Vincent Kompany Has Four-Match Ban Upheld, Will Miss Both Liverpool Semi-Finals

Chris Wright

10th, January 2012


By Chris Wright

Just a quickie to let y’all good people know that Vincent Kompany will indeed have to serve a four-match ban after the FA threw out Manchester City’s appeal this afternoon because Wayne Rooney wafted an imaginary gavel at them* during the hearing.

(*this may or may not be true)

The official word from the FA’s Independent Regulatory Commission reads thusly:

“[We have] today dismissed a claim of wrongful dismissal from Manchester City’s Vincent Kompany following his red card for serious foul play in the FA Cup third-round tie between Manchester City and Manchester United on 8th January 2012.

“Kompany will serve a four-match suspension with immediate effect. The suspension consists of a statutory three-match suspension for serious foul play plus one additional game given this is Kompany’s second dismissal of the season.”

The ban will see Kompany miss Premier League games against Wigan and Tottenham, sandwiched in between both legs of City’s Carling Cup semi-final against Liverpool on 11th and 25th of January respectively – which means Roberto Mancini will be down to the bare bones with only the £33 million central-defensive pairing of Joleon Lescott and Stefan Savic at his disposal.

Poor lamb.

Posted in Man City, Man Utd

Share this article: Email


  1. Connor says: for reference, in the same game this was not a booking

  2. Tom Jones says:

    Great news. Should have been 10 though.

  3. SL says:

    Well if Bartons red was going to be upheld when he did literally nothing, Kompany had no chance because it was at least debatable.

  4. Redskywalker says:

    Guess that Pre-match speech from the competition winner didn’t work

  5. Mr. T says:

    @Connor – agreed. And at least Kompany got the ball first. And the tackle was not from behind trapping a players leg in a scissor movement.

  6. haters gon hate says:

    so…. The FA believe a deliberate kick to the back of someone’s legs out of frustration is far less punishable a winning tackle that looked dangerous?

  7. eagle eye says:

    It’s not as dangerous because
    1. Only one foot is held high, and not pointing towards the other player’s SHINS
    2. It’s done IN the direction the player with the ball was moving, instead of head-on.

    Sad gifs like this won’t give City any more sympathy imo.

  8. Andre says:

    I thought if you launched an appeal but it failed that an extra game ban was put on as well? I remember this happening to Rio before, so what gives? Not that I feel he deserves four or five, I just want some damn consistency.

  9. McRico says:

    2 footed – Should have been sent off in other games. Micah Richards does the same.

    Buy the league and break anyone who gets in the way.

    PS. Looks like his Tweet Comp will be his last lol

  10. murry1975 says:

    “1. Only one foot is held high, and not pointing towards the other player’s SHINS”
    Sorry I missed that edition of the laws of the game , it doesnt mention that in in law 12 sending-off offences in my copy actually it never mentions shins.

    “2. It’s done IN the direction the player with the ball was moving, instead of head-on”
    Now I like my math and physics so to me that reads the line of tackle was the same as the line of movement, for me that would mean that player was tackled from the the direction from which he came , now I have seen the tackle and your discription here is nothing like what I saw, your description is more of the tackle Giggs done (should’ve been carded).
    It was two-footed , studs showing and at pace, to assert that it would not have done significant damage had it connected is fallacy, there is no hieght restrictions for it to be deemed dangerous, that aside if you read the laws of the game instead of listening to commentators you would find out dangerous play is a bookable offence not a sending off (unless second booking) , the tackle would have most likely be deemed “serious foul play” under a directive from FIFA (they do the law thingy) and for this a sending-off was the result.

  11. eagle eye says:

    I was talking about the GIF in the 1st post obviously, but someone here decided to edit my comment so to look as I said “gits”, not “gifs”. Aaaanywho…

Leave a Reply