FA Statement

[alfie]

Absurd. If a man nudging another is considered violent then the referees association and FA have been a sensitive and woke touch and need to examine themselves before they fall apart internally and bring the game down.

Absurd that Bruno Fernandes gets nothing. Definitely feels like we're being made an example of.

Absurd also that the refs word is considered absolute in this instance. How on earth are they planning on proving what Marco or mitro said.

It's about time a ref link gets brought into football so these conversations can be heard.

It was Mitrovic's actions after receiving the red card that is the big issue, I think some of us must put away our bias thoughts and look at his actions, they were both aggressive and confrontational, and then look what it took to get him off the pitch. As for what Marco said, well none of us know, so can't really say one way or the other.

Even if all of that is 100% true, what set Mitro off was a red card. I've posted a picture of multiple Man U players handling the ref and none of them got a red. Bruno pushed the linesman recently and didn't get a red. If you say Mitro's red was fair then why didn't those United players get a 3 match retrospective ban for touching the ref if the Mitro red card was the right decision? Also is what Mitro did after getting a red card really worthy of a 7-8 match ban? That's what Suarez got for racism and it's incomparable.

You can't keep comparing things to what Fernandez did, the simple fact is that Mitro completely lost his head, look at Reams reaction and the amount of people it took to get him off. Now I don't want to lose him, but regardless of what we didn't get he can't behave like that.

[Matt10]

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

[Deeping_white]

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

So if Mitro gets a 10 game ban, you would deem that acceptable considering in December someone did the same thing for a league 2 club and got a 4 game ban, or Suarez was found guilty of racism and got 7 games? Nobody is on about retroactively banning Fernandes, it's more the fact that the FA declined to punish him and are now allowing a discourse around Mitro that has somehow reached the levels of Cantona when he got a prison sentence for attacking someone

[Sting of the North]

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

But they do have something to do with each other. Things don't happen in a vaccuum. Context is our friend when trying to assess a situation. What actions are taken or not in similar situations is every bit relevant. Even within the same sequence of events there are a lot of United players verbally abusing and touching the referee. The total punishment for those United players is absolutely nothing. Not even a yellow card. As predicted, and as always.

It is not of interest that Mitro deserves a lengthy ban (he does) if such actions are not taken even remotely consistently (they aren´t). After years of players shouting at, crowding, pushing and abusing referees all of a sudden the FA need to arbitrarily make an example of one incident. It reeks of cowardness and an unprofessional approach to the whole situation. Any organization with even an ounce of integrity would not act in such a manner. Does anyone believe that the events would be the same if it was United that acted in such a manner? Anyone?

If the FA really wanted a change, or even cared a little for the integrity of the sport and the working environment for referees, what they would do now is to issue a statement that enough is enough and say that from now on, any player that lays a hand on a referee or acts abusively will get an automatic X games suspension. And then they would follow that up with starting to suspend players left and right the next few weeks until everyone realizes that they mean business.  But they won't, because they are greedy cowards.

In a proper environment, Mitro should get a heavy suspension, because that is how the FA handles such cases consistently for the good of the sport. Instead he will get a heavy suspension because the FA feel like Fulham is just about the proper amount of important (not very, that is) to make a token gesture so that they can then claim to care. For the big teams, nothing will change.

[Palhinha Colada]

There's no way Kavanagh's history of complete incompetence will be considered as a mitigating factor, but I'd love to know what he said to Mitro that immediately enraged him and caused the reaction. That's absolutely fair for Fulham to introduce as evidence.

[Matt10]

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

So if Mitro gets a 10 game ban, you would deem that acceptable considering in December someone did the same thing for a league 2 club and got a 4 game ban, or Suarez was found guilty of racism and got 7 games? Nobody is on about retroactively banning Fernandes, it's more the fact that the FA declined to punish him and are now allowing a discourse around Mitro that has somehow reached the levels of Cantona when he got a prison sentence for attacking someone

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

But they do have something to do with each other. Things don't happen in a vaccuum. Context is our friend when trying to assess a situation. What actions are taken or not in similar situations is every bit relevant. Even within the same sequence of events there are a lot of United players verbally abusing and touching the referee. The total punishment for those United players is absolutely nothing. Not even a yellow card. As predicted, and as always.

It is not of interest that Mitro deserves a lengthy ban (he does) if such actions are not taken even remotely consistently (they aren´t). After years of players shouting at, crowding, pushing and abusing referees all of a sudden the FA need to arbitrarily make an example of one incident. It reeks of cowardness and an unprofessional approach to the whole situation. Any organization with even an ounce of integrity would not act in such a manner. Does anyone believe that the events would be the same if it was United that acted in such a manner? Anyone?

If the FA really wanted a change, or even cared a little for the integrity of the sport and the working environment for referees, what they would do now is to issue a statement that enough is enough and say that from now on, any player that lays a hand on a referee or acts abusively will get an automatic X games suspension. And then they would follow that up with starting to suspend players left and right the next few weeks until everyone realizes that they mean business.  But they won't, because they are greedy cowards.

In a proper environment, Mitro should get a heavy suspension, because that is how the FA handles such cases consistently for the good of the sport. Instead, he will get a heavy suspension because the FA feel like Fulham is just about the proper amount of important (not very, that is) to make a token gesture so that they can then claim to care. For the big teams, nothing will change.

What does the FA statement say? Take that into context. Do we all here know what was actually verbalized by Marco or Mitro? Did Fernandes in addition to nudging the linesman say something after as well? Do you think Mitro, or Marco, just stopped talking abuse after being sent off?

Where in any of the United videos, other than Roy Kean and co. (how many years ago?) is anyone seeming to verbally abuse the referee as well?

We aren't helping ourselves here. Not only is our manager verbally abusing, as stated in the FA statement, but our striker also does the same + physically displays violent conduct. In addition, they both continued the verbal abuse after being sent off.

I am going off of what the statement says and not just holding onto what I see of the Marco + Mitro incident with blinders on. I am not in the know of what was said exactly, but the FA does, and they made that clear in their statement. We can assume this, that, and the other, and go down the path of these big vs small club narratives - but the facts are there. If individuals want to believe that the FA is against us and have fabricated their statement and findings, then that is a whole other issue - and better have some significant backing (as in recording with audio+video of on pitch, sidelines, ref) evidence.

[Thames Bank 1]

The club have probably been told
not to say anything by there
legal team

[Ruislip White]

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

So if Mitro gets a 10 game ban, you would deem that acceptable considering in December someone did the same thing for a league 2 club and got a 4 game ban, or Suarez was found guilty of racism and got 7 games? Nobody is on about retroactively banning Fernandes, it's more the fact that the FA declined to punish him and are now allowing a discourse around Mitro that has somehow reached the levels of Cantona when he got a prison sentence for attacking someone

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

But they do have something to do with each other. Things don't happen in a vaccuum. Context is our friend when trying to assess a situation. What actions are taken or not in similar situations is every bit relevant. Even within the same sequence of events there are a lot of United players verbally abusing and touching the referee. The total punishment for those United players is absolutely nothing. Not even a yellow card. As predicted, and as always.

It is not of interest that Mitro deserves a lengthy ban (he does) if such actions are not taken even remotely consistently (they aren´t). After years of players shouting at, crowding, pushing and abusing referees all of a sudden the FA need to arbitrarily make an example of one incident. It reeks of cowardness and an unprofessional approach to the whole situation. Any organization with even an ounce of integrity would not act in such a manner. Does anyone believe that the events would be the same if it was United that acted in such a manner? Anyone?

If the FA really wanted a change, or even cared a little for the integrity of the sport and the working environment for referees, what they would do now is to issue a statement that enough is enough and say that from now on, any player that lays a hand on a referee or acts abusively will get an automatic X games suspension. And then they would follow that up with starting to suspend players left and right the next few weeks until everyone realizes that they mean business.  But they won't, because they are greedy cowards.

In a proper environment, Mitro should get a heavy suspension, because that is how the FA handles such cases consistently for the good of the sport. Instead, he will get a heavy suspension because the FA feel like Fulham is just about the proper amount of important (not very, that is) to make a token gesture so that they can then claim to care. For the big teams, nothing will change.

What does the FA statement say? Take that into context. Do we all here know what was actually verbalized by Marco or Mitro? Did Fernandes in addition to nudging the linesman say something after as well? Do you think Mitro, or Marco, just stopped talking abuse after being sent off?

Where in any of the United videos, other than Roy Kean and co. (how many years ago?) is anyone seeming to verbally abuse the referee as well?

We aren't helping ourselves here. Not only is our manager verbally abusing, as stated in the FA statement, but our striker also does the same + physically displays violent conduct. In addition, they both continued the verbal abuse after being sent off.

I am going off of what the statement says and not just holding onto what I see of the Marco + Mitro incident with blinders on. I am not in the know of what was said exactly, but the FA does, and they made that clear in their statement. We can assume this, that, and the other, and go down the path of these big vs small club narratives - but the facts are there. If individuals want to believe that the FA is against us and have fabricated their statement and findings, then that is a whole other issue - and better have some significant backing (as in recording with audio+video of on pitch, sidelines, ref) evidence.

I can see that perspective.  I don't think Fulham are being singled out, but someone at point will get made an example of, and it could be us.  Sections of every team's fan base  feel that the authorities have some sort of vendetta against them, because there is a tendency to focus on the decisions that go against only.  It's just human nature.  Realistically, no one cares about Fulham or has an agenda, we just provided the ammunition for the FA to act at the right time on a hugely important televised game, which the world was watching.  They now have to act as everyone is looking at them to set the tone.  If if was an non-televised cup game involving  2 lesser teams, there would be less pressure on the FA to act.  That's not anti- Fulham or pro- big teams.  It's just inconsistent treatment, based on the fact that we messed up in the spotlight.

[LittleErn]

I don't think the ref said anything to Mitro. He just ignored him and went to walk away. Mitro was annoyed at being ignored and tried to stop him.

Any legal eagles on here know the legal position? Can the club take it to a court or otherwise appeal or must they abide by the FAs ruling as part of being a member of the league? Is the prejudicial statement put out by the FA acceptable? If not, what are the remedies? Is a long ban contestable as being "in restraint of trade"?

[JohnG]

In some ways the FA have contributed to the events that took place. They appointed a referee from the Manchester area to officiate in a quarterfinal match in Manchester - what is the sense in that?
Also there was history between the club and the official due to poor decisions against Fulham against Preston last season and at West ham this season.
There is no excuse for Mitro's behaviour but I'm sure that much of the trouble could have been avoided by appointing a different referee - one not from the Manchester area and one without history of decisions that went against the club.

[Nick Bateman]

Mitro was arguing (correctly) what about the penalty down the other end when he was clearly shoved? Yes he should not have touched the ref but that was all he did. As mentioned earlier, the FA have already prejudiced the investigation and the media are whipping up a frenzy.

The media want football to be ruined by over-officious referees. That's how Arsenal are top, any ref making a mistake that costs them points will lose his career. Fulham are the bottom of the fair play league, even though we do not play an aggressive physical game. Arguably our best player Paulinha was banned for 2 matches for receiving 10 cautions. A Manchester-born official referees a game involving Manchester United and a Preston born official is in charge of VAR. In the inquiry I would like both officials to declare what team they support (they'll probably say Macclesfield).

What did Kavanagh's microphone pick up as evidence or PROOF the Fulham accused swore at him: I would take any money that they did not!

Why did VAR not bring to the attention of the ref the clear push by Luke Shaw on Mitrovic? Or the kick on Robinson by Anthony? They banned Casemiro for a slight touch on a player's shin so the force of the impact is not important it seems.

The FA appointed officials to deliberately end Fulham's dream of a FA Cup final and that's how this shambles happened. They created the perfect storm and now they will punish us further for not taking this crap laying down.

[SerbianLad]

Absurd. If a man nudging another is considered violent then the referees association and FA have been a sensitive and woke touch and need to examine themselves before they fall apart internally and bring the game down.

Absurd that Bruno Fernandes gets nothing. Definitely feels like we're being made an example of.

Absurd also that the refs word is considered absolute in this instance. How on earth are they planning on proving what Marco or mitro said.

It's about time a ref link gets brought into football so these conversations can be heard.

It was Mitrovic's actions after receiving the red card that is the big issue, I think some of us must put away our bias thoughts and look at his actions, they were both aggressive and confrontational, and then look what it took to get him off the pitch. As for what Marco said, well none of us know, so can't really say one way or the other.

Even if all of that is 100% true, what set Mitro off was a red card. I've posted a picture of multiple Man U players handling the ref and none of them got a red. Bruno pushed the linesman recently and didn't get a red. If you say Mitro's red was fair then why didn't those United players get a 3 match retrospective ban for touching the ref if the Mitro red card was the right decision? Also is what Mitro did after getting a red card really worthy of a 7-8 match ban? That's what Suarez got for racism and it's incomparable.

You can't keep comparing things to what Fernandez did, the simple fact is that Mitro completely lost his head, look at Reams reaction and the amount of people it took to get him off. Now I don't want to lose him, but regardless of what we didn't get he can't behave like that.

I'm not saying what Mitro did was okay, far from it.

It is comparable to Fernandes though. The red card was showed for a similar incident. If that's a red then Fernades should have got a retrospective ban. Mitro went crazy after it. That probably deserves a ban, but doesn't change the fact that Fernades should have got a 3 game ban if touching the referee is a red (basically Fermandes-3 game ban, Mitro 3 game ban + some extra for the aftermath, Fernades no ban and Mitro 10 game ban isn't fair). If Bruno didn't get a ban for touching the ref, Mitro shouldn't either. And the ban for the aftermath can't be 10 games.

[Carborundum]

Planet football serves up many wondrous things, but anyone hoping for consistency has chosen the wrong sport to follow. 

Frequently there's argy-bargy on the pitch between players, cards get brandished and commentators come out with the immortal line "No-one wants to see that on a football pitch".  To which I respond "Yes we do!"  .  But laying hands on refs or linesmen is something I genuinely don't want to see.  However bad the ref is.  A ban longer than three games - perhaps four or five - seems reasonable under circumstances. 

We are a team still acclimating to the Premier League.  We're no pushovers but the disciplinary table doesn't lie. Silva's got them past the edge of control.  That's enough to stay up, so well done all.  But we need to be far more measured in our aggression next year and new personnel are needed. 

[Sgt Fulham]

Planet football serves up many wondrous things, but anyone hoping for consistency has chosen the wrong sport to follow. 

Frequently there's argy-bargy on the pitch between players, cards get brandished and commentators come out with the immortal line "No-one wants to see that on a football pitch".  To which I respond "Yes we do!"  .  But laying hands on refs or linesmen is something I genuinely don't want to see.  However bad the ref is.  A ban longer than three games - perhaps four or five - seems reasonable under circumstances. 

We are a team still acclimating to the Premier League.  We're no pushovers but the disciplinary table doesn't lie. Silva's got them past the edge of control.  That's enough to stay up, so well done all.  But we need to be far more measured in our aggression next year and new personnel are needed. 

Agree that refs should be respected and protected on the pitch. However, respect is earned, and churning out crap decision after crap decision with no accountability removes that respect. Aggression against the ref should be strongly punished (including grabbing, touching, verbal abuse and crowding) but the referees NEED to be held accountable for their decisions or at least be made to explain their decisions.

[toshes mate]

Can the FA be trusted?  No, they cannot.  Do they strive for consistency?  No they do not, not even with VAR which is abused in the same way as the referees abuse the rules. 

Sadly they have got FFC where they want us and Mitro will become the scapegoat, with Silva next on the attritional list.  The referee and VAR get off scot free ni matter how inconsistent they are.  Karma, however, works in many a strange way to teach lessons to those who abuse their powers.  There will be payback.

[H4usuallysitting]

Mitro could say he didn't know what the rules were, and nobody advised him of them

[Woolly Mammoth]

Can the FA be trusted?  No, they cannot.  Do they strive for consistency?  No they do not, not even with VAR which is abused in the same way as the referees abuse the rules. 

Sadly they have got FFC where they want us and Mitro will become the scapegoat, with Silva next on the attritional list.  The referee and VAR get off scot free ni matter how inconsistent they are.  Karma, however, works in many a strange way to teach lessons to those who abuse their powers.  There will be payback.

If you stand by the banks of the river long enough, you will watch the bodies of your enemies float by.

[Matt10]

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

So if Mitro gets a 10 game ban, you would deem that acceptable considering in December someone did the same thing for a league 2 club and got a 4 game ban, or Suarez was found guilty of racism and got 7 games? Nobody is on about retroactively banning Fernandes, it's more the fact that the FA declined to punish him and are now allowing a discourse around Mitro that has somehow reached the levels of Cantona when he got a prison sentence for attacking someone

It seems the red cards are correct, and whatever the punishments are, they will be too. I don't understand the comparison of Bruno and Mitro's incidents, because one has nothing to do with the other. By the nature of complaining about the past, is it realistic to retroactively ban players? Has that ever been done after this much time? If it hasn't, then I don't see the point.

But they do have something to do with each other. Things don't happen in a vaccuum. Context is our friend when trying to assess a situation. What actions are taken or not in similar situations is every bit relevant. Even within the same sequence of events there are a lot of United players verbally abusing and touching the referee. The total punishment for those United players is absolutely nothing. Not even a yellow card. As predicted, and as always.

It is not of interest that Mitro deserves a lengthy ban (he does) if such actions are not taken even remotely consistently (they aren´t). After years of players shouting at, crowding, pushing and abusing referees all of a sudden the FA need to arbitrarily make an example of one incident. It reeks of cowardness and an unprofessional approach to the whole situation. Any organization with even an ounce of integrity would not act in such a manner. Does anyone believe that the events would be the same if it was United that acted in such a manner? Anyone?

If the FA really wanted a change, or even cared a little for the integrity of the sport and the working environment for referees, what they would do now is to issue a statement that enough is enough and say that from now on, any player that lays a hand on a referee or acts abusively will get an automatic X games suspension. And then they would follow that up with starting to suspend players left and right the next few weeks until everyone realizes that they mean business.  But they won't, because they are greedy cowards.

In a proper environment, Mitro should get a heavy suspension, because that is how the FA handles such cases consistently for the good of the sport. Instead, he will get a heavy suspension because the FA feel like Fulham is just about the proper amount of important (not very, that is) to make a token gesture so that they can then claim to care. For the big teams, nothing will change.

What does the FA statement say? Take that into context. Do we all here know what was actually verbalized by Marco or Mitro? Did Fernandes in addition to nudging the linesman say something after as well? Do you think Mitro, or Marco, just stopped talking abuse after being sent off?

Where in any of the United videos, other than Roy Kean and co. (how many years ago?) is anyone seeming to verbally abuse the referee as well?

We aren't helping ourselves here. Not only is our manager verbally abusing, as stated in the FA statement, but our striker also does the same + physically displays violent conduct. In addition, they both continued the verbal abuse after being sent off.

I am going off of what the statement says and not just holding onto what I see of the Marco + Mitro incident with blinders on. I am not in the know of what was said exactly, but the FA does, and they made that clear in their statement. We can assume this, that, and the other, and go down the path of these big vs small club narratives - but the facts are there. If individuals want to believe that the FA is against us and have fabricated their statement and findings, then that is a whole other issue - and better have some significant backing (as in recording with audio+video of on pitch, sidelines, ref) evidence.

I can see that perspective.  I don't think Fulham are being singled out, but someone at point will get made an example of, and it could be us.  Sections of every team's fan base  feel that the authorities have some sort of vendetta against them, because there is a tendency to focus on the decisions that go against only.  It's just human nature.  Realistically, no one cares about Fulham or has an agenda, we just provided the ammunition for the FA to act at the right time on a hugely important televised game, which the world was watching.  They now have to act as everyone is looking at them to set the tone.  If if was an non-televised cup game involving  2 lesser teams, there would be less pressure on the FA to act.  That's not anti- Fulham or pro- big teams.  It's just inconsistent treatment, based on the fact that we messed up in the spotlight.

Well said. That is my logic as well. It's unfortunate that it was us, but at the same time, Mitro and Marco didn't just perform one act of verbal abuse, they performed other acts after being sent off + Mitro making physical contact that was abusive in nature to an official. The FA statement says just that. They aren't a news outlet, they aren't media, they are the source of deciding our fate. If they are lying about these incidents, then someone needs to prove our incident rather than pointing the finger at everyone else. The material being used to challenge this incident is video, while the FA have other sources - how can we be so sure in our position when we have less than half of the evidence?

I've said it before somewhere else, but the only way to get any kind of fairness and due accountability is to have officials wear Go-Pros on their head, looking as ridiculous as their no-calls, so that everyone is aware their conduct is being monitored when interacting with officials and players. There'd be no second-guessing with audio/video evidence each and every match. Each act could be punished accordingly.

[Arthur]

I don't think Fulham are being singled out, but someone at point will get made an example of, and it could be us.  Sections of every team's fan base  feel that the authorities have some sort of vendetta against them, because there is a tendency to focus on the decisions that go against only.  It's just human nature.  Realistically, no one cares about Fulham or has an agenda, we just provided the ammunition for the FA to act at the right time on a hugely important televised game, which the world was watching.  They now have to act as everyone is looking at them to set the tone.  If if was an non-televised cup game involving  2 lesser teams, there would be less pressure on the FA to act.  That's not anti- Fulham or pro- big teams.  It's just inconsistent treatment, based on the fact that we messed up in the spotlight.

In the context of this debate, an erudite assessment. This, in my opinion, is the reality of the situation.

If the behaviour of Silva and Mitrovic had been out of character, a plea for leniency might have some merit. Sadly, it was far from being a 'one-off'. Both have visibly berated officials many times this season. In my opinion, our Chairman will want to protect the Club's reputation and know that the best way to do so is to accept whatever punishments are handed out without demur.

At least some good, I anticipate, will come from this: No longer will Mitrovic be able to confront referees in the manner he has done so often. In future, any such in-your-face-finger-jabbing rant at an official will surely draw adverse media attention.