What's new

Eric Dier

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,533
204,721
Extreme example, Cantona who went into the crowd on the back of a kung fu kick. He got 9 months IIRC :D

Once you're in the crowd you aren't in control, there's no telling how it might escalate. Dier got what he deserved and TBH it wouldn't have surprised me if it were more.
 

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
18,702
46,941
Bad timing with the ban as just hitting form but the ban is fair. You can’t climb into the stands and do that. Is someone was actually physically attacking his brother that’s mabye a different story but reacting to just verbals is understandable but has to be disciplined unfortunately to set a precedent. Hopeudlly ban starts vs Bournemouth so he can play the final game at least. Will also be nice for jan to get a few more games anyways :)
 

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
18,702
46,941
Extreme example, Cantona who went into the crowd on the back of a kung fu kick. He got 9 months IIRC :D

Once you're in the crowd you aren't in control, there's no telling how it might escalate. Dier got what he deserved and TBH it wouldn't have surprised me if it were more.
Agree, I think 4 games is generous really given how strict the FA tend or be with these sorts of things.
 

mpickard2087

Patient Zero
Jun 13, 2008
21,886
32,513
Any criminal case would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The FA though are able to judge based on the balance of probability. Pretty sure iirc this exact same thing happened with John Terry, the police couldn't be sure on the evidence to proceed, and so no action taken, but the FA don't have to go to that extreme to make a judgement.

It's not surprising the fan said to the police it was all nothing - a) I doubt they want to be caught up in it, and b) don't want to to get one of his teams players in trouble for what was a moment of handbags all round.

The official version of events seems to be that on a shit night where everyone was pissed off, the fan has said something (I presume directed towards Dier), he's had a brief argument with Dier's brother and they're going their separate ways, Eric though has restarted it by climbing into the stands and attempting to have it out with the fan who by that point is leaving, and has not gone to check how his brother is or what has happened. The FA therefore have said they think it's probable that really the red mist had descended, he had to be restrained and was looking to square up to the guy, and so it was therefore threatening. And I don't think it's really an outrageous conclusion to reach tbh.
 
Last edited:

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
19,153
30,013
I would have done what Dier did then again i also know it was wrong

The issue is that whilst it was in the home end - what would Dier have done if it was at an away ground for example?
 

bat-chain

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2009
2,232
9,478
Felt it was a nothing incident, game was over, if he wants to go into the crowd when the game was over, that's just free will in action.

If someone is abusing you, you have a right to go and ask them why they are doing that. I'm actually shocked how many people think this is a big issue.

To the utter coward who abused him then ran away when he wanted to talk to you about it.

You are a spineless ****.
 

JUSTINSIGNAL

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2008
15,980
48,500
It was Dier's brother who started the physical confrontation. An important distinction.

None of them come out with any credit, but Dier is paid a literal fortune to represent the club. He had no right to go wading into the stands in the way he did.

I don't bear him any ill-will. But I do think his actions disrespected the club, and I don't think he could have any complaints at all l if it cost him a new contract.

Come on bro a moment of madness can happen to anyone. The amount you are paid is irrelevant.
 

Timberwolf

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2008
10,328
50,217
Talking about precedent, we shouldn't invent lengthy punishments for every person who is inherently under control the entire time (which Dier indeed was). Otherwise, the message is that you might as well really go bananas once you are at it, because the ban will hit you regardless of how extreme you are or are not.
Well it's not like they can't give a much longer ban or a bigger fine if someone takes it further.

I'm sure if Dier had headbutted someone, properly squared up, or even just touched the bloke, the ban would've risen accordingly.

He only got 4 games precisely because he didn't do any of those things.
 

Everlasting Seconds

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2014
14,914
26,616
Well it's not like they can't give a much longer ban or a bigger fine if someone takes it further.

I'm sure if Dier had headbutted someone, properly squared up, or even just touched the bloke, the ban would've risen accordingly.

He only got 4 games precisely because he didn't do any of those things.
I can't help but thinking that you are somewhat stipulating to save the essence of your initial argument. If we put it in context, I believe a player receiving a red card would have had to be violent on the pitch in order to be suspended for 4 matches. This isn't exactly comparing apples with more apples, I know, but Dier wasn't actually violent. He wasn't even really physically threatening, as he didn't get near the guy.
 

buckley

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2012
2,595
6,073
To compare the Cantona deal with the Dier incident is frankly ridiculous Cantona Karate kicked a man in the crowd .
There was no violence in the Dier incident just concern for his brother .
 

thelak

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
2,166
6,950
Probably fair to say Dier charging into the stands has been one of the most exciting thing about this season
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
I don’t know this for a fact but if you were in the crowd and you heard someone near you calling your brother a wanker and a fucking ****, would you ignore it? I don’t think it’s as cut and dry to say his brother started it if he was provoked by someone screaming abuse at his brother.

Presumably family members of a lot of players hear this kind of abuse every week and do turn the other cheek.
 

ralvy

AVB my love
Jun 26, 2012
2,505
4,603
so If you see a member of your family in trouble you must ignore it and turn your back on it brilliant .

Well, yeah. It fits perfectly with all the emasculating policies the UK has been forcing on her citizens for the past decade or so.
 

C0YS

Just another member
Jul 9, 2007
12,780
13,817
Any criminal case would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The FA though are able to judge based on the balance of probability. Pretty sure iirc this exact same thing happened with John Terry, the police couldn't be sure on the evidence to proceed, and so no action taken, but the FA don't have to go to that extreme to make a judgement.

It's not surprising the fan said to the police it was all nothing - a) I doubt they want to be caught up in it, and b) don't want to to get one of his teams players in trouble for what was a moment of handbags all round.

The official version of events seems to be that on a shit night where everyone was pissed off, the fan has said something (I presume directed towards Dier), he's had a brief argument with Dier's brother and they're going their separate ways, Eric though has restarted it by climbing into the stands and attempting to have it out with the fan who by that point is leaving, and has not gone to check how his brother is or what has happened. The FA therefore have said they think it's probable that really the red mist had descended, he had to be restrained and was looking to square up to the guy, and so it was therefore threatening. And I don't think it's really an outrageous conclusion to reach tbh.
I want to point out that this is very different. This case was never going to court, and if it were it would be the spectator and Dier's brother. Not Dier who did nothing wrong legally, at all. Even if the fan was intimidated.

This is a case of a police interview, and the suggestion that the spectator lied. This is very different than 'balance of probabilities' this is making a leap and it's not a good one. They also spent a large part of the situation essentially accusing the fan of being all kinds of negative things. So the fan has been branded by the panel and untrustworthy liar and coward. Which is actually pretty crazy when you think about it. In the end, according to Jose, the fan actually did end up talking to Dier and apologised to him in person. Which further questions the judgement reached.

This is not a question of beyond reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. because this was never going to go to court. It is a question of how internal investigation interpret a situation, and I think they are stretching the evidence and frankly making unqualified judgements that they claim to be objective while giving a poor character reference to someone they never bothered to contact.

It is a really poorly executed investigation, and this is my issue. The penalty fine, whatever. But there is something wrong with the process here. This is a clear difference between a lot of the other comparable cases. Dier committed no crime here, there isn't even a suspicion of committing a crime. Threatening behaviour in legal context is not at all related to how it has been chosen to be understood by the panel, I guess they have guidelines here.

So, Dier was never at risk here. It's an incomparable issue to the Terry one. Though the punishment was exactly the same in the end.
 
Top