The CFA finally dropped the hammer on the afternoon of August 27th after covering it up for more than 10 days: a 3-game suspension and a 30,000 RMB fine. Personally, I think this kind of punishment and the previous referee review report is the same conclusion, are a joke. The Football Association issued this ticket can be said to be botched, made a mistake.
Whether or not Zhang Yuning's foul was enough of an "act of violence" has already been covered too much, so I won't discuss it here, but just a couple of digressions.
According to the 18th Commentary Report, Zhang Yuning intentionally elbowed an opposing player in the face without the ball, "using a force that cannot be ignored" and "should be considered as violence". The said ticket has been obtained in accordance with Article 53 of the CFA Disciplinary (2024) (hereinafter referred to as the Code).
But there is a loophole in this ticket.
First of all, Article 53(3) of the Code stipulates that a person who elbows, punches or kicks the ball. In the game, a three-match suspension and a fine of $30,000 are "at least", commonly known as the "starting price".
Secondly, the ticket intentionally or unintentionally missed article 48 of the guidelines. According to this provision, a heavier penalty may be imposed if the subject of the penalty has one of the following circumstances. This "one" includes face, head and crotch violations. Zhang Yuning's behavior meets this condition and should be punished more severely. Referring to the FA's decision to penalize Karanga on August 5 and Achimpen on August 7, Zhang Yuning's additional punishment should also be a four-match suspension and a fine of 40,000 yuan, or even more.
Is it possible to "mitigate" the penalty? Yes, but it must meet the requirements. Article 47 of the Guidelines specifies two conditions for mitigating punishment: first, the initiative to publicly admit the mistake and take measures to eliminate its effects; and second, other circumstances that make it possible to mitigate the punishment. But Zhang Yuning does not meet these two requirements, at least not publicly.
Why the FA's punishment was botched and wrong? Two points:
First of all, the determination that Zhang Yuning's foul was an act of violence was itself wrong, or at least a rash decision. As can be seen from the video in question, Zhang Yuning's left hand did hit the head of the opponent player (No. 4 of Zhejiang). However, I believe that all those who watched the fouls committed by Karanga in the 18th round of the China First Division and Achim Pang in the 21st round of the Chinese Super League would agree that Zhang Yuning's behavior was very different from those two players, especially Karanga.
To be honest, Zhang Yuning's action is at best a common foul in soccer. It must be taken seriously and characterized as a serious foul, i.e. brutal force has peaked. Corresponding to rule 53(1) of the guidelines, a one-match suspension and a 10,000 fine would suffice.
After careful analysis, due to the referee's evaluation report on the "violent behavior" of the wrong characterization, the Football Association issued a "suspension of three penalties three" penalty.
Fans wonder if all fouls committed against the head of an opposing player are "acts of violence" and should be penalized severely.
For example, in order to fight for possession of the ball, player A, in his haste to push away and embrace the opposing player B with his hand, happens to gently touch the other player's head. Is this an act of violence? Can Zhang Yuning's action be called "using a force that is not negligible", as opposed to Karanga's swinging of his arms and deliberate retaliatory strikes to the opponent's head? Will Zhang Yuning, who has been additionally penalized, be at a loss for words when facing the upcoming 18-team tournament?
Secondly, the FA's helpless decision. It should be said that the FA also realized that the assessment report was too heavy for Zhang Yuning's foul provisions, and it was difficult to issue a fine. However, the report was published on the list as early as August 21, and the facts that have been established cannot be changed.
As a well-known media personality named Miao commented, the FA should also feel the pressure. However, since it has been characterized as violence, it would be a slap in the face not to punish it. After careful consideration, I gave a "starting price".
As mentioned above, Zhang Yuning's foul falls under the category of aggravated punishment. Although the circumstances were slightly less serious than those of Karanga and Achimpen, they did not, after all, qualify as a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the ticket was in conflict with the standard provision. It could be described as a "miscarriage of justice" and a sign of self-deception. In any case, if you've been punished and explained, you shouldn't dwell on it endlessly.
We are also very busy preparing for the Nationals' 18-team tournament.
