Balotelli standing on Parker's head - deliberate or accidental?

Just watched a clip of the incident and would be interested in your opinions.

I'm not convinced either way.

I think it was probably deliberate, but whether it's enough to charge him on I'm not sure. This is an incident where those involved in making the decision have to either give him the benefit of the doubt, or just charge him. I think he accidentally knocked him and then may or may not have stamped.

It's so hard to tell, as if you play it at normal speed it doesn't look like a stamp at all, it looks accidental and just Balotelli putting his foot down to try and regain balance, in slow motion it looks like a stamp, but that could just be unfortunate.

It's such a difficult decision, and I would probably give him the benefit of the doubt.

1st off when i saw it i thought it was deliberate but after a few replays i think he puts his foot down due to a shove in the back from Modric.

Definitely deliberate if you are falling forward then the natural instinct is to put your leg forward not backwards and the dive at the end deserves a Oscar.

About as blatant as, well, a stamp on the head....

Don't think you can tell for certain.
Not certainly enough for the FA to find him guilty anyway, IMO.

I'm not sure what standard of proof is needed in disciplinary cases.

If it's "on the balance of probabilities" then I would say, yes it satisfied that test with some room to spare. But if it's "beyond reasonable doubt" then I would say there is some room for doubt. I'm about 80% certain....

Almost as blatant as Lescott's forearm shiver . . . . .

I would think both would be proven beyond any reasonable doubt in a criminal court. Bunch of thugs.

Don't know the levels of proof needed either Corporal, but I would think that, if you're going to ban a player for deliberately trying to hurt an opponent, you should be pretty certain that he was.
Personally, I don't think you can be certain enough in this instance (unless Balotelli confesses, of course).

I think the first contact was a accident , the second one im not so sure he seems to leave his foot there rather then trying to take it away

Re: burden of proof.

Don't know the standard either but a different approach to those suggested so far might be more applicable.

I believe the match referee has now said that he would have given Balotelli a red card if he had seen the incident as shown on film. On that basis, shouldn't the onus be on Balotelli to prove innocence or at least reasonable doubt?

In other words, the Kwini way - presumed a thug unless and until proved otherwise.

guildfordbat wrote:Re: burden of proof.

Don't know the standard either but a different approach to those suggested so far might be more applicable.

I believe the match referee has now said that he would have given Balotelli a red card if he had seen the incident as shown on film. On that basis, shouldn't the onus be on Balotelli to prove innocence or at least reasonable doubt?

In other words, the Kwini way - presumed a thug unless and until proved otherwise.

While I agree that this is sensible, in terms purely of justice I would disagree with what the referee has said.
Is he saying that, had he seen the incident, he'd have known for certain that it was deliberate?
If so, how has he reached that conclusion?
Or is he saying that, if he'd seen the incident, he'd have shown a red card even though he couldn't be certain whether it was deliberate or not?

Hoggy - take all points made. Really shows what a mugger's buddle it all is!

Not even that bothered Guildford, I'm no Man City fan.
I do think that, if it wasn't such a high profile game, and if it wasn't Balotelli, less would have been made of it.
Certainly when I used to go to watch Birmingham in the 70s and 80s such things were hardly noticed amongst the far more blatant violence on show on the pitch

Hoggy_Bear wrote:
.... Certainly when I used to go to watch Birmingham in the 70s and 80s such things were hardly noticed amongst the far more blatant violence on show on the pitch

Or on the terraces at Highfield Road when I was watching Coventry in the 70s!

The only person who'll know whether this was deliberate or not is Ballotelli, and he's hardly going to come out and admit it. I personally believe from what I've seen of him, this seems like something he would do

It makes me laugh though that they're going to look at banning him for 3 games. I'm sorry but how does that help spurs? Are they going to take away that winning penalty he won and scored? Thought not. All it will leave is City losing Ballotelli for for a few games. It's not as if they can't bring another £30 million player in to take his place.....oh wait

Knowing Balotellis character, i think the first contact with Parker was delibrate also. Anyone arguing that the second was "accidental" doesn't understand normal bodily movement!!

How Lescott escaped punishment is beyond me.........I think it was a case of Howard Webb not wanting to burn his bridges with Man City........

King Kenny, He doesn't "leave his foot there", he stamps on him.

He is getting singled out though, even if I do agree it was as stamp.

How come Peter Crouch get get away with trying to jam his finger on someones eye? That would carry a hefty ban in rugby.

Both are guilty, one is English and gets away with it.

Kangaroo court.

johnson2 wrote:He is getting singled out though, even if I do agree it was as stamp.

How come Peter Crouch get get away with trying to jam his finger on someones eye? That would carry a hefty ban in rugby.

Both are guilty, one is English and gets away with it.

Kangaroo court.

Not really, its becasue the ref in the Crouch game says he saw the incident but didnt at the time feel it was punishable. In the Balotelli game the ref is saying he didnt see the incident therefore the FA can make a judgement.

I think Crouch stopped short of "poking/gouging" twas more of a rub!!
Had a gouging taken place, then the players reaction would have been obvious...............

Diggers wrote:

johnson2 wrote:He is getting singled out though, even if I do agree it was as stamp.

How come Peter Crouch get get away with trying to jam his finger on someones eye? That would carry a hefty ban in rugby.

Both are guilty, one is English and gets away with it.

Kangaroo court.

Not really, its becasue the ref in the Crouch game says he saw the incident but didnt at the time feel it was punishable. In the Balotelli game the ref is saying he didnt see the incident therefore the FA can make a judgement.

The ref didnt see it when it happened, and upon viewing the blatant video evidence decided jamming a finger in a fellow professionals eye is not worhty of a ban.

The point is thats the way the laws are currently governed. It doesnt matter that Crouch is English, if the situation with the refs was reversed then Crouch may well have been cited and Balotelli wouldnt have got his 4 game ban. But it wasnt.
Im not saying that the outcome is as it should be, Im just stating why it happened.

It was every bit as blatant as Keane's challenge on Alfe Inge Haland 10 years ago which garnered him an 8 match ban overall (3 matches for the red card and 5 for bringing the game into disrepute i.e. the deliberacy of it).

Genuinely don't see how people can be defending it/him. The original stumble and knock were innocent enough but the stamp was so unnatural and unspontaneous in its movement that to suggest it wasn't intentional is absurd. It's the same with Pepe's stamp on Messi's hand, be interesting to see what action the Spanish FA take with him.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was every bit as blatant as Keane's challenge on Alfe Inge Haland 10 years ago which garnered him an 8 match ban overall (3 matches for the red card and 5 for bringing the game into disrepute i.e. the deliberacy of it).

Genuinely don't see how people can be defending it/him. The original stumble and knock were innocent enough but the stamp was so unnatural and unspontaneous in its movement that to suggest it wasn't intentional is absurd. It's the same with Pepe's stamp on Messi's hand, be interesting to see what action the Spanish FA take with him.

Thing is I, and a number of others aren't sure that it was blatently intentional, having seen the incident a number of times.
And you saying that that opinion is absurd doesn't make it so. Nor does it prove your opinion correct.

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was every bit as blatant as Keane's challenge on Alfe Inge Haland 10 years ago which garnered him an 8 match ban overall (3 matches for the red card and 5 for bringing the game into disrepute i.e. the deliberacy of it).

Genuinely don't see how people can be defending it/him. The original stumble and knock were innocent enough but the stamp was so unnatural and unspontaneous in its movement that to suggest it wasn't intentional is absurd. It's the same with Pepe's stamp on Messi's hand, be interesting to see what action the Spanish FA take with him.

Yeah, that was funny. But the little runt play acted like he had just been ran over.

Diving and play acting needs to be 'stamped' out too... Maybe Pepe was just trying to do that.

Maybe Pepe should have stood on Busquets then coz Messi doesn't dive...................

Harsh on Scott Parker calling him a "little runt acted like he had been run over". In fairness he was kicked and cut...............................

I think he was describing Messi there John.

Cheers IL.
Johnson,
I think Messi's attitude and character on the field is usually exemplary in fairness. I think your depiction him is not fair...........

johnson2 wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was every bit as blatant as Keane's challenge on Alfe Inge Haland 10 years ago which garnered him an 8 match ban overall (3 matches for the red card and 5 for bringing the game into disrepute i.e. the deliberacy of it).

Genuinely don't see how people can be defending it/him. The original stumble and knock were innocent enough but the stamp was so unnatural and unspontaneous in its movement that to suggest it wasn't intentional is absurd. It's the same with Pepe's stamp on Messi's hand, be interesting to see what action the Spanish FA take with him.

Yeah, that was funny. But the little runt play acted like he had just been ran over.

Diving and play acting needs to be 'stamped' out too... Maybe Pepe was just trying to do that.

And I'm sure if someone stamped on your hand with studded football boots you'd sit there and laugh?

All of these things (the incidents named above + 1000s of others) prove that those who run the game and dish the punishments out are utter scum not fit to organise a school raffle.

It is impossible to say if Balotellis action was deliberate without him stating so himself, it does appear to be deliberate in slow-mo, but does that mean he should be punished for it, as at normal pace it simply looks like a man stumbling?
Pepe clearly deliberately stood on Messis hand and deserves a loooong ban for doing so, not so much for his (cowardly) action, but the fact that it was premeditated.

As rules and punishments are drawn up by FIFA and a lesser extent the FA, shouldn't the FA go back and give Keane a retrospective lifetime ban from anything to do with football, like they should have done the day his autobiography was published, where he openly admitted to targeting players he was going to injure?

ReallyReal wrote:All of these things (the incidents named above + 1000s of others) prove that those who run the game and dish the punishments out are utter scum not fit to organise a school raffle.

It is impossible to say if Balotellis action was deliberate without him stating so himself, it does appear to be deliberate in slow-mo, but does that mean he should be punished for it, as at normal pace it simply looks like a man stumbling?
Pepe clearly deliberately stood on Messis hand and deserves a loooong ban for doing so, not so much for his (cowardly) action, but the fact that it was premeditated.

As rules and punishments are drawn up by FIFA and a lesser extent the FA, shouldn't the FA go back and give Keane a retrospective lifetime ban from anything to do with football, like they should have done the day his autobiography was published, where he openly admitted to targeting players he was going to injure?

Good post, agree 100%

stamp deliberate contact with head accidental - I dont think he was looking to see what he was stamping on.

Either way stupid and not a great advert. The agent's comments are at best commical

As a Man Utd fan I thought it was accidental when I first saw it but after seeing a replay on Sunday night realised it was probably deliberate, he was falling forward yet thrust his foot backward

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:It was every bit as blatant as Keane's challenge on Alfe Inge Haland 10 years ago which garnered him an 8 match ban overall (3 matches for the red card and 5 for bringing the game into disrepute i.e. the deliberacy of it).

Genuinely don't see how people can be defending it/him. The original stumble and knock were innocent enough but the stamp was so unnatural and unspontaneous in its movement that to suggest it wasn't intentional is absurd. It's the same with Pepe's stamp on Messi's hand, be interesting to see what action the Spanish FA take with him.

Thing is I, and a number of others aren't sure that it was blatently intentional, having seen the incident a number of times.
And you saying that that opinion is absurd doesn't make it so. Nor does it prove your opinion correct.

I think it was as blatantly intentional as you can possibly get without actually strapping Balotelli into a chair and connecting him to some CIA lie-detector test to confirm or deny.

That we can't be '100% sure' because none of us have access to his conscious is a rubbish fob-off of an excuse which is why it's never stood up in a court of law. Given all the available information, what is the rational and reasonable conclusion? His movements were totally unnatural and impossible to replicate spontaneously - you just can't move your body like that, it's an instinctive reaction to steady yourself (akin to putting your hands out when you fall over) and he did the opposite.