• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Eric Dier

Gazza Dazzla said:
He shouldn’t have done it and deserves some sort of ban, but why the fudge what so long to hand it out? Outrageous.
Click to expand...

They were waiting on a police report, Dier's team specifically asked for the delay as they thought it'd support his case.
The police didn't make it readily available and so the hearing was delayed as all parties waited on the evidence to come through
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The player going into the crowd to hug his brother (that’s actually a fact) is very different to what the Fa have punished him for
If he had got to the fan and lumped him I’m all for the ban
Click to expand...

There is plenty of scope between the two events you describe though

One is akin to Henderson seeking out his dad in Madrid the other is Cantona at Palace.

Dier did look like he had the hump, and words were exchanged. Nothing physical but these are stepping stones to potentially that. If you think he clambered up the seats for a cuddle...then we disagree.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
There is plenty of scope between the two events you describe though

One is akin to Henderson seeking out his dad in Madrid the other is Cantona at Palace.

Dier did look like he had the hump, and words were exchanged. Nothing physical but these are stepping stones to potentially that. If you think he clambered up the seats for a cuddle...then we disagree.
Click to expand...
Intent isn’t something that the FA can charge you for. If so why don’t they retrospectively bounds have missed fouls
 
Just read that this is the same amount of time Terry got for racist abuse (the Ferdinand Incident, not the King one that went unpunished).

Quite pertinent in today’s environment!
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Intent isn’t something that the FA can charge you for. If so why don’t they retrospectively bounds have missed fouls
Click to expand...

It's not intent?
They haven't charged him for intending to be physical. They've charged him with being aggressive and bad language. It's my point (not the fa) that these are stepping stones, so I'd guess the fa are minded to dish out bans to stop any player even taking that first step.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Intent isn’t something that the FA can charge you for. If so why don’t they retrospectively bounds have missed fouls
Click to expand...

He wasn't charged with intent though. The charge was that his behaviour was improper and threatening. They accept that Dier did not intend to harm the abusive fan and that he entered the stand in support of his brother, but maintain that his actions appeared threatening, given that he continued past his brother and followed the fan towards the exit.
Dier accepted the charge of improper behaviour but challenged the threatening part of the charge. There's an implication that he might have had a 3 game ban had he accepted both parts of the charge.

I thought he'd get 2 games. I think 4 games is harsh and there are quite a few assumptions in their conclusions/reasons.
No point in appealing it though.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
It's not intent?
They haven't charged him for intending to be physical. They've charged him with being aggressive and bad language. It's my point (not the fa) that these are stepping stones, so I'd guess the fa are minded to dish out bans to stop any player even taking that first step.
Click to expand...
But the aggression and langauage is common place in the game now
Look at Guiendoozi vs Brighton
They ignore it as it’s during the game
The only thing Dier did different was leave the pitch
 
Glenda's Legs said:
He wasn't charged with intent though. The charge was that his behaviour was improper and threatening. They accept that Dier did not intend to harm the abusive fan and that he entered the stand in support of his brother, but maintain that his actions appeared threatening, given that he continued past his brother and followed the fan towards the exit.
Dier accepted the charge of improper behaviour but challenged the threatening part of the charge. There's an implication that he might have had a 3 game ban had he accepted both parts of the charge.

I thought he'd get 2 games. I think 4 games is harsh and there are quite a few assumptions in their conclusions/reasons.
No point in appealing it though.
Click to expand...
I’d appeal on principle as you can then refer to other instances in your appeal
 
Bedfordspurs said:
But the aggression and langauage is common place in the game now
Look at Guiendoozi vs Brighton
They ignore it as it’s during the game
The only thing Dier did different was leave the pitch
Click to expand...
It always has been.

The obvious difference is everything within the pitch the FA feel they can control and discipline. As soon as players enter the stands a multitude of horrible outcomes become possible.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
No he has been charged with aggression and use of language hasn’t he?
Click to expand...

These are probably the important sections of the FA judgement and it seem pretty clear that the video evidence did not support Dier's testimony.


34. What happened thereafter is crucial. At 00:24 the spectator is shown moving along a row towards the exit. PD is seven or so rows below and across from him. At 00:25 - 00:26 the spectator put up both hands and waved them, palms out towards ED. He is quite obviously standing alone; PD nowhere near him. This is clearly an attempt by him to stop ED advancing towards him. ED looked and raised his right arm towards the spectator. As he did so, ED changed direction, turning to his right and in the direction of the spectator. This was the ‘fork in the road’ for ED: to his left, his (safe) brother, to his right the spectator, who was retreating. He went right.

35. Unsurprisingly, Mr Sturman saw the point and asked ED questions as about this. He said he was upset and angry but had not lost control. He wanted to speak to the spectator, to “remonstrate with him”. He said he did not know where his brother was at that moment. He said he did not want to fight the spectator nor did he intend to threaten him, or anyone else.

36. The spectator headed for exit 103. He was now climbing over seats to make good his retreat. PD and others move across in his direction, as ED continued to climb over the seats, moving through supporters. At 01:33 one supporter tried to grab ED, to stop him. At 00:33 - 00:35 ED is shown walking at pace along a row towards exit 103.

37. At 00:37 the spectator turned back towards ED and shook both hands towards him, once more gesturing to ED to stop his advance. He didn’t. ED told Mr Elagab and us, that the spectator twice apologised to him – at (about) 00:27 and 00:37.

38. ED continued in the direction of the spectator, through numerous supporters in the stands before being stopped by a number of men including security officers and stewards just in front of exit 103. By this time the spectator had disappeared out of that exit. TH2 zooms on the commotion featuring ED just in front of the exit. He denied being in a struggle. In his statement he said the stewards were “trying to protect me” He said the fans around him were supportive of him. In our view he was clearly being held back from going down the steps of that exit.

39. Clip ED is an 18 second clip filmed from the side of and close to the melee at the 103 exit. ED is gesturing towards someone and there are shouts of “guys just back off”. Another voice shouts, “no, no, no [possibly] fighting”. A number of fans and stewards stopped ED from advancing down the exit and he was then ushered away, with PD. People were jostled and an elderly supporter was moved out of harm’s way.

40. ED accepted that he changed direction to pursue him and that he was “going after” the spectator. He agreed the spectator was trying to leave the stadium. We questioned him closely on why he went after the spectator. He was adamant that he had not lost control, was not intending to fight him or to threaten him. He said he wanted only to talk to him, to ask hm why he had abused him and whether he thought that was all right. He did not accept that his conduct was objectively threatening. He told us that even when back in the changing room he still wanted to speak with the spectator and find out why he had behaved as he did.
Click to expand...

I have a fair amount of sympathy for Dier and can understand why he reacted the way that he did but it is clearly a breach of the rules and he was going to get punished for it.

The club have a difficult decision to make on whether to appeal. I can see the sense in taking it on the chin and getting the punishment out of the way in a season with little to play for but Dier has, arguably, been our best player since the return and he will be a real loss.
 
milo said:
These are probably the important sections of the FA judgement and it seem pretty clear that the video evidence did not support Dier's testimony.




I have a fair amount of sympathy for Dier and can understand why he reacted the way that he did but it is clearly a breach of the rules and he was going to get punished for it.

The club have a difficult decision to make on whether to appeal. I can see the sense in taking it on the chin and getting the punishment out of the way in a season with little to play for but Dier has, arguably, been our best player since the return and he will be a real loss.
Click to expand...
Jose has said thee isn’t any point appealing
 
To me, this judgement is a complete joke - and seems to only happen to us. A four match ban and £40k fine is simply ridiculous. And why hasn't the request for information from the police taken so long. Surely it should be readily available immediately on demand. The whole thing stinks.
 
Wow, 4 games seems very harsh, however I assume the FAs bar as to what constitutes being "aggressive" is v v low.

On the plus side: players really shouldn't go into the crowd for their own safety, too many nutters around.

Also at least the ban ends before next season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back