Arthur banned for six games

chicagohammer

The way I see it, when someone squares up to you, you normally have the opportunity and choice of fight or flight, in most cases you can reasonably defend yourself against a frontal threat, deflect the incoming punch, land a better one first or try and keep out of reach.

When someone chooses to just spit at you from distance, there is no defense, your arm may protect your face but your arm still gets hit and make no mistake it is considered assault and rightly so.

In a football match, there should be no tolerance for spitting whatsoever, and I am pleased that it appears that there is none, and for the record, cowardly acts where a player is deliberately caught completely unawares and assulted with the treat of serious injury should be treated in the same manner.

Note that I am not talking about a late or even reckless tackle and certainly not a petulant shove that turns into handbags - red cards and three match bans seem appropriate for such instances.

In effect what I am saying is that the review boards should be able to determine if a ref made the correct call and increase the ban should it turn out that the incident was more sinister than it first appeared.

Spitting at someone is pretty cut and dried, rightly instant dismissal and a six game ban.

grey_til_I_dye

the odd shove, if it’s bad enough then it should carry a red

Yes, that was my point, and that is what doesn't happen, mostly not even a yellow. And even if it did, it would be a maximum 3 games.

My point wasn't that spitting wasn't worth 6 games, but that the length of punishment is way out of line compared to other offences.

If you don't see hitting someone from behind as cowardly, that's your opinion.

MrsGrey

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard said:

If there is anything cowardly about all of this it’s the spitting, if you try your luck and punch someone you could be getting yourself into an area you’re not used to, by spitting you’re taking the easy and dirty way out.

Surely whichever method of assault you use, you are risking retaliation?

I can't see the distinction you are making tbh, in terms of one being more 'cowardly' than the other.

Unless here's a hint of 'punching someone is more manly'.

BubblesNeverDies

A few comments on here are taking this away from the football environment. The debate is not whether spitting is low, cowardly or whatever, but whether its penalty should be so much more than something that could cause a career-ending injury.
(See Grey's comment above.)

Vorselaarhammer

Just watching Moyes on the OS he said it's automatic 3 games and then upto 6 depending on a review panel.

He feels it wasn't a direct spit at the player.

So I guess he hopes the review will not impose the maximum.

MrsGrey

It's already been decided, I think?


(Quickly looks it up.. yes, 6 games http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42860274 )

TwistandShout

Disgusting thing to do, no problem with the ban whatsoever. Should be fined by the club too and donate those wages to Isla's fund

IronHerb

The Club can only fine him 2 weeks wages.

Vorselaarhammer

Mrs Grey ;hmm

Not sure the timing of the presser vs the BBC article, also the BBC says mandatory 6 and he said mandatory 3...

O well... I'm sure Auntie is correct...

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

Mrs G it’s cowardly because you can do it When someone’s back is turned, they would barely know Ie a Frank R / Ruddi V incident and I think that particular episode and the amount of attention it gets shows how many people feel about it and the uproar it caused.

Many many people would rather take their chances in a standup show of fisticuffs than be spat on. What you going to do, spit back? Keep spitting one after the other talking turns to see who can get closest to the bullseye?

MrsGrey

Vorselaarhammer said:

O well... I'm sure Auntie is correct...

;nonono Steady on!

grey_til_I_dye

Mrs G it’s cowardly because you can do it When someone’s back is turned,

As opposed to shoving someone in to the advertising hoardings?

As BubblesND pointed out, the discussions is losing focus.

No one is arguing that spitting is not disgusting (at least as far as I can see.)

No one, afaIK, has said Arthur doesn't deserve the ban.

My initial point was that, for me, compared to punishments for incidents which I see as far worse, the 6 game ban is out of proportion.

I can't see that it is twice as bad as nearly anything else a player can get sent off for.

I've got no problem banning someone who spits for 6 games, but I'd like to see punishments for worse incidents match or exceed it, if it is deemed a fair tally.

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard

It’s worth the six games and it bothers me more than someone who shoved someone with excessive or minimal force, that’s the way I see it and I’m sticking to it. Probably one of the few things the FA have got right and I’d agree with.

I understand where you’re coming from and for me a similar sense of frustration was where a defender would literally obstruct a player in order to see the ball out for a goal kick, that used to frustrate the hell out of me, anywhere else it’s a free kick.

It’s just opinions

;ok

TwistandShout

IronHerb said:

The Club can only fine him 2 weeks wages.

Then we should be doing that asap ;ok

Vorselaarhammer

MrsGrey said:

Vorselaarhammer said:

O well... I'm sure Auntie is correct...

;nonono Steady on!

Auntie "BBC".... ;handbag

McHammer

West Ham want to fine defender Arthur Masuaku more than the standard two weeks' wages for spitting at an opponent. The Hammers are frustrated the rules prevent them from doing so instantly without consultation with players' union, the PFA. (Mirror)

buffybegood

Wonder what Carragher's punishment will be?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43366954

PrestonHammer

Carragher wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The bloke was filming it all whilst driving his car.

Filthy from Carragher. What was he thinking and whilst being filmed as well? Filthy idiot.

I think he might get the sack but the bloke filming it should definitely be taken to task by the police.

IronHerb

Carragher can go and join Keys and Gray in Dubai.

SuzanneClaret

thornburyiron

Our form started to fall apart again when Arthur got sent off and his six game ban

MunichHammer

That's a good point, thorn. In the 6 games that he was banned we only got 4 points and have conceded 15 goals in the process and scoring 6.

In the 6 league games before he got sent off (and I am presuming he played in all of those) we got 9 points, conceding 10 goals and scoring 13.

It seems like Arthur is a lot more inportant to the team as some might think.
If our form improves now that he returns, we should be alright.

BubblesNeverDies

Thorn, I've been thinking of posting the very same point ;ok

IronHerb

Obiang has been missing over the same period and, I would say, is a bigger loss.

thornburyiron

Obiang is a big loss but Arthur seemed the only player able to dribble past people and put in really good crosses. Something we've not really been able to do effectively since he's been out.

MunichHammer

We scored twice as many goals with him in the side. Even if he doesn't get the assist, he seems to be pulling players out of positiln

IronHerb

thornburyiron said:

Obiang is a big loss but Arthur seemed the only player able to dribble past people and put in really good crosses. Something we've not really been able to do effectively since he's been out.

Occasionly.

alderz

IronHerb said:

thornburyiron said:

Obiang is a big loss but Arthur seemed the only player able to dribble past people and put in really good crosses. Something we've not really been able to do effectively since he's been out.

Occasionly.

In 19 league appearances this season he has attempted 93 take ons, and was successful with 67%

IronHerb

And then what did he do?

MunichHammer

Like I said earlier. It might seem that Arthur wastes the ball but we score twice as many goals, concede a third less and get almost twice as many points.