Jonathan Kodjia

[DaveAV1]

2 hours ago, sparrow1988 said:

Modern football? Do you think it was a better game in the 60's when the best footballer in the world got the shit kicked out of him and had to leave the World Cup after the opposing team spent the game borderline assaulting him while it all went unpunished?

It was a red card - tap in the back or 3 broken ribs. If the authorities want to cut this type of shit out of the game then a red card is the only course of action. It's similar to uncontrolled tackles where the tackler launches himself at the recipient, elbows in the head, leaving the foot in when a defender is clearing the ball just to let him know you're there etc. They should all be automatic red cards if they are to be stamped out. At the moment they are rarely red cards unless damage is done, sometimes not even a yellow.

No I obviously don't think the football was better in the 60s and agree dangerous play and deliberate acts likely to seriously hurt an opponent should have no place in any era. However Kodjia's was a foolish, heat of the moment act of petulant retaliation. He shouldn't have done it but to compare it to the type of violent acts you've listed is somewhat unfair on the lad. A mistake made, not the type of thing that needs stamping out. My reference to the modern game was directed more at Fredericks over reaction and running up to the linesman to try, successfully, to get him sent off. That's not an element of modern football that I like. 

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's a real shame that the ref didn't penalise an actual kick (or two) and chose to make an example of Kodjia who, in the eyes of the law had to go, but in reality, shinned him gently.

There was one of them too. Not penalised. 

Nah, Hogan feigned it to be honest.  Definite elbow, just didn't make contact with him (or at least, not his head.  Maybe his shoulder).

 

I absolutely do not understand the outcome of that appeal.  They're accepting it's a red card but not violent conduct?  What the **** was he sent off for then?

[BOF]

Kodjia ban reduced to one game

 

[Farlz]

Well at least there's a chance he can hit 20 goals now

[Dr_Pangloss]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

A frivolous appeal imo.

He kicked him. Clear red card.

Seems to have worked?

Edited April 19, 2017 by Dr_Pangloss

[Rugeley Villa]

Knew it would. Common sense has prevailed.

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, sparrow1988 said:

Modern football? Do you think it was a better game in the 60's when the best footballer in the world got the shit kicked out of him and had to leave the World Cup after the opposing team spent the game borderline assaulting him while it all went unpunished?

It was a red card - tap in the back or 3 broken ribs. If the authorities want to cut this type of shit out of the game then a red card is the only course of action. It's similar to uncontrolled tackles where the tackler launches himself at the recipient, elbows in the head, leaving the foot in when a defender is clearing the ball just to let him know you're there etc. They should all be automatic red cards if they are to be stamped out. At the moment they are rarely red cards unless damage is done, sometimes not even a yellow.

I actually disagree with this, by the way.  There's absolutely clearly a difference between "violent conduct" and "petulance".  Kodjia's 'kick' is clearly in the latter category, the Mings/Ibrahimovic incidents in the former.

It's the same way that I hate it when players get sent off for giving cheeky little taps on an opponent's face.  They're being provoked and give a little reaction - absolutely not violent.

However, deliberately hacking down a player from behind as they run clear to the defence is a deliberate foul which only ever receives a yellow card.  Much, much more dangerous than Kodjia's kick and little slaps etc.

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Seems to have worked?

I'm very surprised, but pleasantly so.

[Farlz]

Doesn't make much sense 

[BOF]

1 minute ago, Farlz said:

Doesn't make much sense 

Petulence rather than intent to injure is probably another way of putting it.

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, BOF said:

Petulence rather than intent to injure is probably another way of putting it.

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
• serious foul play
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• violent conduct
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

[BOF]

Just now, bobzy said:

SENDING-OFF OFFENCES

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal by an offence punishable by a free kick (unless as outlined below)
• serious foul play
• spitting at an opponent or any other person
• violent conduct
• using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures
• receiving a second caution in the same match

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

I think we're at risk of over-analysing here.  Using the above, we'll say foul play instead of violent conduct.  One gets one match, the other gets three.

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, BOF said:

I think we're at risk of over-analysing here.  Using the above, we'll say foul play instead of violent conduct.  One gets one match, the other gets three.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

 

It seems to spell it all out pretty clearly.  Personally, I don't understand that reduction at all (even though it makes common sense!).  He should either be banned for 3 games or have the red card rescinded.

 

From the same website:

 

"Jonathan Kodjia has had a claim for wrongful dismissal rejected following an Independent Regulatory Commission hearing.

The Aston Villa forward was sent off for violent conduct against Fulham on Monday 17 April 2017.

However, Kodjia’s claim that the punishment was excessive was successful and his suspension has been reduced from three games to one game with immediate effect."

http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/apr/19/jonathan-kodjia-wrongful-dismissal-claim-190417

 

 

I'm lost

Edited April 19, 2017 by bobzy

[Eastie]

Lucky to get off with a one game ban in  my opinion but what a game to miss .

Could be we need to lose at Blackburn to send blues down - guessing if kodija  scores an own goal it won't count as his 20 th

Edited April 19, 2017 by Eastie

[Dr_Pangloss]

Yeah his kick was so violent I'm surprised his opponent's back didn't explode, very lucky to get off with a 1 match ban. 

[Eastie]

Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

Yeah his kick was so violent I'm surprised his opponent's back didn't explode, very lucky to get off with a 1 match ban. 

Any idea if the Fulham player got a ban too - surely on seeing it they must both get the same ?

[blandy]

The FA has fudged it basically. As people have said if Kodjia deserved a red, the Fulham player deserved one more so. But as the ref says he "saw" * the incident then they can't give him a retrospective red. (*did he heck see it)

Kodjia's offence wasn't actually (IMO) a red card offence, but I can see the 4th official might think he kicked the Fulham player.

So the FA have thought "actually it's unjust to give him a 3 game ban and the Fulham guy nothing, but we don't want to hang the ref out to dry, so we'll fudge it"

 

[Demitri_C]

So basically the ref should have given him a yellow not a red, yet he gets a one game ban. Ridiculous

[brommy]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

So basically the ref should have given him a yellow not a red, yet he gets a one game ban. Ridiculous

Unfortunately Kodjia got all but 22 minutes off a two match ban. I suspect blandy's comment is very near the mark.

[John]

9 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Can't agree with last line why would EFL care about Fulham promotion chances? It's a red card simple as that.

If ref was to argue he saw it and felt no action required then he is basically admitting to biased as that was worse than kodjias 

It just felt a bit like that to me at the time given that their player escaped any punishment. It seems that no official observed anything that the Fulham player did so it seems a widespread case of Wenger vision rather than bias struck. At least our player's suspension has now been reduced.