|Maybe the FA panel could check this offsides ruling?|
I’m not sure what makes Wilshere’s finger twice as offensive as Suarez’s or Zaha, who were also fined £20,000 and £3,000, respectively, but it feels arbitrary and excessive. I don’t say so as a Gooner; I say so as an objective observer. Will the FA start using its three-member panel to assess actual fouls that may have gone unnoticed or that the referee waved off or that the linesmen got wrong? If so, I can think of three, perhaps four goals that we’re owed from our trip to the Etihad on Saturday. I imagine Olivier Giroud’s leg would also like to be depositioned after Yaya Toure’s cleats went straight in, just under his knee.
I know that Gunners get away with more than few favorable calls and non-calls, and I’m not arguing that we’ve been treated any worse than any other club. However, it does feel like it—then again, I’d wager that more fans than not share the same feeling. Call it the Rashomon effect—each of us sees an event from our own point of view and through our own biases.
So be it. In the case of Wilshere, there’s little to dispute; the evidence is clear. However, it’s just as clear, if not more blatant in the cases of Suarez and Zaha. So why the discrepancy? I’m not suggesting that the FA is bound by those precedents, but the departure seems, as I said before, arbitrary. The FA says that “Under the new process, if an incident has not been seen by the match officials, a three-man panel will be asked by The FA to review it and advise what, if any action, they believe the match referee should have taken had it been witnessed at the time.”
Fair enough, but why two games? Is it because he should have been sent off and suspended from the next match? If that’s the logic, it would beggar belief. Because the referee and linesmen missed something that happened in the 68th minute, Wilshere has to serve two full matches? I’m not sure that’s what’s at work here because the FA didn’t explain the reasoning behind the ban. I’m not suggesting that Wilshere get a 22-minute “ban” to make up for the time he should have missed from the Man City match, but it does feel as if a more-complete explanation, or a one-match ban in line with previous ones, is in order. Perhaps an appeal can bring it down to one match. We’ll find out Thursday, I suppose.
Meh. Considering the way that Wilshere played, it’s probably a good thing that he’s not available for the Chelsea fixture. We have options, such is our depth in midfield. Walcott’s back, and Podolski could also be available. Enjoy your rest, Jack, and I look forward to seeing you against West Ham!
it doesn't surprise me Jack has been banned. This is the FA's campaign toto stop Arsenal winning the epl.
the ban itself shouldn't be a surprise, the length is, though. it's pretty clear he gave the crowd the middle finger.
I don't think there's a conspiracy–yet. There was some questionable refereeing on Saturday, but I think the real issue is that the FA is rolling out this new panel and wants to show that it means business. A two-match ban is bound to send a message. It feels excessive, to be sure, but if it helps to stamp out the problem throughout the league, I can make my peace with that…
Man here come the excuses from the GOONS. What are you talking about CAMPAIGN to stop Arsenal winning the league? You got beat DEAL with it. Dont make up crap excuses for the loss. He gave the fingure and now has to pay the price…….
sigh. Jack, Jack, Jack. the smoking, the “England for the English,” taking a piss during practice behind the coaches, now this. Yes, you're only 21. But you're in the spotlight, you're a target. gotta be smarter, mate!
The FA don't care if Arsenal win the league or not you nut!
tempest in a teapot. we all know he did it, it was just a matter of what the penalty would be. you makes your bed, you lie in it. we'll be fine. if anything, it's a challenge to find space on the pitch for Wilshere, Ozil, Cazorla, and Walcott. that's a good problem to have. see the silver lining in letting Wilshere, still nursing that ankle back to health, gets a needed rest.
You cite the FA's new rule : ” Under the new process, if an incident has not been seen by the match officials, a three-man panel will be asked by The FA to review it and advise what, if any action, they believe the match referee should have taken had it been witnessed at the time.”Then in the next para you say you don't have the reasoning, although it is crystal clear: Had referee spottred the incident, Wilshere would have been shown a red card and a straight red implies a two match ban. The comparison with Suarez Saha is useless since at that time the new rule was not yet in place.