The Chelsea Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramires
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 35K
  • Views Views 3M
Tyton said:
Not sure if what Costa did was intentional. Its more like...he intentionally doesn't jump over. And if something bad happens, it happens. Obviously a **** move, doubt it warrants a ban though.
Click to expand...

You have a duty of care to your fellow players. That counts as dangerous and reckless. Thats a 3 game ban
 
Alcaraz said:
Then what would constitute somebody cheating then? A bad tackle is a foul but a tackle is accepted as part of the game that was done badly. Both sets of players step onto the field consenting to being tackled. However, using your hands as an outfield player is not an accepted part of the game
Click to expand...

Diving is cheating. Scoring with your hand is cheating.

Blatantly blocking the shot with your hand? Its a tactical play. No different then dirty tackles that usually occur when people are deliberately breaking the rules of the game to stop a counter from starting or a goal from occuring. Its not allowed, but people will do it anyway if the situation requires it, knowing all well the ref will have to act.

Lets say Suarez instead of using his hand, kicked someone in the face to prevent one-one situation, resulting in red and a pen. Would you consider that cheating? My guess is you would say he broke the rules to save his team, right? Well that's exactly what he did by blocking a shot, isn't it?

And I'm not following with bad tackle being somehow accepted as a part of the game? Its not, that's why its being punished and free kicks and pens are allowed.The same applies to blocking a shot.
 
Mike. said:
You have a duty of care to your fellow players. That counts as dangerous and reckless. Thats a 3 game ban
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase - If it were up to me, I'd ban him. I just think what he did was vague enough that FA might not.
 
Tyton said:
Let me rephrase - If it were up to me, I'd ban him. I just think what he did was vague enough that FA might not.
Click to expand...


I think they wont do it because they are very inconsistent, seen plenty of players not banned for worse.
 
Mike. said:
Come on Alcaraz, its pretty obvious to all and sundry the first one was deliberate. Second one less cut and dried though.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am being biased but it genuinely doesn't look like he stamps on Can's foot on purpose. Plus it's not like he has any beef with Can like he does with Skrtel/Henderson. Let's see what the FA does. If they judge it to be purpose then he should be banned
 
Mike. said:
I think they wont do it because they are very inconsistent, seen plenty of players not banned for worse.
Click to expand...

Usually that's 'cause the ref gives them a yellow or something during the match having not seen the full extent, therefore meaning the FA can't ban them because of the ref's actions. I believe that's the stupid rule anyway.
 
Alcaraz said:
Maybe I am being biased but it genuinely doesn't look like he stamps on Can's foot on purpose. Plus it's not like he has any beef with Can like he does with Skrtel/Henderson. Let's see what the FA does. If they judge it to be purpose then he should be banned
Click to expand...
What the FA do or don't do won't change the fact it was quite blatantly deliberate. Nor does the fact he has no previous issue with Can matter. It was one of the most obvious stamps I've seen in a long time. If he doesn't get punished then it's because he's lucky not innocent
 
Mike. said:
What the FA do or don't do won't change the fact it was quite blatantly deliberate. Nor does the fact he has no previous issue with Can matter. It was one of the most obvious stamps I've seen in a long time. If he doesn't get punished then it's because he's lucky not innocent
Click to expand...

If it is as obvious as you keep saying it was, he will get punished. If he doesn't then it probably isn't as obvious a stamp as you keep claiming. If random guy on the Internet forum is 100% sure it was deliberate then FA will also probably think too. Luck has nothing to do in this context
 
Chelski Shogun said:
It's a shame Ivanovic didn't make any of the sports pages... Classic British media, like I said witch hunt.

View attachment 760293
Click to expand...

Cant complain. They did the same for Suarez and Balotelli previous seasons. Media loves a character like Costa. If he deliberately stamped on someone's feet then he will be punished. In all honestly, Costa is a different animal on the pitch. He loves a fight but always shakes hand with the opposing player at the end of the game

I said at the start of the season that aggressivenes is fine until it crosses a line where your actions have serious chance of injuring a player. Stamping falls into that category and he should be punished if he is guilty
 
Alcaraz said:
If it is as obvious as you keep saying it was, he will get punished. If he doesn't then it probably isn't as obvious a stamp as you keep claiming. If random guy on the Internet forum is 100% sure it was deliberate then FA will also probably think too. Luck has nothing to do in this context
Click to expand...


Well thats really not true is it As the FA have failed to punish ovious stamps like this before, Rooney got away with one. One on Januzaj wasnt punished. Weird argument to make. Luck does have something to with it. And its not a random person it, its a quite a large number of people saying it was. With all due respect you're coming off as bias. Watch it again, he knows what he's doing and makes no attempt to avoid him. That makes it reckless and dangerous as you mush show due care on the pitch


To sum up: Whether is punished or not does not change the fact it was deliberate.

If i punch you on purpose and dont get punished, it doesnt mean its an accident, it just means I didn't get punished
 
Last edited:
I don't see how the FA can ban him when people are debating whether or not it was intentional anyway. I'm going to biased because I'm a Chelsea fan but I don't see at anytime were Costa actually looks at Can, his eyes are always on the ball and it's not like it's a proper stomp on Can, he catches him during the motion of his run.
 
This little segment from a SkySports article is spot on...

"Costa takes other players outside of their comfort zone. Whether that stray boot planted on Emre Can was accidental or not, he had the 21-year-old squaring up to him inside the first 15 minutes. Can had been booked just once all season prior to last night. By extra time, evens Liverpool's vastly-experienced captain Steven Gerrard was facing off against Costa.

None of which did Liverpool any favours. When the tempers flared it was Chelsea who seemed to find the intensity a less stressful environment in which work and in this sense Costa can be seen as the embodiment of his manager on the pitch. It's a figure Mourinho has missed in more ways than one."

Chelsea striker Diego Costa is willing to overstep the mark to win but that's what Jose Mourinho loves about him | Football News | Sky Sports
 
Chelski Shogun said:
I don't see how the FA can ban him when people are debating whether or not it was intentional anyway. I'm going to biased because I'm a Chelsea fan but I don't see at anytime were Costa actually looks at Can, his eyes are always on the ball and it's not like it's a proper stomp on Can, he catches him during the motion of his run.
Click to expand...

He could have avoided stepping on him, he makes a choice not to. The action is dangerous, reckless and without due care of your fellow professional. That's a 3 game ban.
 
Too many people are mixing up the stamping with Costa's ability to rile opposition players. Is putting the other team's defenders on edge a great part of his game? Yes. Does he have a remarkable ability to induce mistakes from those that play against him? Yes. Is intentionally stamping on other players in any way part of that or justifiable? No. **** no.

Seriously, it's violent, it's dangerous and it's cheating. Any old thug can do it: what usually makes Costa such a great Jose player is that he doesn't need to resort to it.
 
Chelski Shogun said:
I don't see how the FA can ban him when people are debating whether or not it was intentional anyway. I'm going to biased because I'm a Chelsea fan but I don't see at anytime were Costa actually looks at Can, his eyes are always on the ball and it's not like it's a proper stomp on Can, he catches him during the motion of his run.
Click to expand...

Bold parts are the answer why there is a debate.

Tbh FA makes some weird decisions, so won't be surprised if they don't punish him and swept it under carpet. I don't remember exact incidents but they have not punished few players this season. 1 incident was Cahill kicking Kane when he was down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top