צ'לסי 2012/2013-הספיישל וואן חוזר

אני זוכר את בניטז כמאמן טקטי שנוטה להיות אקטיבי תוך כדי משחקים. כמאמן צ?לסי הוא רחוק שנות אור מכך, הוא צפוי נורא והחילופים שלו בנאלים וחסרי השפעה בצורה כמעט מביכה. מה גם שהסיפור הזה עם להחליף חלץ אחד באחר כל משחק בדקה ה80 עולה לי על העצבים.

 

לא הבנת שהוא אמר את זה בנימה צינית?

 

שערורייתי לדעתי, ולפי הניסוח שלהם העונש ?לא מספיק בכלל?. שוב מוכיחים כמה הם ליצנים וחסרי הבנה בכל מה שקשור לכדורגל. להזכיר להם שהם ערערו על עונשו של רוני לאחר שבעט בשחקן מקדוניה במכוון לפני היורו האחרון? צבועים.

 

סלח לי, אבל כשגוף פועל בצורה אינטרסנטית באופן גורף המילים ליצנות וחוסר הבנה בהחלט מתאימות.

מכתב שאוהד צ?לסי שלח להתאחדות, נראה מה תהיה - אם בכלל - תגובתם בנושא.

My letter to the FA.

Dear Sir/Madam,


I am writing to you in regards to your decision to charge Eden Hazard with violent conduct after the incident with the ball boy against Swansea on Wednesday 23rd January 2013. As you are aware, Mr Hazard was sent off and will receive a 3 match ban. However you have decided to charge him stating that such a ban is "clearly insufficient".


Without getting into the debate of whether the red card was right or wrong (the majority view seems to be that was actually harsh) as that has now happened, I would request that you answer the following questions.


Firstly can you please explain the FA reasoning and decision making process in determining that the Hazard punishment was "clearly insufficient" as opposed to these decisions:


Marouane Fellaini head butting Ryan Shawcross during the game of Everton vs Stoke on 22nd December 2012. This was classed as violent conduct but three matches was the punishment. Please explain how you came to a decision that kicking a ball and catching a ball boy is deemed worse than head butting a player in the face. I would add that if you were to do the two offences in everyday life, the action of head butting would lead to much more serious charges.


The League 2 fixture between Oxford United and Swindon on Saturday 3rd March 2012. The ball boy behind the goal retrieved the ball and was returning it to the Oxford goalkeeper ready to restart the game. This was clearly not done quickly enough for Matt Ritchie's liking as he ran up to the ball boy (who I believe is 14 years old), shoved him in the chest and knocked the ball from his hands. The player was booked by the referee and the FA decided not to take any further action. Again, i request that you explain the decision making process in this case and how it differs to the Hazard one.


Danny Guthrie kicking out at Craig Fagan during the Newcastle vs Hull game in 2008, which resulted in Craig Fagan suffering a broken leg. Again the FA decided that the 3 game ban was sufficient in this case. Again, I ask that you explain how the FA decided that the Hazard 3 match suspension was "clearly insufficient" opposed to a player kicking out (not attempt was made to play the ball) and breaking a fellow professionals leg?


Lastly, in 2011 the FA appealed against Wayne Rooney's 3 match ban for kicking out against an opponent resulting in a sending off. Please explain why the FA felt a 3 match ban for violent conduct was too excessive in this case, whilst they feel that a 3 match ban in the Hazard incident is "clearly insufficient".


The overriding feeling I have that when looking at these cases is that the FA have been very inconsistent in their decision making process and probably the least serious incident is the one that is facing the most severe punishment.


I look forward to your reply.


Yours Sincerely
Opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual poster and NOT those of the club