• 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

Moussa Sissoko

Silly thing to get a ban for, just have to take it on the chin. Next time, Moussa, elbow Wheelchair in the face, repeatedly.

He'll play against Leverkusen, giving someone a rest before the game against the goons.
 
Typically gutless, pathetic response from the officials to a nothing incident which they clearly saw, and the only reason it's been turned into an issue is the media goons squealing about it. Having said that, is there a player in the squad at the moment that I'm less bothered about being given a three-match ban? Not really.
 
Was against signing him to begin with and haven't been particularly impressed with what I've seen so far.

But...we could have done with him for the Arsenal game. His best game for us was against City where we used his pace and strength to double up on Sterling and keep him out of the game - would have been good to do the same against Walcott/Iwobi/Sanchez or whoever else they played on that flank. They have real pace in attack and it's going to be difficult to contain them.

Having said that, ask any Saudi Sportswashing Machine fan how many derbies Sissoko performed in during his time there...
 
SUIYHA said:
Was against signing him to begin with and haven't been particularly impressed with what I've seen so far.

But...we could have done with him for the Arsenal game. His best game for us was against City where we used his pace and strength to double up on Sterling and keep him out of the game - would have been good to do the same against Walcott/Iwobi/Sanchez or whoever else they played on that flank. They have real pace in attack and it's going to be difficult to contain them.

Having said that, ask any Saudi Sportswashing Machine fan how many derbies Sissoko performed in during his time there...
Click to expand...

I reckon Lamela will be rested against Leverkusen (game before the goons) and Sissoko will play that one, with Erik coming back for the Arsenal game. Also, I think it means Poch will go 4-2-3-1 v goons instead of 4-1-4-1.
 
DeanoAustin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quite right. I hope we fine the stupid s*d heavily. His naive and reckless action has cost the club the use of his services in three key games. Idiot! I am so annoyed with the sheer stupidity of his action.
 
mudshark said:
Typically gutless, pathetic response from the officials to a nothing incident which they clearly saw, and the only reason it's been turned into an issue is the media goons squealing about it. Having said that, is there a player in the squad at the moment that I'm less bothered about being given a three-match ban? Not really.
Click to expand...

I don't think so either. What little we've seen of GKN I really don't think he would be less likely to make an impact off the bench in a close game than Sissoko. Perhaps even Onomah could get a bit of game time.
 
mudshark said:
Typically gutless, pathetic response from the officials to a nothing incident which they clearly saw, and the only reason it's been turned into an issue is the media goons squealing about it. Having said that, is there a player in the squad at the moment that I'm less bothered about being given a three-match ban? Not really.
Click to expand...

Whether the officials saw it or not at the time is a bit of a red herring. It is not at all easy to determine exactly what happened in real time. With the benefit of hindsight (and replays) it is quite obvious that there was contact between elbow and face. The only question is intent. That is always difficult to determine, but in this instance it was off the pitch and not exactly in the heat of battle. An extremely silly thing to do and in my view he is rightly banned.

I do however agree with you that he is probably the player in the squad that will be least missed for three game.
 
harr1984 said:
He caught him but to say it was a blatant red is ridiculous. There is no chance you can prove it was even intentional, it certainly wasn't blatant....
Click to expand...

They don't have to prove intent though. Players have some responsibility for controlling their own limbs, and going into a situation in a way that is dangerous to the opponent can get you sent off even if you have no intent to cause harm. It's not ok to challenge like he did regardless of intent. When you're unlucky and catch someone you kind of have to expect a punishment. The smart thing to do is to not challenge like that in the first place.
 
braineclipse said:
They don't have to prove intent though. Players have some responsibility for controlling their own limbs, and going into a situation in a way that is dangerous to the opponent can get you sent off even if you have no intent to cause harm. It's not ok to challenge like he did regardless of intent. When you're unlucky and catch someone you kind of have to expect a punishment. The smart thing to do is to not challenge like that in the first place.
Click to expand...
Of course you have to prove some element of intent. Sure it might be a different example but why do you think so many players don't get sent off when jumping to head the ball whilst challenging another player when catching them? Because there's a difference between catching someone in motion and intentionally looking to catch someone.....
 
harr1984 said:
Of course you have to prove some element of intent. Sure it might be a different example but why do you think so many players don't get sent off when jumping to head the ball whilst challenging another player when catching them? Because there's a difference between catching someone in motion and intentionally looking to catch someone.....
Click to expand...

People usually get yellows for those, at the very least if they're being careless and make contact. I think that's because it's accepted that when challenging for headers you need to use your arms for leverage and to protect yourself against injury. A red seems entirely unfair to most people and to the referees. Going in with your arm at head height in a 50/50 with the ball on the ground though, different story.

Different example. Player gets a poor touch, ball runs away from him in a dangerous situation and he throws himself in to win and hurts the other player. I don't think there's usually intent to cause harm in those situations, just players losing their heads a bit and trying to fix their own mistakes. But you can still get sent off for it, and dpeending on the situation, you should sometimes get sent off for that.
 
braineclipse said:
People usually get yellows for those, at the very least if they're being careless and make contact. I think that's because it's accepted that when challenging for headers you need to use your arms for leverage and to protect yourself against injury. A red seems entirely unfair to most people and to the referees. Going in with your arm at head height in a 50/50 with the ball on the ground though, different story.

Different example. Player gets a poor touch, ball runs away from him in a dangerous situation and he throws himself in to win and hurts the other player. I don't think there's usually intent to cause harm in those situations, just players losing their heads a bit and trying to fix their own mistakes. But you can still get sent off for it, and dpeending on the situation, you should sometimes get sent off for that.
Click to expand...
I think that summarises my reading of the Sissoko incident - regardless of it being a different type of incident. Anyway, I could see why he would get a red for it, I was going back on it being a 'blatant' red. Not for me....
 
harr1984 said:
I think that summarises my reading of the Sissoko incident - regardless of it being a different type of incident. Anyway, I could see why he would get a red for it, I was going back on it being a 'blatant' red. Not for me....
Click to expand...

To me there's a clear difference between a headed duel where people are expected to bring their arms up to protect themselves and get leverage and a duel where the ball is on the ground. Going in fairly hard with your arm/elbow raised to head height when the ball is on the ground is definitely not ok and I can understand a red/suspension being given for it.
 
Gee some people are blinded by club loyalty. Had an opposition player done that to one of our players and gotten away with it, this site would go off line due to the huge traffic of complaints made by posters.
 
Pirate55 said:
Whether the officials saw it or not at the time is a bit of a red herring. It is not at all easy to determine exactly what happened in real time. With the benefit of hindsight (and replays) it is quite obvious that there was contact between elbow and face. The only question is intent. That is always difficult to determine, but in this instance it was off the pitch and not exactly in the heat of battle. An extremely silly thing to do and in my view he is rightly banned.

I do however agree with you that he is probably the player in the squad that will be least missed for three game.
Click to expand...

Hardly a red herring, since it forms the entire basis, according to the FA, of whether or not a panel is allowed to consider the incident. I agree with KoN's assessment in that regard (and with galeforce above). We already know it goes on, with Mark Halsey having let that particular cat out of the bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back