Retro Ban For Tarks?

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:48 pm

Steddyman wrote:If the offence is for trying to deceive a match official, then surely it is Murray who needs banning.

1. Blatantly hooked is own leg up and back through Tarks to get a penalty.
2. Went down crying like a sack of spuds for a little tap in the ribs.

If Murray had stood on his feet and just rubbed his ribs (which was the correct reaction for what happened) would you be claiming Tarks needed a 3 game ban?

Exactly Steddy.

Murray cheated to get the penalty and then tried to deceive the ref again by rolling around, when a quizzical look in Tarks' direction would have been more appropriate.

If anyone on this thread has ever had a dig in the ribs and rolled around on the floor like that...then I stand corrected

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:50 pm

Has he actually been banned or are we fretting over nothing?

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:51 pm

box_of_frogs wrote:Has he actually been banned or are we fretting over nothing?

That's a good point. The thought hadn't entered my head until I saw the thread.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:01 pm

spoke too soon, he's been charged, faces a 3 game ban, all 3 officials have to agree that a red card would have been shown at the time, IMO it was a yellow at most.

Firthy · Post by **Firthy** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:02 pm

Erasmus wrote:No news is good news on this. With Lanzini being sanctioned it may be that Tarkowski will get away with it. I really hate violence in any sphere of life, but at the same time, for some reason, Glen Murray's cheating offends me more than Tarkowski's elbow in the ribs. Not just because I support Burnley; we have always had bits of argy-bargy on the field, but all this cheating, diving, writhing and complaining really puts me off modern football. I can't stand the mainly continental tendency for players to scream every time they get fouled or even tackled. There's no excuse for it. In any profession, lying and cheating is unacceptable (even for solicitors, journalists, politicians and estate agents).

Couldn't agree more. Football is being ruined by penalties and penalty claims. Too many games are decided by dubious penalty awards and poor refereeing ie Arsenal, Arsenal and Arsenal

1HappyClaret · Post by **1HappyClaret** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:03 pm

Now charged

CFS · Post by **CFS** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:05 pm

Deserves a winter break with the family. Return hungrier.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:08 pm

CFS wrote:Deserves a winter break with the family. Return hungrier.

he'll probably be made to sit in the Calder for 270 minutes!

gandhisflipflop · Post by **gandhisflipflop** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:09 pm

Some claret tinted specs in this thread here. It was pre meditated, it was violent conduct and therefore a red card. Stupidity from Tarks and I hope Dyche has had a word in the ear.

Papabendi · Post by **Papabendi** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:11 pm

Sorry to say, but having seen it, it is idiotic from Tarkowski and if a player did that against us we'd expect a red. I expect him to get banned which could really cost us with some tough fixtures coming up.

Milltown1882 · Post by **Milltown1882** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:11 pm

Standard FA that he'll be banned but Alli and Kane will be on the pitch on Saturday.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:12 pm

Looking at the Laws, it's not clearly violent conduct as it's debateable whether it was using excessive force or brutality.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

Having said that, the FA's success rate with their charges is close to 100% so I expect a ban.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:13 pm

It's certainly no miscarriage of justice.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:13 pm

It's surely excessive force unless you think he was just tickling him !

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:15 pm

TVC15 wrote:It's surely excessive force unless you think he was just tickling him !

You think he was endangering Murray's safety?

Squarepusher · Post by **Squarepusher** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:15 pm

Very frustrating to see one of our players showing such poor judgement. Take the deserved ban and hope to learn from the experience.

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:15 pm

gandhisflipflop wrote:Some claret tinted specs in this thread here. It was pre meditated, it was violent conduct and therefore a red card. Stupidity from Tarks and I hope Dyche has had a word in the ear.

Oh come on Gandi - would you rather we had the player who dived for a penalty, then rolled around like a big soft sh*t to get a fellow professional into trouble, when he'd already cheated him...

Or the player who gave the cheat a dig?

It's not Claret tinted specs, but we have to hold off from joining the cheats as long as we can, because they generally win in this cesspit of a league. It's not easy and we're doing a great job.

And before anyone says 'Ashley Barnes' - there is no way in this world he'd act like Murray.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:16 pm

Not violent conduct?
He intentionally elbowed him in the ribs..

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:16 pm

This really f#cking sucks. The FA did f#ck all about Ramsey diving, or Silva for Man Shitty, are going to do f#ck all about Murray cheating and although I acknowledge what he did was wrong, the frustration that we all feel is that because it's little ol' Burnley they'll roll over and take it in the f#cking ar5e. W@nkers, it really is double standards. IF the FA did actually did something about cheating then he wouldn't have done it I'm sure.

gandhisflipflop · Post by **gandhisflipflop** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:20 pm

Guich wrote:Oh come on Gandi - would you rather we had the player who dived for a penalty, then rolled around like a big soft sh*t to get a fellow professional into trouble, when he'd already cheated him...

Or the player who gave the cheat a dig?

It's not Claret tinted specs, but we have to hold off from joining the cheats as long as we can, because they generally win in this cesspit of a league. It's not easy and we're doing a great job.

And before anyone says 'Ashley Barnes' - there is no way in this world he'd act like Murray.

I would rather we had neither. I'm looking at this as an entirely seperate incident. Yes Murray is a cheat, yes he deserves it but it is violent conduct from Tarkowski and therefore can not be excused. 2 wrongs do not make a right. I'm fed up of cheating just as much as you are.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:21 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Not violent conduct?
He intentionally elbowed him in the ribs..

It was just a playful dig.
The game's gone soft.

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:29 pm

TVC15 wrote:It's surely excessive force unless you think he was just tickling him !

You could argue any off the ball elbow is excessive as it's not needed in a game of football

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:30 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Not violent conduct?
He intentionally elbowed him in the ribs..

So was Murray's safety endangered or was it brutal?

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:33 pm

It probably wouldn't have happened if Murray hadn't tried to block him off.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:47 pm

Tall Paul wrote:You think he was endangering Murray's safety?

Where does it say he needs to be endangering a players safety in the rule ?

As I said if he was not using excessive force what do you think he was doing ?

Can't believe that people seriously think he has not broken a rule for striking a player off the ball....in a way it would have been more satisfying for us if he would have broken his ribs and put the cheating git in hospital as at least there would have been something to show for his ban

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:50 pm

Would anyone have noticed it had Murray not dived to the ground in that manner?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:03 pm

TVC15 wrote:Where does it say he needs to be endangering a players safety in the rule ?

As I said if he was not using excessive force what do you think he was doing ?

Can't believe that people seriously think he has not broken a rule for striking a player off the ball....in a way it would have been more satisfying for us if he would have broken his ribs and put the cheating git in hospital as at least there would have been something to show for his ban

Excessive force is defined as

"Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off".

Who thinks he hasn't broken any rules?

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:15 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Excessive force is defined as

"Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off".

Who thinks he hasn't broken any rules?

He may have exceeded the necessary force (some would argue he wasn't hard enough) but it did not endanger the safety of an opponent, and as such shouldn't have been sent off.

The whole situation is a farce. If the authorities actually applied the retrospective rule appropriately - i.e. Silva at Man City; Ramsey and Murray in the first incident then players like Tarks wouldn't be so wound up by it that the feel like the have to have a dig, and a minor dig at that too. elbows like that happen in every game at every level and no one goes off on a stretcher for it.

Braindead · Post by **Braindead** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:17 pm

At the end of the day he elbowed a player - it does not matter if it was in the body or in the face it is still a red card offence - similar to Zidance's chestbutt of Materazzi, the fact that it was to the body area not the head is irrelevant.

He deserves to be banned - the dick.

KefkaClaret · Post by **KefkaClaret** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:18 pm

Everyone who moans about Murray exaggerrating contact will be the same ones cheering when Barnes gets us a decision with a soft foul.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:20 pm

Braindead wrote:At the end of the day he elbowed a player - it does not matter if it was in the body or in the face it is still a red card offence - similar to Zidance's chestbutt of Materazzi, the fact that it was to the body area not the head is irrelevant.

He deserves to be banned - the dick.

You're wrong, it's very relevant.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:25 pm

KefkaClaret wrote:Everyone who moans about Murray exaggerrating contact will be the same ones cheering when Barnes gets us a decision with a soft foul.

Too right, (if it ever happens), it's called supporting your club.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:29 pm

Tall Paul wrote:So was Murray's safety endangered or was it brutal?

Ever had an intentional sharp dig in the ribs from someone's elbow?

It isn't about it being brutal or endangering his safety, it's about a player intentionally hurting his opponent.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:30 pm

Sidney1st wrote:Ever had an intentional sharp dig in the ribs from someone's elbow?

It isn't about it being brutal or endangering his safety, it's about a player intentionally hurting his opponent.

That's exactly what it's about if you read the applicable Law.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:33 pm

Tall Paul wrote:That's exactly what it's about if you read the applicable Law.

The Fa is right act though, he clearly elbowed the bloke in the ribs on purpose.
You can mince about with the wording all you like, Tarks deserves a ban plain and simple.

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:35 pm

possible 4 match ban, any one else 2 or 3 ban for other teams, and if it was Arsenal probable iou for penalty's in next 3 games

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:35 pm

Sidney1st wrote:The Fa is right act though, he clearly elbowed the bloke in the ribs on purpose.
You can mince about with the wording all you like, Tarks deserves a ban plain and simple.

Yeah, let's just ignore the Laws of the Game, he deserves a ban because *reasons*.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Words like "brutal" and "endangering safety" are all open to interpretation.
We can argue till the cows come home as to whether elbowing someone in the ribs is "brutal".
....what challenge would be brutal ? You would not call someone slapping you across the face as either brutal or endangering safety but are you saying that would not lead to a ban ? Same with kicking someone up the arse or punching them in the groin.

Yet all these would lead to a ban because you cannot strike another player and in theory anyone of them "could" lead to an injury.

Irrespective of all of this the decision is more about precedent - and it's hard to think of an occasion when they reviewed a player striking an opponent and not getting a ban.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Tall Paul wrote:

Yeah, let's just ignore the Laws of the Game, he deserves a ban because *reasons*.

Do you think he deserves to be punished for intentionally elbowing an opponent?

Personally I do and we'd all be demanding it if it had been the other way round.
If it isn't violent conduct then what is it?

If it's the only law that can be used then so be it, if you think you can get him off on a technicality then send of your letter telling him so.

ClaretKent · Post by **ClaretKent** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:45 pm

got caught. cameras everywhere. stupid in my view. expect a ban

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:58 pm

TVC15 wrote:Words like "brutal" and "endangering safety" are all open to interpretation.
We can argue till the cows come home as to whether elbowing someone in the ribs is "brutal".
....what challenge would be brutal ? You would not call someone slapping you across the face as either brutal or endangering safety but are you saying that would not lead to a ban ? Same with kicking someone up the arse or punching them in the groin.

Sounds like you agree with my original point that it's debatable whether it was violent conduct or not then.

Irrespective of all of this the decision is more about precedent - and it's hard to think of an occasion when they reviewed a player striking an opponent and not getting a ban.

Yes, once the FA makes the charge, there's no way there won't be a ban.

Sidney1st wrote:
Do you think he deserves to be punished for intentionally elbowing an opponent?

Personally I do and we'd all be demanding it if it had been the other way round.
If it isn't violent conduct then what is it?

If it's the only law that can be used then so be it, if you think you can get him off on a technicality then send of your letter telling him so.

Originally I thought it should have been a red, but after reading the Law, I think it should have been a yellow.

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:59 pm

ClaretKent wrote:got caught. cameras everywhere. stupid in my view. expect a ban

And if he hadn't been caught on camera I'm sure the pundits would have been falling over themselves to highlight it somehow. All the same a schoolboy reaction to another cheat in the game.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:03 pm

I'm on Tark's side on this.

Murray fouls him before he gives away the penalty
Murray obstructs him before the elbow incident.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:07 pm

[quote="Tall Paul"]Sounds like you agree with my original point that it's debatable whether it was violent conduct or not then

No not really.
It does not constitute my definition of violent or brutal but it definitely constitutes the football authorities' definition of this in the last few years.
You are taking the wording of the rules too literally. For a number of years now striking an opponent off the ball has fallen within their definition.....irrespective of whether it was a powder puff slap which causes little or no pain or a full blown head butt which breaks someone's nose.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:23 pm

If the ref had seen it he’d have been sent off. He’s getting a three game ban and unfortunately deserves it. Of course what gets people’s back up is that Murray will get away scott free despite tripping himself up to deceive the referee and I’m in full agreement. It’s also galling that Ali and Kane will be playing against us on Saturday because of a weak referee when they ‘endangered’ opponents much more than Tarky.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:24 pm

TVC15 wrote:No not really.
It does not constitute my definition of violent or brutal but it definitely constitutes the football authorities' definition of this in the last few years.
You are taking the wording of the rules too literally. For a number of years now striking an opponent off the ball has fallen within their definition.....irrespective of whether it was a powder puff slap which causes little or no pain or a full blown head butt which breaks someone's nose.

Unless it's Romelu Lukaku, as mentioned in the other thread.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:33 pm

Lukaku should have been banned. There was a pretty unanimous outcry amongst opposing teams fans that he got away with that.

Do you not think he should have been banned ?

Gnulty · Post by **Gnulty** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:59 pm

Not a conduct I want to see from any player at any level..simple as that.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:00 pm

TVC15 wrote:Lukaku should have been banned. There was a pretty unanimous outcry amongst opposing teams fans that he got away with that.

Do you not think he should have been banned ?

I think the Laws should be applied consistently, so if Tarkowski is going to be banned, then Lukaku should have been.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:04 pm

I really hope Dyche makes sure he learns from this. It was stupidity.