[Albion] Tarkowski (Dirty B'stad)

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Can Tarkowski be punished retrospectively for his elbow into Murray's ribs off the ball ? 100% intentional.

Doubtless slyly whacked Murray as a form of natural justice retribution (in his eyes) for Murray conning a penalty out of him. That's how life is.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Probably. Though I'll be fed up if he is, because we only have two other centre halves. We might have to face Huddersfield with a full back at centre half if all goes wrong.

Question is, is Murray a tough guy because he got up from a vicious hit that must have pretty close broken his ribs? Or his he a big old pussy cat who's just sensitive to pain? Tarkowski's problem, which he will have to learn to control, is that he thinks football can be played the old fashioned way - two players challenging for the ball. He needs to learn firstly that if you're within touching distance of an opponent he can legitimately touch you and throw himself down and it will be a penalty in the way the laws are currently applied (Ramsay of Arsenal did the same trick, and they scored their penalty); and secondly, that cameras are watching every move and there is a huge army of pundits (and sometimes opponents, though credit to Hughton, he isn't one of them) who are out to cause trouble.

Myu hope is that they ignore Murray's reaction - because clearly his ribs are not broken - and deem it trivial.

 

[BensGrandad]

If the panel do their job he should get punished as the degree or lack of is no defence against the action. As MOTD said it should have been a 2nd penalty but the ref missed it. Dyche, who was a thug as a player, will find another thug to take his place if he is suspended.

 

[GooGull]

Hemed was banned for what was deemed to be an intentional stamp, which in my opinion was not as clear cut as the FA panel appeared to believe.

Tarkowski deliberately ran into Murray off the ball and then INTENTIONALLY elbowed him in the ribs.

It shouldn't take a genius at the FA to spot the difference in the 2 incidents and if they fail to ban him I will be amazed.

 

[Turkey]

If the panel do their job he should get punished as the degree or lack of is no defence against the action. As MOTD said it should have been a 2nd penalty but the ref missed it. Dyche, who was a thug as a player, will find another thug to take his place if he is suspended.

Can only be a penalty if the ball is in play. Happened as we were taking a throw-in.

 

[BensGrandad]

So the ball was in play and I am sure the MOTD pundits would have been aware iof that to suggest a 2nd penalty.

 

[Mackenzie]

Probably. Though I'll be fed up if he is, because we only have two other centre halves. We might have to face Huddersfield with a full back at centre half if all goes wrong.

Question is, is Murray a tough guy because he got up from a vicious hit that must have pretty close broken his ribs? Or his he a big old pussy cat who's just sensitive to pain? Tarkowski's problem, which he will have to learn to control, is that he thinks football can be played the old fashioned way - two players challenging for the ball. He needs to learn firstly that if you're within touching distance of an opponent he can legitimately touch you and throw himself down and it will be a penalty in the way the laws are currently applied (Ramsay of Arsenal did the same trick, and they scored their penalty); and secondly, that cameras are watching every move and there is a huge army of pundits (and sometimes opponents, though credit to Hughton, he isn't one of them) who are out to cause trouble.

Myu hope is that they ignore Murray's reaction - because clearly his ribs are not broken - and deem it trivial.

He’s elbowed him, he deserves a ban. If someone elbowed Barnes you’d be (rightly) saying the same thing.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Myu hope is that they ignore Murray's reaction - because clearly his ribs are not broken - and deem it trivial.

Why is that relevant? Proper 80s nonsense that was. Can't believe anyone of any team would think that's not a deserved red for violent conduct at any stage in the last 10 years.

 

[Coldeanseagull]

If he wants to be Barton 2.0, it should be a retrospective 6 year ban.....or 3 matches

 

[happypig]

Reporting on Twitter that he's been charged.

 

[martin tyler]

Confirmed by burnley that he’s been charged

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Reporting on Twitter that he's been charged.

https://twitter.com/BurnleyOfficial/status/942802065218301952

[tweet]942802065218301952[/tweet]

 

[Taybha]

So it's penalty then ! give it to Dunk to head in .

 

[Deadly Danson]

Again, whilst VAR does have it's issues, this is one of those where, when the referee doesn't see it, it would probably take 30 seconds to refer the issue, send Tarkowski off, give us a penalty, hopefully score and we play the rest of the game against 10 min. Those 2 points could keep us up.

 

[Stat Brother]

Reporting on Twitter that he's been charged.

That he was.

 

[Easy 10]

Again, whilst VAR does have it's issues, this is one of those where, when the referee doesn't see it, it would probably take 30 seconds to refer the issue, send Tarkowski off, give us a penalty, hopefully score and we play the rest of the game against 10 min. Those 2 points could keep us up.

Except its not always as blatant as that, so you'd end up asking for a definite VARS call on a lot of very ambiguous incidents. The same incident can draw entirely different interpretations depending on which camera angle you are looking at. Someone will STILL end up being thoroughly macked off, whatever call is made.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Except its not always as blatant as that, so you'd end up asking for a definite VARS call on a lot of very ambiguous incidents. The same incident can draw entirely different interpretations depending on which camera angle you are looking at. Someone will STILL end up being thoroughly macked off, whatever call is made.

That's true and you do make compelling arguments against VAR a lot of which I agree with. If it can be made to work with the minimum of fuss then the difference between an incident such as this being called correct or not could be monumental for a club of our size. I guess, in this instance, if it works as I understand it should, then the 5th official or whoever would notice Murray going down, have a quick look, tell the ref and the correct decision is made. What no one wants is for every 50/50 decision to be looked at and it's very easy to see that as the eventual consequence.

 

[Seasider78]

Got to laugh at the inconsistency of this panel with that being a ban yet Lukaku who lashed out on Bong is given nothing

 

[lawros left foot]

Probably. Though I'll be fed up if he is, because we only have two other centre halves. We might have to face Huddersfield with a full back at centre half if all goes wrong.

Question is, is Murray a tough guy because he got up from a vicious hit that must have pretty close broken his ribs? Or his he a big old pussy cat who's just sensitive to pain? Tarkowski's problem, which he will have to learn to control, is that he thinks football can be played the old fashioned way - two players challenging for the ball. He needs to learn firstly that if you're within touching distance of an opponent he can legitimately touch you and throw himself down and it will be a penalty in the way the laws are currently applied (Ramsay of Arsenal did the same trick, and they scored their penalty); and they secondly, that cameras are watching every move and there is a huge army of pundits (and sometimes opponents, though credit to Hughton, he isn't one of them) who are out to cause trouble.

Myu hope is that they ignore Murray's reaction - because clearly his ribs are not broken - and deem it trivial.

Would you say Dyches reaction on MOTD to Izquarados dive, was an opponent out to cause trouble?

 

[Easy 10]

That's true and you do make compelling arguments against VAR a lot of which I agree with. If it can be made to work with the minimum of fuss then the difference between an incident such as this being called correct or not could be monumental for a club of our size. I guess, in this instance, if it works as I understand it should, then the 5th official or whoever would notice Murray going down, have a quick look, tell the ref and the correct decision is made. What no one wants is for every 50/50 decision to be looked at and it's very easy to see that as the eventual consequence.

Indeed, that's my main contention. Every time something blatant gets missed, the knee-jerk is nearly always "bring in VARs, that'll sort it out". And you're right, it would help clear up a lot of bad decisions, missed decisions and blatantly wrong-calls. But the price of that, is that its a thin end of a thick dirty wedge, where contentious calls come in to play that even a video review doesn't clear up. You're still back to having an interpretation to make a call, and human beings are still involved.

IMO you'll just end up swapping one controversy for another.