Eric Dier
- Thread starter SpursManChris
- Start date
thebenjamin
Well-Known Member
- Jul 1, 2008
- 12,266
- 38,959
And it was during the game. I'd be interested to know when the cutoff is
C0YS
Just another member
- Jul 9, 2007
- 12,780
- 13,817
So the guy abusing ED told the police:
'that he hadn’t felt threatened by ED’s behaviour during the incident. '
The police concluded:
that the lack of threatening behaviour was one of the deciding factors in the decision to take no further action against ED; and the spectator said [he] [...] had not felt threatened by ED
There is some other interesting things as well. The issue is that to lie under police caution is a criminal offence. Which the report doesn't seem to recognise at all. In fact they make the opposite conclusion, namely they actually outright say that the spectator was lying to the police under caution. Which, is pretty scary to me.
Players have responsibility from the moment they arrive at the ground until the moment they leave.
The referee can send a player off (in effect, not the technical term if not happening during game) from the moment they arrive at the venue, until the moment they leave, say for abusive language or violent conduct (although team can still play with 11 men if this does not happen during the game, just that player cannot play)
King of Otters
Well-Known Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 10,751
- 36,094
Shitty timing for the team and for Dier, but I find it hard to disagree with the outcome.
You can’t behave like that as a professional footballer and not expect a severe punishment.
On top of that, he made the club look even more fractured and pathetic than it already does. It’s the type of thing that you’d expect to see happen at Arsenal to Xhaka or Luiz.
I genuinely wouldn’t give a shit if we moved him on in the summer after this.
You can’t behave like that as a professional footballer and not expect a severe punishment.
On top of that, he made the club look even more fractured and pathetic than it already does. It’s the type of thing that you’d expect to see happen at Arsenal to Xhaka or Luiz.
I genuinely wouldn’t give a shit if we moved him on in the summer after this.
spids
Well-Known Member
- Jul 19, 2015
- 6,647
- 27,841
I think it is essential that, following the removal of fencing around the perimeter of the playing area, that fans are heavily punished for encroaching the pitch (life time bans etc.), and players are heavily punished for entering the stands. Dier was always looking at a significant ban due to the nature of the offence, even if nothing actually happened in terms of physical confrontation / altercation. If he had of caught up with the guy and got in a scuffle he' be looking at 9 months similar to Cantona, so was incredibly stupid in his actions.
Matthew
Well-Known Member
- Aug 29, 2012
- 4,597
- 15,867
not overly sure on that.
guendozi throat grab.... nothing
grealish drink driving during lockdwon.... nothing
kyle walker sex party .... nothing
john terry racial abuse.... 4 games
wheres the consistency?
D
Deleted member 27995
C0YS
Just another member
- Jul 9, 2007
- 12,780
- 13,817
I actually do support Dier in his attempts to talk to some fan who thinks its ok to spout out personal abuse on the terraces. Because it's disgusting and would be illegal in any other contexts. The words used were horrible.
I don't think Dier's behaviour should of been considered threatening on the basis of the interview under caution, and it is not on some inner company panel to question the validity of a police interview, especially considering the potential legal issues of lying under caution.
A 3 match ban, should have been it. So I think the investigation was conducted very badly for a number of issues, including ones I haven't mentioned. But I don't particularly think the penalty is super harsh or anything.
I don't think Dier's behaviour should of been considered threatening on the basis of the interview under caution, and it is not on some inner company panel to question the validity of a police interview, especially considering the potential legal issues of lying under caution.
A 3 match ban, should have been it. So I think the investigation was conducted very badly for a number of issues, including ones I haven't mentioned. But I don't particularly think the penalty is super harsh or anything.
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,160
- 63,809
The PL or FA can't take action against a player for misdemeanours that occur outside of a football setting. It's the club as their employer that has to suspend or fire them if they see fit to do so, which of course will almost never happen except for if they're given actual prison sentences.
ClintEastwould
Well-Known Member
- Jul 3, 2012
- 4,748
- 9,845
Imagine if Canton’s flying kick went off in this day and age. Dier already felt somewhat surreal that would’ve been something else entirely lol
thebenjamin
Well-Known Member
- Jul 1, 2008
- 12,266
- 38,959
Dele got banned for sending a video to his 'mate'
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,160
- 63,809
True, but Hugo did not get banned (apart from from driving) for drink driving.
EDIT: There's a massive inconsistency there and I'm not sure why a social media video (see also the Bernardo Silva case) is a sanctionable offence but the other misdemeanours aren't.
Last edited:
mpickard2087
Patient Zero
- Jun 13, 2008
- 21,889
- 32,561
The FA's reasoning seems sound enough. And we got the answer as to the timing/delay of this. Judgement on the balance of probabilities is that Dier had lost the plot and if he hadn't been restrained more aggro was on the way, this after the initial exchange between the fan and his brother had ended and they'd gone in separate directions.
Stern action always felt likely, players charging into the stands is something they definitely will not want to see, but at least it will be all sorted and not rumble into next season. Shame though as he's just started to put a run of games together at Centre Back.
Stern action always felt likely, players charging into the stands is something they definitely will not want to see, but at least it will be all sorted and not rumble into next season. Shame though as he's just started to put a run of games together at Centre Back.
C0YS
Just another member
- Jul 9, 2007
- 12,780
- 13,817
This is really true, same with deciding the Dele things was worse than other things, though I generally agreed with the one match ban. But it still was a private matter that got leaked into the public, with intent to damage.
But it just shows the priorities. Even the way the report talks about going into the stands, as if it really is potentially dangerous, it's kind of still this mentality of hooligans.
This was on TV, people watched it it looked bad. That's what they care about. Racism, whatever, who cares right? The throat grab, its another player. Player to player stuff is fine right. Because this wasn't a player, but was a completely fully legal act of someone confronting someone who said things that would constitute verbal assault outside of a stadium is a bigger worse act.
I dunno. Reacting to assault is worse than committing assault like guendozi? A hint of treating behaviour is worse that actual abuse? It's a very confusing world. But they are after their own interests.
Would only happen if the club feels they have no asset value (e.g. Richard Keough this year at Derby, and many a youth player down the years)
The only one I can recall where club have sacked a player that had asset value for disciplinary reasons was Chelsea with Adrian Mutu for drugs, and they successfully took him to court for the lost transfer value.
Obviously players that are sent to prison for long period (e.g. Adam Johnson) would be immediately sacked also, and potentially sued by clubs for lost asset value.
Only off-field incidents FA will get involved with is racism, everything else is private matter between clubs and employees (Walker, Hudson-Odoi, Lloris, Grealish etc.)
Last edited:
Marty
Audere est farce
- Mar 10, 2005
- 40,160
- 63,809
Chelsea also sacked Mark Bosnich for drugs, they have actually commendable (
) form in that area.
SpartanSpur
Well-Known Member
- Jan 27, 2011
- 12,552
- 43,063
Overall I think it is a pretty fair assessment, however I think it's also fair to assume he would never have entered the stands had his brother not been involved, making it an exceptional circumstance. When you couple this with the police statement of the fan involved not feeling threatened, and the character reference from Southgate, I think he had quite a strong case in that the actions were not threatening, and it certainly wasn't an angry reaction at the direct abuse from the fan in question, which I feel the sanction implies. He certainly didn't act on any aggressive impulses when he reached the fan.
As I said before, I understand the FA had to make an example of him, but I also feel sympathy for Eric and I fully agree with his statement that he was only thinking of his brother and would not have acted in the way he did under normal circumstances. Like he said he gets abuse all the time and has never acted upon it before.
I guess the reduction of the ban shows some acknowledgement of this from the panel, but I still feel he can be slightly hard done by on the assertion he was 'threatening' based on the reasons stated above. Maybe enough to get an extra game off the ban on appeal at most I'd imagine, in which case it probably isn't worth the risk.
Similar threads
