Favorites or favouritism?
The headlines today reflect 'sniping' comments to the FA regarding Yaya Toure's seemingly unjust actions of patting RVWW back with his boot?
Whilst it was pretty obvious what Yaya was trying to achieve with his lashing out, it's hard to understand why a panel of 3 referees were unable to find him guilty of violent conduct? Whilst I find Mourinho fairly annoying these days with his media escapades I have to agree with him regarding this instance.
Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho, whose side face City in the FA Cup on Saturday, had earlier urged the FA to take action against Toure. He said: 'If the FA defends football, he has to be suspended.' When asked if he would be upset if the FA took no action, Mourinho replied: 'Of course or it is the same for everybody else from now.
'Every player feels that if the referee doesn't see, I can do. It doesn't matter the cameras, it doesn't matter the consequences because if the referee doesn't see, I can do it."
We also saw the thug Carroll take a swipe or swinging arm clipping Chico's pony tail a couple of weeks ago and this decision upheld? It brings into question firstly would the FA panel hold up the red card given to Carrol albeit there being slight contact for the sake of the referee or perhaps because West Ham are not really a big club?
Then we get City who have seen Yaya not punished for what seems to me as clear act of violent conduct go unpunished and to top it off we get RVWW saying he aint bothered and would rather see Yaya playing on the pitch than punished???
My second question being the title of 'Favorites' or 'Favoritism' for City who seem to have received one of the two with their lashings given week in and week out, but are they getting a free ride with referees and the FA (and some dodgy linesman) to achieve their new title stolen from the red side of Manchester?
Written by Mix26