Moussa Sissoko

[King of Norway]

It amazes me how our fans scream injustice when one of our players steps out of line. Sure as brick if a opposing player did the same think as Sissoko did they would be foaming at the mouth to make sure he got banned for it.

I am the first to admit it when one of our players do something wrong, but in this case it seems like we are hardly done by:

1. I don't think it looks like Sissoko does what he does with intent. He never looks at Arter, and it seems to happen in a natural movement. There was no motive for it either. he had just come off the bench, so there was no previous between the players, certainly not in this match.

2. If Sissoko has done with it intent (which is certainly something we can debate, but no one can really say for certain except Sissoko himself, which makes the decision to suspend him questionable), then he does deserve punishment. That does, however, not explain why Arter has got away with his "tackle" on Wanyama. Again, I guess it is subjective whether or not it is worse than what Sissoko did (if Sissoko did it purposefully), but it is not subjective that it was worthy of a red card. It was reckless, dangerous and clearly a red card offence under the laws of the game. Wanyama was lucky not to get injured. In this case, the referee clearly didn't see it, as pictures show he was following the ball with his eyes rather than the tackle. When you have retrospective punishment, at least it should go both ways. In this case, Sissoko has been punished because it was brought up by the media, whilst Arter gets away with what he did because it wasn't. The FA only goes with what the media says rather than actually reviewing games themselves, it seems.

3. The officials apprently didn't see the incident. That seems extremely strange to me:
a) The linesman was standing a few yards away from the incident
b) Pictures show that the referee, although he was further away than the linesman, was looking straight at the accident and had an unobstructed view.
c) The referee and the linesman had a lenghty conversation after the incident where they must have been talking about how neither of them saw anything for a very long time
d) You hear Harry Arter shouting "No, no accident" when the officials have finished their conversation, which suggests to me he must have overheard one of the officials saying that he saw it as an accident, which again suggests he must have seen it.

Then, in their match rapport, they write that neither of them saw the incident. That simply reeks of them giving a "false statement" to me.

 

[90291Spur]

I am the first to admit it when one of our players do something wrong, but in this case it seems like we are hardly done by:

1. I don't think it looks like Sissoko does what he does with intent. He never looks at Arter, and it seems to happen in a natural movement. There was no motive for it either. he had just come off the bench, so there was no previous between the players, certainly not in this match.

2. If Sissoko has done with it intent (which is certainly something we can debate, but no one can really say for certain except Sissoko himself, which makes the decision to suspend him questionable), then he does deserve punishment. That does, however, not explain why Arter has got away with his "tackle" on Wanyama. Again, I guess it is subjective whether or not it is worse than what Sissoko did (if Sissoko did it purposefully), but it is not subjective that it was worthy of a red card. It was reckless, dangerous and clearly a red card offence under the laws of the game. Wanyama was lucky not to get injured. In this case, the referee clearly didn't see it, as pictures show he was following the ball with his eyes rather than the tackle. When you have retrospective punishment, at least it should go both ways. In this case, Sissoko has been punished because it was brought up by the media, whilst Arter gets away with what he did because it wasn't. The FA only goes with what the media says rather than actually reviewing games themselves, it seems.

.

Perhaps it was his no-look retribution for the tackles on Wanyama? Alas, we will never know...

 

[parklane1]

I am the first to admit it when one of our players do something wrong, but in this case it seems like we are hardly done by:

1. I don't think it looks like Sissoko does what he does with intent. He never looks at Arter, and it seems to happen in a natural movement. There was no motive for it either. he had just come off the bench, so there was no previous between the players, certainly not in this match.

2. If Sissoko has done with it intent (which is certainly something we can debate, but no one can really say for certain except Sissoko himself, which makes the decision to suspend him questionable), then he does deserve punishment. That does, however, not explain why Arter has got away with his "tackle" on Wanyama. Again, I guess it is subjective whether or not it is worse than what Sissoko did (if Sissoko did it purposefully), but it is not subjective that it was worthy of a red card. It was reckless, dangerous and clearly a red card offence under the laws of the game. Wanyama was lucky not to get injured. In this case, the referee clearly didn't see it, as pictures show he was following the ball with his eyes rather than the tackle. When you have retrospective punishment, at least it should go both ways. In this case, Sissoko has been punished because it was brought up by the media, whilst Arter gets away with what he did because it wasn't. The FA only goes with what the media says rather than actually reviewing games themselves, it seems.

3. The officials apprently didn't see the incident. That seems extremely strange to me:
a) The linesman was standing a few yards away from the incident
b) Pictures show that the referee, although he was further away than the linesman, was looking straight at the accident and had an unobstructed view.
c) The referee and the linesman had a lenghty conversation after the incident where they must have been talking about how neither of them saw anything for a very long time
d) You hear Harry Arter shouting "No, no accident" when the officials have finished their conversation, which suggests to me he must have overheard one of the officials saying that he saw it as an accident, which again suggests he must have seen it.

Then, in their match rapport, they write that neither of them saw the incident. That simply reeks of them giving a "false statement" to me.

You have made some good points ( some which i agree with others not so much), the point i was trying to make with my previous post was that IF a opposition player had done exately the same thing to Sissoko then this and other boards would be screaming for that player to be banned. The same thing happened with the Dembélé incident against Chelski, fans were getting in line to defend Dembélé but if it had happened to him they would be foaming at the mouth for the opposing player to be banned.

 

[paxtonwolf]

brilliant, we must be doing something right if we are getting "special treatment" from the FA so early in the season

ironic that the only thing the FA are transparent about is their disdain for us

just like the Demebele incident last season, officials clearly see it but it's tippexed out of the written report so they can hammer us

clams

Spot on

I dont get a lot right, but Sissoko getting banned was sooooo obvious in my book. The FA marked our card last season, and as I said in reply to a couple of posters over the weekend.
Remember this is Tottenham we are talking about. Different clubs, different rules it seems

Has anyone noticed how many penalties we are having turned down this season, compared to City and Liverpool who are getting them for fun. Worth a bet on James Milner getting the Golden Boot. Sometimes I feel one of our players might have to get shot for us to get a penalty, saying that, would we score it anyway???

 

[Baleforce]

Perhaps it was his no-look retribution for the tackles on Wanyama? Alas, we will never know...

I wouldn't be half as annoyed if there was an equal media agenda for that tackle to be punished too.

 

[wiziwig]

Arse away is the type of game he excels in too.

 

[King of Norway]

You have made some good points ( some which i agree with others not so much), the point i was trying to make with my previous post was that IF a opposition player had done exately the same thing to Sissoko then this and other boards would be screaming for that player to be banned. The same thing happened with the Dembélé incident against Chelski, fans were getting in line to defend Dembélé but if it had happened to him they would be foaming at the mouth for the opposing player to be banned.

I think people in general scream for a player to be banned if they believe he deserves to be banned. If they think there was nothing in it, they don't do that, even it's a player at a rival club.

And I also think Dembele's punishment was far too harsh, if he even deserved one. There was no evidence he actually put his finger in Costa's eye. Costa holding the wrong eye suggests he didn't.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Think we could have fought this, appealing that if was an accidental brush that the officials didn't deem an offense at the time. But I like that the club don't spend energy on this gonads. Take it and move on. If it wasn't for BBC and Sky this wouldn't have been anything.

 

[Baleforce]

Think we could have fought this, appealing that if was an accidental brush that the officials didn't deem an offense at the time. But I like that the club don't spend energy on this cobblers. Take it and move on. If it wasn't for BBC and Sky this wouldn't have been anything.

I'm not sure about, United and Chelsea would never just let it go. We need to fight things like this to help foster the siege mentality that success requires.

 

[Whiffler]

Arter left the pitch without permission - booking !

 

[SpurMeUp]

I'm not sure about, United and Chelsea would never just let it go. We need to fight things like this to help foster the siege mentality that success requires.

You can waste energy on it too though. And sometimes its better to suck it up and move forward - that is what Poch has done. Pick your battles. He obviously didn't think this was one worth fighting.

 

[spurspinter1]

Think we could have fought this, appealing that if was an accidental brush that the officials didn't deem an offense at the time. But I like that the club don't spend energy on this cobblers. Take it and move on. If it wasn't for BBC and Sky this wouldn't have been anything.

If he didn't elbow the guy in the face it wouldn't have been anything..

 

[glasgowspur]

I don't think the defence of "I didn't mean to elbow Arter, I thought it was wheelchair" would have worked so no point appealing it.

 

[Baleforce]

You can waste energy on it too though. And sometimes its better to suck it up and move forward - that is what Poch has done. Pick your battles. He obviously didn't think this was one worth fighting.

true, sooner or later we'll have to start swinging our dingdong around though, it's proven to influence officials long term

 

[parklane1]

If he didn't elbow the guy in the face it wouldn't have been anything..

Indeed, but to some it seems Spurs players do not do things like that.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Can't believe people are disputing this. Stonewall red card and three match ban all day long. We were lucky to get away with the red.

Had it been a City, United, Chelsea etc. player, the same punishment would be given.

Some people need to invest in some tinfoil and a hat making course.

 

[Robbo]

It was last month I think

Oh! Shows how much I follow other clubs, lol

 

[afsoc4life]

My anger at this is the pure lie that the officials didnt see it. How can the ref who was looking at Sissoko when it occurred and the linesman say that they didnt see it!!

 

[90291Spur]

My anger at this is the pure lie that the officials didnt see it. How can the ref who was looking at Sissoko when it occurred and the linesman say that they didnt see it!!

Have you ever heard Monsieur Arsene Whinger? He seldom sees it.

 

[Robspur12]

I think the decision to not appeal the sissoko or the dembele bans shows Poch's class frankly especially as we are struggling with key players out and a heavy schedule. Other managers may have ranted on about agendas or made team mates wear supportive t shirts. That said I hope he is not too hard on sissoko. For what it's worth though it looked a deliberate movement of the elbow to face not accidental. While it is good to stick up for team mates we have to be more clever about it in a Lamela walking on fabregas' hand kind of way.