Author Topic: Crouch not charged for eye gouge  (Read 4730 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

boinging_along

  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 7115
Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« on: January 24, 2012, 06:32:25 PM »
So the FA have said he won't face charges because the ref said if he'd have seen it he wouldn't have sent Crouch off.

Must be ok to strike opposition players in the face now.

HampshireBaggie

  • Senior Baggie

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3460
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2012, 06:35:24 PM »
hardly 'struck' him in the face. it was stupid and a bit cynical, but it was a little bit more of a stroke than a strike!

Olsson didnt bat an eyelid, Crouch looks stupid. FA dont wanna charge him, fair enough. Move on, the ban wouldnt of affected us anyway.

boinging_along

  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 7115
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2012, 06:41:36 PM »
True.  Just seems an odd message to send to the players.  I don't think it's any better because it wasn't a very good poke in the eye.  Any kind of deliberate contact with the face results in a red card normally.  Slight tap to the face = red.  Trying to poke your finger into someone's eye = yellow?  Doesn't make sense.

The reaction from Olsson shouldn't contribute anything if we want players to pack in the play acting.

KingKoren

  • Senior Baggie

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3919
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2012, 06:55:20 PM »
A lot of people are awarding Jonas Olsson plaudit's for his reaction - however if he had made a meal of it Crouch may have been sent off there and then. I'm afraid in the modern game play acting and influencing the ref are very important attributes to have. If Jara-Reyes hadn't gone down like a girl when Arteta stamped on him last season we would of been up against 11 men and may not have won. Barcelona are the best team in the world at the moment and it's not just because they play amazing football. 

Baggie_Cheese

  • Junior Baggie

  • Offline
  • **

  • 146
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2012, 06:56:35 PM »
So we can now do this to any player as long as it's off the ball? If that player retaliates as any normal human would do, he'll be sent off. So, every player in England now knows exactly how to get a member of the opposition sent off.

The whole professional football game in this country disgusts me. I can't say it's corrupt, but its very very wrong.

Just to remind everyone - THIS doesn't warrant a red card??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_A9HWy6Ag



royhan

  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 5474
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2012, 07:36:51 PM »
A scandalous decision. I hope Olsson exacts his revenge at sometime. How does the saying go - Eye for an eye! ;D ;D ;D ;D

Kicking Pigeons

  • Guest
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2012, 08:06:34 PM »
If softly kicking someone pettily (a la Beckham against Argentina) is classed as a red card offense, then what Crouch done should be a red card too.

Jeb-Dog

  • Baby Baggie

  • Offline
  • *

  • 77
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2012, 08:15:48 PM »
It warrants a ban but I guess life goes on plus it would only of been an advantage to the teams they play (they have Sunderland and Fulham coming up who are around us in the table). Best thing Crouchy could do as an apology to Olsson is score the winning goals against these teams!

Dexy

  • Administrator
  • WBA Manager

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 11335
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2012, 08:19:06 PM »
Id say Crouch is very lucky Olsson didnt make a meal out of it like many players would do these days.
Dexy : LiamTheBaggie : MarkW : OldburyWBA
Adder : Hull Baggie : lewisant : Political Cake : tommcneill

Bobby Taylor- Still Super to me.

geoff

  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 6741
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2012, 10:38:25 PM »
A lot of people are awarding Jonas Olsson plaudit's for his reaction - however if he had made a meal of it Crouch may have been sent off there and then. I'm afraid in the modern game play acting and influencing the ref are very important attributes to have. If Jara-Reyes hadn't gone down like a girl when Arteta stamped on him last season we would of been up against 11 men and may not have won. Barcelona are the best team in the world at the moment and it's not just because they play amazing football.

Spot on
It is great to see a Olson not trying to get another pro sent off, i can also understand the ref not giving Crouch a card if he didn't see the incident but when he looked at the replay "after the match" there should be no doubt it was a red card
This will just encourage players to dive & role around  more >:( :'(

63Brummie

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1582
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2012, 11:52:04 PM »
hardly 'struck' him in the face. it was stupid and a bit cynical, but it was a little bit more of a stroke than a strike!

Olsson didnt bat an eyelid, Crouch looks stupid. FA dont wanna charge him, fair enough. Move on, the ban wouldnt of affected us anyway.
Well said mate..
Your Football team is the best example of pure unconditional love...that's why I'm a BAGGIE TO THE BONE

bradleysrocket

  • Youth Baggie

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 976
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2012, 11:55:49 PM »
We want people sent off for that? Olsson does more man handling at every single corner. If that's a red the games gone IMO.

chipperclark

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1492
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2012, 06:05:42 AM »
Id say Crouch is very lucky Olsson didnt make a meal out of it like many players would do these days.
:o Crouch should have been penalised by the FA......but he plays for England,and will represent England at the Olympic games.....and he doesn't wear a blue and white striped shirt......I rest my case for consistancies in football.

Barrington

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1552
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2012, 06:57:40 AM »
It is a bit interesting how it seems to be that the English players such as Lescott, Crouch and Rooney (a while ago i know) have seemed to get away with things in this weird system of discipline that we're under by the ref's and the FA. I don't think that's unfair to say. English players seem to be treated slightly more leniently than foreign players in some of the more notable cases (whereas foreign players in similar contentious situations have been charged). Is that a co-incidence? I don't know.

17GD

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 2222
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2012, 11:10:52 AM »
Man-handling a player is different to gouging someones eye. Football is a contact sport, but players shouldn't need to wear eye-protection....

If Tamas got sent off for the 'elbow' against Norwich, which could have judged to be an accident, Crouch should be banned for intentionally raising his hands to a player.

Some players try to be clever and use their elbows and claim it was an accident, but there's no way anyone can say Crouch did that by accident.

Crouch has lost all respect I had for him. I thought he was better than that.

boinging_along

  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 7115
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2012, 11:12:10 AM »
Spot on
It is great to see a Olson not trying to get another pro sent off, i can also understand the ref not giving Crouch a card if he didn't see the incident but when he looked at the replay "after the match" there should be no doubt it was a red card
This will just encourage players to dive & role around  more >:( :'(

Exactly, putting your hand into an oppositions face is a straight red.  If Olsson rolled around holding his eye there's a good chance Crouch would have been sent off or banned after the game.  All this does is prove to players that you should dive and roll around.  Just like Hunt (?) for Wolves when he was halved in the box, tried to stay on his feet but couldn't get the shot on goal.  Should have been a penalty.

We want diving and playacting out of the game yet the FA and the refs are happy to encourage it.  Mind boggling.

geoff

  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 6741
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2012, 02:00:08 PM »
Exactly, putting your hand into an oppositions face is a straight red.  If Olsson rolled around holding his eye there's a good chance Crouch would have been sent off or banned after the game.  All this does is prove to players that you should dive and roll around.  Just like Hunt (?) for Wolves when he was halved in the box, tried to stay on his feet but couldn't get the shot on goal.  Should have been a penalty.

We want diving and playacting out of the game yet the FA and the refs are happy to encourage it.  Mind boggling.


Video evidence
This could have been a opportunity for the FA to show players there is less chance of getting away with things off the ball & show them when it happens they will deal with in the appropriate way after the match :(

Baggies

  • WBA Manager

  • Online
  • *******

  • 19779
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2012, 07:50:11 PM »
As Dexy says, if Olsson makes a meal of it Crouch would be starting a 3 game ban this weekend. Lucky for him, Olsson doesnt make a big deal of it and so he has escaped a ban.
Boing Boing

sturb74

  • Junior Baggie

  • Offline
  • **

  • 101
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2012, 08:17:21 PM »
I didn't think much of this at 1st but after watching the replay, he should deffinatley been sent off, fair play it's not a stike out but if he had caght Olson in the eye they could of been a realy nasty injury there is deffinatley an intent to hurt him as he alost claws at his eye.
.....Alcohol may be man's worst enemy, but the bible says love your enemy

Mooncat

  • Youth Baggie

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 791
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2012, 08:30:27 PM »
Crouch is lucky that he only did that against us/Olsson - if it had been against ManU/Citihad/Spurs/Chelski etc and their professionally trained divers then the media would have been all over it and much more would have been made of it, regardless of whether the FA chose to punish him or not.

But it's 'only little old West Brom from somewhere north of London'..........


Quakes Fan

  • Senior Baggie

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3620
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2012, 08:32:11 PM »
Crouch is lucky that he only did that against us/Olsson - if it had been against ManU/Citihad/Spurs/Chelski etc and their professionally trained divers then the media would have been all over it and much more would have been made of it, regardless of whether the FA chose to punish him or not.

But it's 'only little old West Brom from somewhere north of London'..........

In their black and white stripes.

bakebaggie

  • Junior Baggie

  • Offline
  • **

  • 162
Re: Crouch not charged for eye gouge
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2012, 08:41:07 PM »
In their black and white stripes.
I noticed the 'black and white stripes' comment during the television broadcast as well. Pretty bad when a couple of lads from California can get it right but the tv commentators can't.