These two stories struck me as maybe a little inconsistent - what do you think.

Story 1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/05/newcastleunited.premierleague3) - footballer convicted of an assault on a team mate which left the player unconscious - banned for 6 games, with 6 games suspended. Fined £25k

Story 2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/7777189) - footballer who spat at a referee banned from all national and international competition for 12 months.

I'm not defending either player, but is it just me that thinks the punishments are a bit inconsistent?

You may be right.

In most sports, an assault of any kind, whether it's spitting or just raising an arm, against an official would be an automatic life ban, no appeals, no excuses, bugger off.

I don't know why football is so lenient towards such cases.

These two stories struck me as maybe a little inconsistent - what do you think.

Story 1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/sep/05/newcastleunited.premierleague3) - footballer convicted of an assault on a team mate which left the player unconscious - banned for 6 games, with 6 games suspended. Fined £25k

Story 2 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/7777189) - footballer who spat at a referee banned from all national and international competition for 12 months.

I'm not defending either player, but is it just me that thinks the punishments are a bit inconsistent?

If the first example is about Joey Barton,without condoning his actions,dont forget he has served time for the offence therefore he hasnt really dodged his punishment.Hopefully he will have learned his lesson,only time will tell,but to keep adding to his punishment doesnt seem a very constructive method of rehabilitation

First one is Joey Barton, but the FA punishment is separate from his punishment from the state. Punishment from the professional body should be like that - otherwise you'd get situations such as accountants being imprisoned for fraud but still being allowed to practice.

It seemed odd to me that the second case resulted in a far longer ban when I would argue that Barton's was the worse crime.

If the first example is about Joey Barton,without condoning his actions,dont forget he has served time for the offence therefore he hasnt really dodged his punishment.Hopefully he will have learned his lesson,only time will tell,but to keep adding to his punishment doesnt seem a very constructive method of rehabilitation

Joey Barton didn't serve time for attacking Dabo, it was for an assault in Liverpool. He got a suspended sentence for the Dabo incident which was a punishment I suppose. It was separate as the other poster says and it shouldn't have impacted upon his punishment from the FA. He couldn't not be banned by the FA for attacking his team mate - players get 3 match bans for getting sent off.

The year long ban for the other guy is ridiculous in my view. I don't condone spitting at an official or anything but it's way too excessive - if it was a common problem in football then I would understand a long ban as it would be an attempt to clamp down and address the problem. It isn't though.

Lifetime bans should never be introduced into football for the 2 offences that the OP refers to. Barton's offence was worse than the spitting one but I think anything over a 15 game ban would be harsh on Barton so a year long ban for spitting is way over the mark.

although the 2 fines are totally inconsistent i think the 12 month ban for spitting at the ref is fair,spitting at anyone is totally wrong as is giving the ref grief,guarantee the player involved doesnt do it again.
As for Barton,the kids a thug in boots and wont be long before he gets what he deserves

although the 2 fines are totally inconsistent i think the 12 month ban for spitting at the ref is fair,spitting at anyone is totally wrong as is giving the ref grief,guarantee the player involved doesnt do it again.
As for Barton,the kids a thug in boots and wont be long before he gets what he deserves




I cant believe Keegan wanted to keep him at Newcastle. If I had been the manager of that club he would have been bombed out of the club after coming out of the prison. It was also suggested Harry Redknapp tried to sign him. I though Harry was a better man than that. How many more chances will this thug get. If he had been an ordinary man in an ordinary job he would have sacked. But football has lost it soul and credibility a few years back

although the 2 fines are totally inconsistent i think the 12 month ban for spitting at the ref is fair,spitting at anyone is totally wrong as is giving the ref grief,guarantee the player involved doesnt do it again.
As for Barton,the kids a thug in boots and wont be long before he gets what he deserves

Im not saying spitting at anyone is acceptable and I don't agree that the length of the punishment is needed to ensure the player doesn't do it again - 3 months would be enough. Paolo Di Canio got less for shoving a referee over and although the ref made a meal of it the offence was surely equal to spitting at a referee.

If you are banning a player for a year for spitting surely players fighting with each other or the crowd (Cantona) should get longer in future cases. It won't happen though so will be totally inconsistent.

I cant believe Keegan wanted to keep him at Newcastle. If I had been the manager of that club he would have been bombed out of the club after coming out of the prison. It was also suggested Harry Redknapp tried to sign him.


Herein lies most of the problem: while Newcastle would have been taking the moral high ground by sacking him, he is then immediately available to any club without Newcastle receiving a transfer fee. It would actually cost them money - possibly a large chunk of money - to fire him.

This situation might change once the CAS has ruled on FIFA's decision regarding Mutu, whom Chelsea did fire for gross misconduct; and whom FIFA have ordered to pay Chelsea something akin to thirteen million quid, for the loss of potential transfer earnings because they fired him. If that ruling stands, and becomes a precedent, then any player who commits gross misconduct can be fired without his former club losing out on his transfer fee.

Im not saying spitting at anyone is acceptable and I don't agree that the length of the punishment is needed to ensure the player doesn't do it again - 3 months would be enough. Paolo Di Canio got less for shoving a referee over and although the ref made a meal of it the offence was surely equal to spitting at a referee.

If you are banning a player for a year for spitting surely players fighting with each other or the crowd (Cantona) should get longer in future cases. It won't happen though so will be totally inconsistent.

Yes it is totally inconsistent,and i reckon that if cantona had done the same thing in todays game then he would have recieved a longer ban,and i guarantee Di Canio would have what with the respect to refs campaign being brought in.
I just think that a lenghty ban will make players think more about their actions