There was plenty for the FA to consider after Saturday’s fractious encounter with Brentford, and some of their conclusions are as debatable as those made by the match referee.
Brentford’s Sergi Canos has escaped censure for pushing his forehead into Ezgjan Alioski during a scuffle in the visitors’ dugout during the second half. The ball had gone out for a Brentford throw, but with Leeds trailing and time running out, the Macedonian wanted to hurry things along by retrieving the ball as quickly as possible.
But the Brentford assistant head coach Thomas Frank refused to return it, and Canos (who had already been substituted) got involved as the discussion got a little bit heated.
As referee Jeremy Simpson admitted that he’d missed Canos’ action (like much else during the game) the FA’s disciplinary panel had to review the footage to determine whether any punishment should be handed out. But the three man panel failed to agree whether the Brentford man’s conduct amounted to violent conduct, so he won’t face any further action.
OK, as someone who grew up watching football in the 1970s I don’t consider the act of pushing your head into somebody counts as a proper headbutt. If you want to see what a proper headbutt looks like, you need to find some footage of late 60s/early 70s centre forward Wyn Davies. But I thought it was clear that Canos’ action did fall within the definition of violent conduct that is now used by the football authorities.
But of course the FA have asked Leeds to "state their position and observations” after coins were thrown towards the Brentford players as they celebrated their goal in front of the South Stand. The club has until Monday to state how reacted to the incident and whether the correct protocols are in place at Elland Road.
My observation is that the Brentford players intentionally goaded a volatile set of fans who were already annoyed about the contentious decision to award the penalty. And while I don’t condone coin throwing, players shouldn’t be that surprised if they get that sort of response if they go out of their way to be provocative.
As far as the incident that led to the coin throwing is concerned, the FA have decided not to take retrospective action against Ollie Watkins for deceiving the referee, even though he was already on his way down before he made contact with Bailey Peacock-Farrell.
The one thing we can be thankful for is that at the moment they are not investigating the comments made by Pontus Jansson in his interview with Sky Sports after the game, even though he used a rude word to describe the referee’s performance. I would have thought that counted as dissent, but it seems that the FA are as determined to be inconsistent in dealing with the fallout from this game as the referee was on the day.