After more than ten days of silence, the CFA unveiled its decision on the evening of August 27th: the player involved was suspended for three matches and fined 30,000 RMB. Personally, I feel that such a treatment is the same as the conclusion in the previous referee's review report, which has become a laughing stock. This penalty notice issued by the Football Association can be described as an attempt to cover up the mistake, but instead exposed its own mistakes.
The question of whether Zhang Yuning's foul constitutes "violent behavior" has already been discussed in the previous article, so I won't repeat it here. Today, let's change the angle and talk about a related topic.
According to the 18th Review Report, Zhang Yuning intentionally struck an opponent in the face with his elbow in an uncontested situation, which is not a small force and should be regarded as an act of violence. The penalty has been approved in accordance with Article 53 of the CFA Disciplinary (2024) (hereinafter referred to as the Code).
However, the ticket was flawed.
On the one hand, Article 53(3) of the Guidelines clearly states that elbowing, punching, kicking, etc., should be penalized by at least a three-match suspension and a fine of $30,000 in a match. On the other hand, the penalty notice seems to have omitted Article 48 of the Code intentionally or unintentionally. This article stipulates that a heavier penalty may be imposed if the target of the penalty has one of the following circumstances: infringing on the face, head or crotch of an opposing player. Zhang Yuning's behavior met this condition and deserved a heavier penalty. Referring to the FA's decision to penalize Karanga on August 5 and Achimphan on August 7, Zhang Yuning's additional punishment should be at least a four-match suspension and a fine of 40,000 yuan, or even more.
Is there, then, a possibility of mitigating punishment? The answer is yes, but only if specific conditions are met. Article 47 of the Guidelines specifies two conditions for mitigating punishment: first, the initiative to publicly admit the mistake and take measures to eliminate the effects; and second, the existence of other circumstances that could mitigate the punishment. However, Zhang Yuning did not meet these two requirements, at least not publicly.
Why do you think the FA's punishment was botched and wrong? There are two reasons:
First of all, characterizing Zhang Yuning's offense as a violent act is itself a mistake, or at least too hasty. As you can see from the video in question, Zhang Yuning's left hand did hit the head of the opposing player (Zhejiang's No. 4). However, I believe that all those who have 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 will agree that Zhang Yuning's behavior is very different from those two players, especially Karanga.
Frankly speaking, Zhang Yuning's action is at best a common foul in soccer. To characterize it as a serious foul, i.e., brutal force at its peak, it would correspond to Rule 53(1) of the Code, which requires only a one-game suspension and a 10,000 fine.
After in-depth 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 against the head of an opposing player are considered "violent acts" and must be penalized severely.
For example, in order to fight for possession of the ball, Player A, in his eagerness to push away the opponent, Player B, with his hand, inadvertently touches the opponent's head lightly. Is this also an act of violence? Can Zhang Yuning's action be called "using a force that is not slight and negligible", as opposed to Karanga's swinging of his arms and intentional retaliatory strike to the opponent's head? Does Zhang Yuning, who has been penalized with an additional penalty, feel overwhelmed by the prospect of the upcoming 18-team tournament?
Secondly, the FA's reluctant decision. Although the FA also realized that the assessment report was too heavy for Zhang Yuning's foul and it was difficult to issue a penalty. However, the report was released on August 21, and the fait accompli cannot be changed.
As Miao, a well-known media personality, commented, the FA should also feel the pressure. However, since Zhang Yuning's offense has been characterized as violence, not punishing it is undoubtedly a slap in the face. After much deliberation, the FA still gave a hard head to the "starting price".
As mentioned earlier, 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 mitigating circumstances. 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 are punished and explained, there is no need to dwell on it endlessly.
Meanwhile, the busy days continue as we prepare for the Nationals' upcoming 18-team tournament.
