Personally, I don't see the need to dwell on whether Zhang Yuning elbowed or not. Because the two sides (referee, panel, FA, Zhang Yuning) are saying completely opposite things and there is no conclusive evidence yet to prove who is right and who is wrong.
A lot of people speak for Jang Yuna. There's really no way to tell, other than the available video. Zhang Yuning has never received a red card in the league before, which is also an "emotional score" to prove his character. In addition, some media people cited Zhang Yuning's many injuries in club and national team matches as an example of his "character".
I don't think any of this explains too much. Again, if you haven't gotten a red card before, it doesn't mean you never will. Maybe it's the first one; good character on the ball and good character only explains his past, not his present. Maybe it only shows that he didn't intentionally elbow the opponent, that there was no malicious foul, and that there's no way to prove whether or not (intentionally or unintentionally) he elbowed. The fact is that Zhang Yuning turned his head to observe the position of the defender before committing the foul. Later, he raised his elbow and made a small jump forward.
However, just like Zhang Yuning's complaint, if his elbow really didn't touch the opponent, and the so-called elbow strike was an illusion caused by the position, then this is really an "unnecessary" punishment. Zhang Yuning refused to accept the result, the club refused to accept, the fans and the media refused to accept. What's even more frightening is that in a few days, the national team will play their first match of the 18-team tournament against Japan on the road. Needless to say, coach Ivan must be "worried" and will have a hard time even if Zhang Yuning is allowed to play.
Four, who is lying?
From the above analysis, if it was Zhang Yuning who lied, it can basically be assumed that it was because he was focused on the game and had no real perception of the elbow strike, which can be considered unintentional. In the spirit of ignorance, the workshop can be laughed off as an episode of the league and the matter closed.
But things would have been a bit more complicated if the person who lied wasn't Zhang Yuning.
Theoretically, the referee should have seen clearer evidence and included it in the post-match referee's report when he looked back at the video and changed his decision. Based on this report and related information, the referee's panel of experts made a judgment on Zhang Yuning's elbow strike, which was deemed to be an "act of violence". Similarly, the panel also saw a clearer video that proved Zhang Yuning's elbow strike. In the end, the FA made a decision on the penalty based on the above two aspects of the material, especially the evaluation report.
That is to say, if this was a mistake, the first mistake came from the video referee. As Zhang Yuning said, the video he provided was not "clearer"; the second mistake came from an independent referee who, because of his panic at the scene, was unable to maintain his awareness and judgment after watching the video and confusedly showed the red card.
The 3rd mistake is undoubtedly the CFA. Its mistakes, at least, include two aspects:
First of all, I unilaterally listened to the referee and the panel. The latest news is that the FA did hold a hearing, and Zhang Yuning's "explanation" was his explanation at the hearing. In other words, the FA did not believe Zhang Yuning's explanation.
Secondly, the FA did not consider the consequences of this incident. In other words, it was considered, but not noted. Or, both aspects were considered and paid attention to, but the FA could no longer make a decision that contradicted it because the review report was released back on August 21st. Because the foul committed by the player is an act of violence, according to the relevant regulations, at least 3 games suspension and a fine of 30,000 yuan is required.
In the whole process, the Football Association is in a passive state:First, the release of the assessment report; after the release of the report, the market reaction is strong, the Football Association rode the tiger, and even did not issue a decision on the punishment; finally, a week or so after the release of the assessment report, it is likely that Zhang Yuning with the wrong attitude to the release of additional punishment.
The "source" of the error should be the video referee. There are two ways of understanding this: firstly, the video referee only suspected it, the video did not confirm it and it can be seen as unintentional; secondly, it was done deliberately. Knowing that Zhang Yuning did not elbow, or at least he did not make a clear judgment, for some reason, he gave the duty referee a wrong guidance. But fans can't help but wonder:What was the purpose and motive of the video referee?
Fifth, conclusions
This is a conclusion. In fact, there is no real right or wrong or black and white result. Because this result can only be given by the CFA, that is, the decision to punish Zhang Yuning. But realistically speaking, the CFA's punishment, just like the previous punishment for Zhang Xizhe's "scolding the referee", is considered by some fans to be a controversial conclusion, as the player did not admit that he insulted the referee from beginning to end.
Referee assessment is a very good system and measure, but the prerequisite is that the experts on the assessment panels should be open, fair and impartial, which is one aspect. On the other hand, we should have a higher level and more authoritative interpretation and understanding of the rules. The principle is that you cannot pass on false information and you cannot resolve them.
It cannot be ruled out that the analysis of the "mistakes" of the three parties mentioned above in this paper is wrong. Then, almost the only explanation can be considered to be that the relevant personnel's understanding of the rule of Article 53 of the CFA Disciplinary (2024) is wrong. In other words, the part of the foul committed by the target of the penalty was the head, neck and crotch, all of which were recognized as violent acts (the penalty was a suspension of at least three games and a fine of 30,000 yuan), and it was difficult for the panel to get a handle on the situation when deliberating on the matter.
I mean, if Zhang Yuning accidentally (and he didn't notice), and slightly touched the head of the opposing player (Sun Jung Ao), it's not a "non-negligible use of force" as determined by the panel. Is such a foul an "elbow strike"? Is it an act of violence?
If this interpretation and punishment has a real impact on Zhang Yuning (and other players) who will be participating in the Top 18, then in the long run, the rule needs to be at least supplemented with an addendum that redefines the specific behavior and how it is punished. However, this would be adding to the problem, and could add unnecessary "human interpretation" to the problem, giving some people a loophole to work through.
The best way is for the deliberative group to ensure the principle of "impartiality" when organizing the deliberations. However, as we all know, if the panel lacks the necessary and effective supervision, the so-called "guarantee" is just empty words. No one dares to say that similar things will not happen again. However, anything like this could be detrimental to Chinese soccer. There are many such things, and the reputation and image of the CFA and Chinese soccer will certainly be damaged. Over time, it is bound to become heavy.
