Leandro Bacuna - Sold

[Breezeblock]

Infamy... Infamy...

Stop messin' about!

[saunders_heroes]

what the FA has said to justify this is obscure, but pales into insignificance against the bans handed out to serious violence missed by the ref in the Man u - Bournmouth game. Mings has now had a 5 match ban for deliberately  stamping on the head of the swede. Ibrahimovic has a three match ban for elbowing Mings, presumably in retaliation and leading to him being pushed to the ground and potentially leading to a mass brawl.

Leo gets 6 matches, tho it is said here that perhaps it was increased becauase he didn't say sorry. Like a politician, perhaps? They are always saying sorry.

The issue is not about Bacuna, its about fairness. As with the fine for the crowd invasion and other incidents where villa get stamped on, the authorities and media seem to have it in for the club

Which raises the wider issue, where the club lost its pride. We don't excuse what Leo did, but why there are comments about Leo and not the way the club has been treated over the years is a mystery. The world sees us as a failed institution, and that was so under Lerner. But its time to get our pride back, starting with questioning why we and our players get treated in ways that are out of order.

Nothing to do with lack of pride etc. The club knows how serious a crime it is for a player to physically touch a match official in an aggressive manner, and rightly so. He deserves his long ban and that's that.

[LeeB]

Amen.

[adrenachrome]

For all we know,  Bacuna went hard at the lino like The Crack Fox and chest bumped him with erect nipples on his steroid enhanced pecs threatening all manner of molestation. He was lucky to get away with a 6 game game ban. In Saudi Arabia he'd get a fucking good caning or an amputation.

[paul_e]

what the FA has said to justify this is obscure, but pales into insignificance against the bans handed out to serious violence missed by the ref in the Man u - Bournmouth game. Mings has now had a 5 match ban for deliberately  stamping on the head of the swede. Ibrahimovic has a three match ban for elbowing Mings, presumably in retaliation and leading to him being pushed to the ground and potentially leading to a mass brawl.

Leo gets 6 matches, tho it is said here that perhaps it was increased becauase he didn't say sorry. Like a politician, perhaps? They are always saying sorry.

The issue is not about Bacuna, its about fairness. As with the fine for the crowd invasion and other incidents where villa get stamped on, the authorities and media seem to have it in for the club

Which raises the wider issue, where the club lost its pride. We don't excuse what Leo did, but why there are comments about Leo and not the way the club has been treated over the years is a mystery. The world sees us as a failed institution, and that was so under Lerner. But its time to get our pride back, starting with questioning why we and our players get treated in ways that are out of order.

Nothing to do with lack of pride etc. The club knows how serious a crime it is for a player to physically touch a match official in an aggressive manner, and rightly so. He deserves his long ban and that's that.

Both post still miss the point that 6 matches for contact with an official has no precedence.  Whether he deserves it or not is besides the point (and I find it strange that so many Villa fans seem happy that it's so long) if he deserves it then so do the multitudes of people who have commited similar offences since the respect campaign started.  To pick a random player in the middle of a season to make an example of is ridiculous and the club should have appealed on those grounds rather than on whether he was guilty or not.  Without precedence it just looks like they've decided that Villa and Bacuna are soft targets for them to make an example of without upsetting anyone in the press.  Imagine if it was Rooney and the different reaction it would've received.

[KevinGage]

what the FA has said to justify this is obscure, but pales into insignificance against the bans handed out to serious violence missed by the ref in the Man u - Bournmouth game. Mings has now had a 5 match ban for deliberately  stamping on the head of the swede. Ibrahimovic has a three match ban for elbowing Mings, presumably in retaliation and leading to him being pushed to the ground and potentially leading to a mass brawl.

Leo gets 6 matches, tho it is said here that perhaps it was increased becauase he didn't say sorry. Like a politician, perhaps? They are always saying sorry.

The issue is not about Bacuna, its about fairness. As with the fine for the crowd invasion and other incidents where villa get stamped on, the authorities and media seem to have it in for the club

Which raises the wider issue, where the club lost its pride. We don't excuse what Leo did, but why there are comments about Leo and not the way the club has been treated over the years is a mystery. The world sees us as a failed institution, and that was so under Lerner. But its time to get our pride back, starting with questioning why we and our players get treated in ways that are out of order.

Nothing to do with lack of pride etc. The club knows how serious a crime it is for a player to physically touch a match official in an aggressive manner, and rightly so. He deserves his long ban and that's that.

Both post still miss the point that 6 matches for contact with an official has no precedence.  Whether he deserves it or not is besides the point (and I find it strange that so many Villa fans seem happy that it's so long) if he deserves it then so do the multitudes of people who have commited similar offences since the respect campaign started.  To pick a random player in the middle of a season to make an example of is ridiculous and the club should have appealed on those grounds rather than on whether he was guilty or not.  Without precedence it just looks like they've decided that Villa and Bacuna are soft targets for them to make an example of without upsetting anyone in the press.  Imagine if it was Rooney and the different reaction it would've received.

Amen/ praise McGrath etc.

We still don't know whether he even meant to make contact with the official (and the ref had to ask the blind barsteward in question that, despite only being yards away himself). People in the ground weren't sure. And watching it back on replay doesn't help a whole pile either.   There was enough doubt to apply a bit of cop on and leniency, but it's only Aston Villa, so throw the book at them.

I missed the edict that said from now on, any physical contact with the officials will result in an immediate six game ban. I'm not saying it's not there, just don't recall that message being circulated.  I'm sure our ref watchers/ amateur referees can clarify.

If this is the start of a zero tolerance approach to such things, so that the next time Yanited or some of the other sky lot get similar sanctions when they surround the ref and inadvertently/deliberately bump into him (it's the same thing now) then aye, being collateral damage in an attempt to clean up the game might be more palatable.  I have a weird feeling that isn't going to occur though.

[cdbearsfan]

what the FA has said to justify this is obscure, but pales into insignificance against the bans handed out to serious violence missed by the ref in the Man u - Bournmouth game. Mings has now had a 5 match ban for deliberately  stamping on the head of the swede. Ibrahimovic has a three match ban for elbowing Mings, presumably in retaliation and leading to him being pushed to the ground and potentially leading to a mass brawl.

Leo gets 6 matches, tho it is said here that perhaps it was increased becauase he didn't say sorry. Like a politician, perhaps? They are always saying sorry.

The issue is not about Bacuna, its about fairness. As with the fine for the crowd invasion and other incidents where villa get stamped on, the authorities and media seem to have it in for the club

Which raises the wider issue, where the club lost its pride. We don't excuse what Leo did, but why there are comments about Leo and not the way the club has been treated over the years is a mystery. The world sees us as a failed institution, and that was so under Lerner. But its time to get our pride back, starting with questioning why we and our players get treated in ways that are out of order.

Nothing to do with lack of pride etc. The club knows how serious a crime it is for a player to physically touch a match official in an aggressive manner, and rightly so. He deserves his long ban and that's that.

Saying "that's that" is a mature and inclusive way to engage in debate.

He doesn't deserve anything like six games. He hardly touched the official. No one else has got six games for doing what he did.

If it had been a Manchester United player, or even a Blackburn one, the ban would've been far shorter.

ETA: Just noticed Paul E has expressed my points in a far more coherent manner.

[ChicagoLion]

I can't help my dislike of Bacuna influencing whether I think the ban is fair or not.
Maybe he has had that effect on the people at the FA.

[cdbearsfan]

I can't help my dislike of you making me think your view is idiotic.

[ChicagoLion]

 

I can't help my dislike of you making me think your view is idiotic.

Grow up.

[PeterWithesShin]

Please keep it civil gents.

[cheltenhamlion]

The inconsistency in punishment is what fucks people off. Deliberately shove the ref? 4 games. Accidentally bump the lino when having a tantrum? 6 games. Racially abuse someone? 5 games. Clatter into the ref in anger if you play for Man Ure? Not even a red.

There are different parts to the arguments here. Do we want to see extended bans for violent conduct towards officials? I say definitely yes. Should there be a sliding scale of punishment for deliberate as opposed to accidentally touching an official? I think so.

Should these be set as rules and applied across the board to all teams? Absolutely. Should the FA be allowed to just crack Bacuna because they can and balls to what they said for a worse offence a month ago? No.

Should they be allowed to only apply it to clubs of their choosing?  Fuck no.

[Louzie0]

A rule which, we all know, will be abandoned the second that the offender is wearing a red shirt.

Which contraintuitively would guarantee their demise on Star Trek.
It's a funny old game.

[Ian.]

It should not have been 6 games, absolutely excessive and well out of line with any other ban handed out this season.

[Ian.]

I can't help my dislike of Bacuna influencing whether I think the ban is fair or not.
Maybe he has had that effect on the people at the FA.

So if it was a player you actually liked the ban would have been too harsh then.