Alan McCafu

[Dave]

Konchesky has had his red card overturned. Which probably isn't unreasonable, but doesn't that now mean that Hutton has been punished for that incident more severely?

Which if so I would say IS unreasonable.

Not really, it means that the FA have realised the ref made a mistake in the red and a yellow for both players sufficed, which is perfectly reasonable.

From what I've read through the red card has been rescinded rather than downgraded.

So the end result of the incident is that Hutton has been booked and Konchesky has received no card at all.

[Clampy]

Konchesky has had his red card overturned. Which probably isn't unreasonable, but doesn't that now mean that Hutton has been punished for that incident more severely?

Which if so I would say IS unreasonable.

Not really, it means that the FA have realised the ref made a mistake in the red and a yellow for both players sufficed, which is perfectly reasonable.

From what I've read through the red card has been rescinded rather than downgraded.

So the end result of the incident is that Hutton has been booked and Konchesky has received no card at all.

And bearing in mind it was Konchesky who fouled Hutton in the first place then stood over him, then it's a bit odd.

[garyshawsknee]

He should have got two yellows. One for the tackle and the second for standing over Hutton and abusing him.

[paul_e]

He should have got two yellows. One for the tackle and the second for standing over Hutton and abusing him.

I'd love to know exactly what he said becuase that's what provoked the reaction not the challenge, whatever it was I'd be willing to bet that it was at least as offensive as whatever Tonev said to the guy in Scotland yet 1 results in a 7 match ban and the other sees a red card rescinded.

[chrisw1]

Suspect it was just suggesting Hutton was play acting a bit.  All hand bags really. 

I think he deserved at least a yellow for the combined challenge & mouthful he gave Hutton.  Nasty and unnecessary.

[paul_e]

Suspect it was just suggesting Hutton was play acting a bit.  All hand bags really. 

I think he deserved at least a yellow for the combined challenge & mouthful he gave Hutton.  Nasty and unnecessary.

I'm not sure, Koncheskey and Schlupp had been niggling at him all game and there had been quite a lot of 'exchanges of views' without any reaction, what was said caused him to jump up like he did so it must've escalated above that.

[chrisw1]

Suspect it was just suggesting Hutton was play acting a bit.  All hand bags really. 

I think he deserved at least a yellow for the combined challenge & mouthful he gave Hutton.  Nasty and unnecessary.

I'm not sure, Koncheskey and Schlupp had been niggling at him all game and there had been quite a lot of 'exchanges of views' without any reaction, what was said caused him to jump up like he did so it must've escalated above that.

Yes maybe.  Either way is seemed unnecessarily nasty and I'm surprised more people (pundits, fans & now the FA) didn't back the ref in his decision.  In my view it sends the wrong message.  Chop someone down, stand over them and abuse them and it's not a problem?  It should be poor challenge, volley of abuse - off you go son. 

As for Hutton, I don't think what he did was anywhere near as bad and a yellow was enough.  It's not as if he pushed him in the face.

[QBVILLA]

Suspect it was just suggesting Hutton was play acting a bit.  All hand bags really. 

I think he deserved at least a yellow for the combined challenge & mouthful he gave Hutton.  Nasty and unnecessary.

I'm not sure, Koncheskey and Schlupp had been niggling at him all game and there had been quite a lot of 'exchanges of views' without any reaction, what was said caused him to jump up like he did so it must've escalated above that.

Yes maybe.  Either way is seemed unnecessarily nasty and I'm surprised more people (pundits, fans & now the FA) didn't back the ref in his decision.  In my view it sends the wrong message.  Chop someone down, stand over them and abuse them and it's not a problem?  It should be poor challenge, volley of abuse - off you go son. 

As for Hutton, I don't think what he did was anywhere near as bad and a yellow was enough.  It's not as if he pushed him in the face.

Hutton was flat out on the deck appearing injured before jumping to his feet to remonstrate with Knochesky after whatever was said. He was feigning injury and looking to get Konchesky carded. I hate to see that, and it doesn't matter that it was a Villa player. I'd rather see them throw a punch than cheat.

[RussellC]

Bit unfair, to say the least. Hutton had gone down because he had been wiped-out by Konchesky. As I said earlier on, lunging in towards a stationary player player (especially one who is only likely to have one leg grounded to having just played the ball) is extremely reckless. There's no way on earth it was a dive and he was down for a matter of seconds before jumping-up to remonstrate with Konchesky. A perfectly natural reaction, in my opinion.

As others have pointed out, we're now in a situation where hutton has been yellow-carded for the incident and Konchesky has got away scott-free. Bizarre. As is the insinuation that Hutton somehow cheated.

[Toronto Villa]

Kochensky launched into the tackle at full speed and stamped on his foot. Off course it was going to knock Hutton to the ground. We should be lucky he didn't break Hutton's foot. Then he taunts him. Konchesky should count his lucky stars that Hutton didn't chin him. While the red card might be harsh a yellow at minimum is justified; for both players. The fact that Konchesky seemingly has now received nothing is ludicrous.

[QBVILLA]

Bit unfair, to say the least. Hutton had gone down because he had been wiped-out by Konchesky. As I said earlier on, lunging in towards a stationary player player (especially one who is only likely to have one leg grounded to having just played the ball) is extremely reckless. There's no way on earth it was a dive and he was down for a matter of seconds before jumping-up to remonstrate with Konchesky. A perfectly natural reaction, in my opinion.

As others have pointed out, we're now in a situation where hutton has been yellow-carded for the incident and Konchesky has got away scott-free. Bizarre. As is the insinuation that Hutton somehow cheated.

Without wanting to get into a debate on both threads i've explained my view on it on the Clark thread. I never said he dived, I said he feigned injury. Completely different. The FA cannot rescind yellow cards and Konchesky missed the last 15 minutes of the game. His side reduced to ten men had therefore less of a chance of getting back into the game so he didn't get off 'scot free'.

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

Be interesting to see if it does it in every game then.
After all, according to the appropriate committee, it's perfectly ok to foul a player and then abuse him then push him.

Like the Spuds players of a few weeks ago!
Stick your head in someone's face? Fine.
Raise your hands and push another player 3 times? That's fine too.
Benteke raises a hand - that's a red.

No consistency whatsoever.
Shite rules and shite refs...and committees!

[QBVILLA]

I said at the time of the Benteke incident that Benteke had to go for raising his hand. Mason should have also gone for sticking his head in and I think it was Soldado? should've been yellow carded for shoving Benteke in the same incident. As for Sunday, a yellow card for Konchesky for the late challenge and a yellow for Hutton's reaction would have been the correct decision in my opinion, It was Hutton who shoved Konchesky by the way. As for verbal abuse between players well that happens in every level of football and isn't going to be punished by the refs.

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

I suppose my point is such things send out mixed messages...to players, fans and surely confuses refs too.
We're all told - raised hands, two-footed tackles etc - straight red!
Then sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't...obviously the ref needs to interpret at the time, but...Mason's use of the head did not require interpretation and neither did Soldado's push. Vardy's "tackle" on Westwood? (a number of press reports referred to it as "a firm challenge" - it was foul play! More confusion/interpretation).
Like pushing and shoving at corners/free kicks etc, I just think it could be clearer and simpler for all, and players in particular would know where they stood on such things. If players grappled others on the half way line the ref would penalise them.
I find it odd that Konchesky as a player who did what he did receives no punishment, whereas I thought Okore, for instance was booked for a completely innocuous tackle. 

[RussellC]

Bit unfair, to say the least. Hutton had gone down because he had been wiped-out by Konchesky. As I said earlier on, lunging in towards a stationary player player (especially one who is only likely to have one leg grounded to having just played the ball) is extremely reckless. There's no way on earth it was a dive and he was down for a matter of seconds before jumping-up to remonstrate with Konchesky. A perfectly natural reaction, in my opinion.

As others have pointed out, we're now in a situation where hutton has been yellow-carded for the incident and Konchesky has got away scott-free. Bizarre. As is the insinuation that Hutton somehow cheated.

Without wanting to get into a debate on both threads i've explained my view on it on the Clark thread. I never said he dived, I said he feigned injury. Completely different. The FA cannot rescind yellow cards and Konchesky missed the last 15 minutes of the game. His side reduced to ten men had therefore less of a chance of getting back into the game so he didn't get off 'scot free'.

I wouldn't say that diving and feigning injury are 'completely different at all'. They're both tantamount to attempts to con the referee into getting an opponent unduly punished. In this case, there was absolutely no need for Hutton to do so, as the tackle was there for all to see.