Topic: Charlie Adam

[Golyo]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26425905
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWkWUoHz-S4

I think it's a joke, personally. I cannot see any intent in it. Giroud is lying on the turf, Adam tries to hop over him, but his jump is too short. How 3 people can see it unanimously as intentional is beyond me.
Other opinions?

[Clayton Bigsby]

On purpose for me

[cox3100]

i can see why he hsa been charged.

but what gets me is the inconsistancy of the FA.

they charge Adam for what could have been an accident(highly unlikely but possible)but let Huth off for his blatant stamp on Suarez a few years back

[Zlen]

FA should cancel themselves.
Whenever they step up to sort something out all they do is painfully remind me of many times before they chose not to do so. Horribly inconsistent and shabby organization.

[lindylou100]

Guess in this case Adam has a lot of previous history ( Bale x 2, parker and paulinho) that I can think of. He's either extremely shit in a tackle or some of these incidents aren't accidents.

[justsean]

He does do this sort of accidental stuff an awful lot. Very good chance he just is actually that clumsy though.

[dirks digglers]

Definitely meant it in my opinion, a classic cheap shot. As has been said though, the inconsistency of the FA on these things is the real issue.

[lindylou100]

He does do this sort of accidental stuff an awful lot. Very good chance he just is actually that clumsy though.

well yes its possible, but i think unlikely given how similar some of these accidental moments are. The paulinho one is particularly bad, it had something of the eduardo about it in terms of the potential damage it could have done which makes my toes curl.

[Wiss_LFC]

It's about time he got charged for stuff like this, he's one of the dirtiest twats in the league when it comes to stamping on people.


Stoke City chairman Peter Coates has described the FA's decision to charge midfielder Charlie Adam as "appalling"

"We feel this is trial by media," fumed Coates. "We are disgusted.

"We have seen some of the things that have gone on in recent weeks and no one has been called to account.

"Charlie absolutely assures us it was not intentional. We will defend it vigorously. It is appalling."


It's a shame Stoke condone this type of behaviour from it's players, disgusting club.

[1892tillforever]

It really does look intentional but as some of the lads here have said, the FA are a pack of useless, incompetent, hypocritical, inconsistent pricks. It's no wonder that many of their referees follow suit.

[Bangin Them In]

So I've got this straight, it IS an offence to stand on Giroud then ?

I'd of thought Arsenal would be openly encouraging it

[clinical]

What about Rooney's elbow to the back of that Wigan players head?

[JohnHobbes]

Hard to tell from the video whether it was intentional. I suppose the problem for most people is that Charlie has prior form in this regard that would imply to them this was just more of the same. I'm not sure it was intentional but it wouldn't surprise me if it was.

I think the most frustrating aspect of this is the FA picking and choosing cases (mostly seemingly on media outrage) and ignoring blatant ones, when they need to consistently charge all offenders as and when it happens.

[RedRabbit]

Very subjective thing to judge. I don't see how they can make a ruling on it.

Ask Arsene and he'd probably say it was GBH, as Giroud's wife however.....


Just bring in cameras for all games and stop this trial by MOTD.

[viteslesrouges]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26425905
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWkWUoHz-S4

I think it's a joke, personally. I cannot see any intent in it. Giroud is lying on the turf, Adam tries to hop over him, but his jump is too short. How 3 people can see it unanimously as intentional is beyond me.
Other opinions?

I agree, Adam looked to jump to his maximum ability, he just can't. 

If he wants to improve on stamps and nasty little taps on ankles he should ask Gareth Barry for tips.

[Broad Spectrum]

Thoroughly deserved.

[stoa]

Very subjective thing to judge. I don't see how they can make a ruling on it.

That's the way I see it. I can see why people would assume it was intentional with Adam's history. Then again, in the video he looks at where the ball is and turns away from Giroud. To me, that seems to indicate that it was an accident rather than an attempt to stamp on Giroud's leg. Will be difficult to prove otherwise...

[Hazell]

Adam always seems more clumsy than malicious to me, even the one Giroud seemed an accident and Stoke are right not to accept it. And a few more 'clumsy' challenges at Stamford Bridge would be acceptable.

[Funky_Gibbons]

What about Rooney's elbow to the back of that Wigan players head?

What about Yaya Toure against Norwich the other week?

[Craig S]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26425905
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWkWUoHz-S4

I think it's a joke, personally. I cannot see any intent in it. Giroud is lying on the turf, Adam tries to hop over him, but his jump is too short. How 3 people can see it unanimously as intentional is beyond me.
Other opinions?

Adam is looking completely the other way, following the ball. When he turns his head Giroud standing leg (which he lands on) is not stretched out in front of him, at this point he is already mid air. Girounds leg slides under where he is going to land.

It's laughable thats he has been charged.

Here is the moment when Girouds leg is stretched out, before this he was stood up, and Adam is already jumping. Adam is looking at the ball

[Golyo]

It's good to see different opinions. For me it is so black and white most of the time. This time it's white, Adam is looking at the ball = it is not intentional. But he has a bad reputation, and certainly could have jumped longer. Also like most of you I would love to see some consistency in the FA's rulings.

[Farman]

In considering whether he should have jumped higher, they need to bear in mind that for him it's the eqivalent of you or I trying to jump on Saturn.

[Carlito Roberto]

What about Yaya Toure against Norwich the other week?

Nothing like a bit of consistency.

[BER]

He's a scummy prick and does it all the time.

It's easy to make it look accidental, this "his eyes are on the ball" stuff is idiotic, you don't have to look down to know there's someone there. Periphery vision.

[telekon]

He's a scummy prick and does it all the time.

It's easy to make it look accidental, this "his eyes are on the ball" stuff is idiotic, you don't have to look down to know there's someone there. Periphery vision.

Indeed. How anyone can make it out as accidental is baffling in my opinion.

[rickardinho1]

What about Yaya Toure against Norwich the other week?

That kick and Adam's stamp should be viewed as similar incidents and both warrant suspensions. Just because one is a studs-stamp it doesn't make it worse than the other one - the issue is the intent. If MacGregor gets sent off for a little kick then so should Toure in retrospect

[Chakan]

Did Shawcross ever get charged for his stamp on Luis?

[Macedonian Red Reborn]

[Funky_Gibbons]

That kick and Adam's stamp should be viewed as similar incidents and both warrant suspensions. Just because one is a studs-stamp it doesn't make it worse than the other one - the issue is the intent. If MacGregor gets sent off for a little kick then so should Toure in retrospect

Of course it should but for me it is another example of how the FA only acts on these off the ball incidents when it is 'smaller' clubs involved.

Torres earlier in the season is another example where he scratched his nails down Vertonghen's face and no further action was taken, yet Reither was given a three match ban for a stamp on Januzaj. 

[Funky_Gibbons]

Did Shawcross ever get charged for his stamp on Luis?

Wasn't it Huth?

[Chakan]

Wasn't it Huth?

Sorry meant Huth.

[Funky_Gibbons]

Sorry meant Huth.

Pretty certain he got away with that because the referee saw it.

[Chakan]

Pretty certain he got away with that because the referee saw it.

Yeah just reading the article now. Apparently one of the officials saw it.

[dirks digglers]

What about Yaya Toure against Norwich the other week?

What about Kolo Toure on Phil Dowd....

[Funky_Gibbons]

What about Kolo Toure on Phil Dowd....

Deserves a medal for that!! 

[End Product]

Guess in this case Adam has a lot of previous history ( Bale x 2, parker and paulinho) that I can think of. He's either extremely shit in a tackle or some of these incidents aren't accidents.

I hate how the FA take into account previous incidents, they should view it on it's own merits.   

[cox3100]

Yeah just reading the article now. Apparently one of the officials saw it.

one of the wrose "football laws" around.


just because an official saw it doesnt mean that it didnt happen or wasnt a foul or deliberate.


should have still been banned

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

one of the worst "football laws" around.
just because an official saw it doesnt mean that it didnt happen or wasnt a foul or deliberate.
should have still been banned

Totally agree. It's such a bullshit way of dealing with things. FA are so incompetent, it makes me rage whenever I remember all their awful awful decisions. Still, we're stuck with them, the fools.

[PhaseOfPlay]

What about Kolo Toure on Phil Dowd....

Phil Dowd still hasn't seen it.

Oh and that was intentional by Adam. You see that stuff going on up and down the country in Sunday league games.

[stoa]

Indeed. How anyone can make it out as accidental is baffling in my opinion.

So how do you know it's intentional? Are you a mindreader?