
Adebayor has also been charged for his goal celebration in last Saturday's defeat of Arsenal.
The Togo captain decided not to challenge the charge of violent conduct, so received a fast-track punishment from the English Football Association, which means he will miss this weekend's Manchester derby.
The 25-year-old still faces another charge, of improper conduct, relating to City's 4-2 Premier League victory against his former club on Saturday. Adebayor -- Hero or villain?
Adebayor raced the length of the field at City's Eastlands stadium to celebrate in front of the visiting Arsenal supporters after scoring the third goal, and was pelted with items including a plastic seat.
The hearing for the second charge has yet to be set by the FA.
Right; so that's the same player, involved in two similar incidents, but why were the outcomes so very different?
I'm not an advocate of conspiracy theories (or "a gooner" as they are typically known in the football vernacular) so I do not for one second believe that match officials are corrupt, but there seems to be an unwritten rule at the FA (which we don't talk about, dig?) which goes "leave well alone, unless the press decide it's REALLY serious, then make up a new rule where you can justify retrospective action on the basis of the press's reported seriousness of the incident"
And so onto Yaya Toure, courtesy of the Sunday Mirror. I wonder what the FA will do?
Any ban for talismanic midfielder accused of lashing out at Ricky van Wolfswinkel as the Dutchman lay on the pitch would dent Etihad side's title hopes
Action
Spinal flap: Did Yaya Toure whack Ricky van Wolfswinkel off the ball?
Yaya Toure faces the threat of an FA investigation after an alleged off-the-ball kick at Ricky Van Wolfswinkel.
Manchester City midfielder Toure appeared to direct a knee into the back of the Norwich striker as he lay on the floor in injury-time as the Blues blew their chance to go top of the Premier League with a 0-0 draw at Carrow Road.
BBC pundit Garth Crooks insisted: “Yaya Toure definitely kicks Van Wolfswinkel, and he should have gone! What do the FA do now? That’s clearly violent conduct.”
Norwich manager Chris Hughton added: “I have not seen it but he is a strong character, Ricky. He is not one to normally complain, he generally gets on with it.
"If that was the case, then people will have seen it, but I have not as yet.”
The FA will review replays of the flashpoint before they decide whether to take retrospective action.
It's been a while but this morning's edition was so good, it requires a post.
Woolnough was back in the hot seat (following Neil Ashton's impressive debut last week), with Paul Hayward, Pat Barclay & John Cross offering the opinions & general bollocks.
Today's agenda was dominated mainly by THFC's championship credentials, following a week of positive press for Spurs & Redknapp. Van der Vaart had commented in full-page interview that MCFC were 'cracking under the pressure' being exacted by Spurs, who would go level on points with a win against WWFC, leading the panel to make some first-class excuses on their behalf:
"Tottenham looked leggy, tired" according to John Cross
"they were under too much pressure with the possibility of going top"
Pat Barclay commented about the unfairness of the loan system, specifically in regard to Adebayor's move to Tottenham which:
"...hurts Manchester City's competitors, but not them".
Then onto Roberto Mancini who, after a couple of cup defeats within a week, is 'cracking'.
Paul Hayward repeated the latest press myth that:
"Mancini had tried to get Glenn Johnson sent off"
after he pointed out the inconsistency of refereeing decisions in a post match interview midweek.
Paul made a comment about Mancini's grasp of English with respect to a single word used in the interview, before treating us to his own interpretation of the rest of the interview, which was perfectly understandable to most English speaking folk anyway, and bore no relation to the 'story' he was purporting.
John Cross then moved on to Mancini's 'moaning' in the press about fixture congestion, which apparently adds further weight to the 'cracking' story. This follows a double page interview in the week given by Arsene Wenger, moaning about (you guessed it) fixture congestion, and bizarrely, TV companies colluding with 'certain clubs' to give them more favourable fixture dates. The irony gave me chronic heartburn.
The tackling issue was covered further, but this doesn't really require any further comment as anyone with the gift of sight could see the disparity between a couple of refereeing decisions given within a few days of each other... but it's worthy of a mention for fans of bullshit bingo alone, with old nuggets like '...not that sort of player' and 'we all know Scholes can't tackle ' rolled out once more.
Here's a random quote from Scholseh's book:
"I was just getting people back, if someone got me early in the game, it was always in the back of my mind that I wanted to get them back. I didn't always do it on purpose. Some of it was just bad timing, I suppose."
Anyway, with it being off the agenda due to legal constraints, let me remind you all that Harry Redknapp is due in court on the 23rd of January on tax evasion charges - couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.
Yes, it's that time of year where we look back at the previous year and pay homage to those who've 'entertained' us... there'll be separate awards for the Sunday Supplement boys & the SSN reviewers as it's only fair they all get due credit for 12 months worth of professional pony.
Award categories:
The most horribly wrong, cringeworthy, embarrassing statement of the year award
The "I'll just say something controversial for the sake of it" award
The "never mind smoke, I'll use my full tongue" arse-kissing award
And finally (and slightly implausibly) the sensible, reasoned argument award
My thoughts on the nominees as follows:
Rob Beasley - "Mancini sat in the ground when Hughes sacked"; Neil Custis - "Fergie's warchest about to swing open" ; Darren Lewis - "England cricket team rubbish" ; Steve Curry - "Joe Cole a hero on Merseyside after one and a half games".
Open to suggestions, Neil Ashton (by request) 'club without class', Oliver Holt must feature surely?
too many to select from, Oliver Holt prominent though with his one-man campaign concerning John Terry and the England captaincy. More views please.
Nothing much of interest this morning really but felt duty bound to moan/comment on a couple of things once Darren had finished sticking the knife into Alan Pardew at Newcastle.
Firstly and to set the scene, there were some comments attributed to Joe Hart at City's training ground yesterday regarding the lack of press photographers:
"they don't turn up if we win"
Be careful what you wish for Joe; Darren reports on a practice match at Carrington. Yes, that's right, a report on a practice match, in a training session, on television, reporting on a report in a newspaper which was itself based on a report by a fan, lifted off bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk, quoted pretty much to the word :
"...of the two teams, one looked suspiciously like the team that will take the field against West Ham... worryingly for Mancini, they won 5-0 with a hattrick from Roque Santa Cruz, a player who can't get anywhere near the starting XI..."
So they we have it, get some money on West Ham. Here's the plaguiarised original article -
And finally, be sure to read down to the bottom of that article, where we learn that Alec Ferguson has banned players from wearing snoods. We know this because it's in the Sun and because Fergie's representative on twitter, rio ferdy, says so. We get all the big stories on K&C!
Loyalty Schmoyalty 'Chris Hughton's sacking at Newcastle merely confirms what I have known for ages - in football there is no such thing as loyalty,' 'writes' Harry Redknapp in The Sun.
Certainly, there is no greater expert on the lack of loyalty in football than Redknapp.
This is the man who declared that Portsmouth would be his last job in football, said loud and clear that he "would never go down the road" to Southampton, turned down Newcastle in January 2008 citing 'loyalty' and then left for Tottenham in October saying it was "a big opportunity to manage a big club before I retire".
History has since been re-written by Redknapp, who now claims: 'When I went back to manage Portsmouth from Southampton, the team was bottom of the Premier League. We stayed up by the skin of our teeth with a remarkable run of results.
'Yet the club was changing hands. Milan Mandaric was selling up to Sasha Gaydamak, and I knew the new man was hoping to bring in someone else in my place.
'I even knew who it was, but am not prepared to name names. So despite all that effort and an impressive achievement, I was on my way out.
'That's part of the reason why I left for Tottenham...'
Firstly, Portsmouth were not bottom of the Premier League table when Redknapp returned to Portsmouth - they were third from bottom and just three points from safety. Their survival was far from a miracle.
And secondly and more pertinently, Redknapp is now claiming that he left Portsmouth because Milan Mandaric was selling the club and he saw the writing on the wall.
Mandaric sold the club in the summer of 2006. Redknapp signed a new Portsmouth deal in October 2007. He left for Tottenham in October 2008.
Darren's reinforcing his reputation as one of Fleet Street's top bullshitters with his fine work on Talksport, and this morning's SSN appearance saw the lad's fine vein of bollocks continue.
He started off with a subject he evidently knows fuck all about, cricket, and began sticking it to the English players in Australia.
Just to give this a bit of context, England had a bad day yesterday, but there were bright spots. It certainly was not as bad as previous Ashes openers in recent memory, finishing all out for 260 after a nervous start on day one of a 25 day series.
Day 2 has been much more successful, and barring an unfortunate early end due to the weather England could have been pretty much on equal terms by the end of the day's play.
Darren is exceedingly unimpressed however, and told us so. John Davies asked "isn't it a bit early to be writing England off, after the first day?"
"No, because it's how you start..."
No Darren, the accepted sporting wisdom is 'it's not how you start, it's how you finish'. Best stick to footballers, gossip and bollocks, and stop making a tit of yourself.
Which leads nicely onto something he knows lots about, Wayne Rooney.
Wayne's done an interview in the last 24 hours because "he owed the Manchester United fans an apology". Darren used the word "contrite" on several occasions, but the quotes in wide circulation attributed to Rooney don't really match up.
Let's be honest, when has any footballer ever taken responsibility for anything they've ever done, let alone shown any contrition? This precludes that they should even need to to be contrite obviously...
The Rooney saga was simply the usual manner in which top players conduct contract negotiations with Manchester United; club refuses to pay massive wages, player puts it in the public arena, Bacon Face calls in journo harem to report little-boy-lost-bottom-lip-trembling press conference performance (they lap it up naturally), flash mob turns up at Rooney's house and puts the frighteners on his missus, the press turn on Rooney as if he's Josef Fritzl's much more sadistic scouse brother, and eventually he signs a contract stating "I never wanted to leave".
Darren's take on it all:
"It's not Wayne's fault he's the best player in the world..."
