TYRONE MINGS HAS defended his actions in last Saturday’s clash against Manchester United, insisting that it ‘was an accidental collision’ with Zlatan Ibrahimovic in the game at Old Trafford, rather than ‘any intentional stamp’ on his part.
Advertisement
The Bournemouth defender was handed a five-game ban this week for the incident, with his club subsequently calling the punishment ‘extraordinary’.
Mings has expressed his disappointment with the decision in a statement he released on Twitter.
Whoops!
We couldn't find this Tweet
The42 is on Instagram! Tap the button below on your phone to follow us!
If his stamp was intentional which the FA clearly think it is then 5 games probably isn’t a big enough punishment for intentionally standing on someone’s head.
Yep, if it was intentional it was a brutal attempt at a stamp, indeed Ibra was so “hurt” by the stamp that he was able to look up and see who had “stamped” him. 5 games is also pathetic for an intentional stamp as you say. A flying elbow can brake a jaw and is utterly cowardly and should stamped out of the game entirely, pun unintended
He absolutely meant it, Zlatan threw him onto the ground away from the ball a few minutes beforehand. Anyone who has played at that level has said he meant it, and as carragher said zlatan deserved to leave one on him with the elbow if the ref wasn’t going to deal with it.
The only reason it wasn’t more than 5 was the fa have no way of proving it.
All former top pros on Match of the Day and they said they thought it looked accidental. Regardless in most sports retaliation often receives greater punishment. How or why have they no way of proving the intent?
Cos only Mings knows if it was intentional or not. His word v everyone else. You have to look at what was happening before between the two of them, and what actually happened and he could have definitely avoided his head, might be different if zlatan had been moving. He takes a look at him as hes getting up and stamps down, its blatant.
So you’d agree that the intent in Ibra’s elbow is more clear cut. While Ming’s incident, only he really knows himself
Id agree that it was more clear cut and that he got a deserved 3 match ban. Id also be 99% certain Mings meant what he did and deserved 5. But I or anyone else cant be 100% certain and you can’t take his word for it.
So three matches for a clearly intentional retributional elbow to the jaw, but 5 for something that only the player really knows himself if it was 100% intentional? Ya that sounds fair
Zlatan got charged with one offence and didn’t fight it. Ming got charged with a more serious offence and fought it. Hence the longer ban.
I’m not fully sure if he did mean it or not but what I’m saying is that the FA do think he did and if that is the case the ban should be more than 5 games.
Cormac, Ibra denied it after the game and said Mings jumped into his elbow! When he was charged with violent conduct subsequently he completely accepted the charge as it was blatantly clear on video and he knew it. However Mings contested it and has continued to contest it as the intent is anything but clear. The extra two games ban was clearly not for Mings contesting it, it clearly states that in the ruling
An_Beal_Bocht. Do you just copy and paste from all the Ibra /Mings articles. Change the record man
That injury you got in the junior b final has really hampered you’re progress hasn’t it Flem
Either men can deny or admit it all they like it in interviews. Once the FA charge a person with an offence, if they fight it they get more, accept it you get less. Simple.
Both should of gotten the same. Zlatan’s was definitely intentional and he got less then Mings who could argue it was accidental. If it was the other way round Mings would of gotten 5 games for retribution and Zlatan would have gotten 3 games for the stamp. The FA want to see guys like Zlatan in the league and are more likely to go easy on him.
The elbow was a red card offence and the precedent is there for it. And he got the standard 3 game ban. A deliberate stamp should obviously get a larger punishment.
Is there ex players on that committee I wonder,cos anyone that played the game know he knew what he was doing
Id prefere to bittin by suarez then stamped on by mings . Yet the fa deem a bite far worse by handing suarez a 10 game ban. A bite is not gonna kill ya a stamp could do serious damage .
Ryan it was Suarez ‘s second offence and to make it worse he went on to do it again.
A stamp is alot worse . He was hungry
It is impossible to say that it was intentional. He was not looking at Zlatan, and his foot never moved course. If anything Zlatan should be getting double the punishment, for the elbow and an intentional stamp prior to the incident.
Please stop comments like this it makes the rest of the Liverpool fans come across as deluded fools
So you think suarez 10 game ban for a bite was worse then stamping on someones head ? Bring it to a court of law and i bet they disagree with you
@William Boland: Ya his foot never moved course cos he knew it was landing on his head.
Afraid that I’m not a Liverpool fan. First off, I’m not saying he didn’t mean it, I’m just saying that it is impossible to say it was on purpose. Most people who have played the game, bar United players and supporters have said it is impossible to tell if he meant it, look at MOTD or Sky Sports. Whereas you can clearly see Ibrahimovic kick his leg backwards to catch him.
Why is this story still in the news?