Not unhappy with 4 games.
The precedent as such was the 9 months Cantona got, although in that case obviously physical contact was made.
So the guy abusing ED told the police:Full report available here. Interesting points:
- It was Dier's brother who started the physical confrontation, not the fan
- The case was delayed at Dier's request as he attempted to gain access to materials from a police interview for evidence
- Gareth Southgate gave an unsolicited and extremely positive character reference
- Crucially, there was a point where the abusive spectator and Dier's brother had left in totally different directions. The spectator was also apologising to Eric both verbally and with his body language. Eric admits choosing to pursue him rather than leaving the stands or searching for his brother, insisting that he just wanted to talk - but the panel fairly concluded that this was unlikely to be amicable and that the fan was trying to avoid any further confrontation and had fled to the exit. This seems to be why they've found him guilty of threatening rather than merely improper behaviour.
- A comparison was made that had Dier pursued a player in the same way off the ball, he would have been sent off and banned. Entering the stands makes this more serious, and therefore a 6-game ban was the starting point before mitigating circumstances (e.g. the abuse received and the fact he did initially enter the stands out of concern for his brother) was considered.
And it was during the game. I'd be interested to know when the cutoff is
So basically the rest of the season - funny it comes now.
Yeah, but we're just unlucky, nothing to do with agenda.
I don't know.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?
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.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?
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.
True, but Hugo did not get banned (apart from from driving) for drink driving.Dele got banned for sending a video to his 'mate'
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.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?
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.
Chelsea also sacked Mark Bosnich for drugs, they have actually commendable ( ) form in that area.Would only happen if the club feels they have no asset value (e.g. Richard Keough this year at Derby)
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.
Only off-field incidents FA will get involved with is racism, every thing else is private matter between clubs and employees (Walker, Hudson-Odoi, Lloris, Grealish etc.)
Full report available here. Interesting points:
- It was Dier's brother who started the physical confrontation, not the fan
- The case was delayed at Dier's request as he attempted to gain access to materials from a police interview for evidence
- Gareth Southgate gave an unsolicited and extremely positive character reference
- Crucially, there was a point where the abusive spectator and Dier's brother had left in totally different directions. The spectator was also apologising to Eric both verbally and with his body language. Eric admits choosing to pursue him rather than leaving the stands or searching for his brother, insisting that he just wanted to talk - but the panel fairly concluded that this was unlikely to be amicable and that the fan was trying to avoid any further confrontation and had fled to the exit. This seems to be why they've found him guilty of threatening rather than merely improper behaviour.
- A comparison was made that had Dier pursued a player in the same way off the ball, he would have been sent off and banned. Entering the stands makes this more serious, and therefore a 6-game ban was the starting point before mitigating circumstances (e.g. the abuse received and the fact he did initially enter the stands out of concern for his brother) was considered.