Sweet FA once again
Well, that was a waste of time: imagining the FA might make a sensible decision for once.
The Silver Fox had ruled out appealing against Loic Remy's dismissal at Carrow Road immediately after the match, but, perhaps aware of our striker shortage in the cold light of day, we performed a U-turn and decided to seek clemency from the authorities. No such luck.
That in itself is arguably unsurprising - Remy did make a forward motion with his head, even if Bradley Johnson made a mountain out of a molehill and even if Swansea's Jonjo Shelvey escaped punishment for a more violent head movement in confrontation with Mathieu Debuchy in December.
What is staggering, though, is that they saw fit to rescind Johnson's red card on appeal. Not only was the Norwich midfielder the initial aggressor in the incident, he was as guilty of raising his hands to an opponent as Remy was.
The upshot of the debacle is that if there do turn out to be any fireworks on the pitch during the derby, Remy won't be involved. Hopefully there shouldn't be any fireworks in the stands either, though Mackem chief executive Margaret Byrne's attempt to get the message across in the programme for last night's match against Stoke was somewhat undermined by an unfortunate typo: "We have also been asked by the FA to remind all supporters about the dangers of flares and polytechnics." Presumably she went on to remind all supporters about the dangers of polyunsaturates, polyester and Polly Toynbee too...
The Silver Fox had ruled out appealing against Loic Remy's dismissal at Carrow Road immediately after the match, but, perhaps aware of our striker shortage in the cold light of day, we performed a U-turn and decided to seek clemency from the authorities. No such luck.
That in itself is arguably unsurprising - Remy did make a forward motion with his head, even if Bradley Johnson made a mountain out of a molehill and even if Swansea's Jonjo Shelvey escaped punishment for a more violent head movement in confrontation with Mathieu Debuchy in December.
What is staggering, though, is that they saw fit to rescind Johnson's red card on appeal. Not only was the Norwich midfielder the initial aggressor in the incident, he was as guilty of raising his hands to an opponent as Remy was.
The upshot of the debacle is that if there do turn out to be any fireworks on the pitch during the derby, Remy won't be involved. Hopefully there shouldn't be any fireworks in the stands either, though Mackem chief executive Margaret Byrne's attempt to get the message across in the programme for last night's match against Stoke was somewhat undermined by an unfortunate typo: "We have also been asked by the FA to remind all supporters about the dangers of flares and polytechnics." Presumably she went on to remind all supporters about the dangers of polyunsaturates, polyester and Polly Toynbee too...
Labels: fa, loic remy, mackems, newcastle, norwich city
posted by Ben at 8:41 pm
4 Comments:
Sunderland execs must fear the role of skilled-trade oriented higher education institutions for their fans
But seriously, did Pardew's post-match comments, which seemed to accept Remy's card, play a role in the FA not taking the appeal seriously? In contrast, as the blog on nufc.com points out, Hughes defended Johnson from the start and didn't comment on Remy particularly---the exact OPPOSITE approach of Pardew. Not blaming Pardew here, but in light of any replay of the incident it seems more than a coincidence. Of course, I think there are other things going on institutionally in the FA when punishments are handed out on an uneven basis....
more concerned about the cabaye leaving us late stories so we couldnt get a replacement over the line same old story,
I suspect Pardew's heat-of-the-moment/honest response after the game was taken into account, even though it shouldn't have been judged on that basis. I also suspect that the decision to appeal wasn't his and actually came from above. A lesson there to be more careful what you say in post-match interviews - not the first time he's been a bit too unguarded or rash in his comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home