[ad_pod ]
Tony Cascarino has claimed via The Times that Tottenham Hotspur striker Harry Kane has avoided a ban from the Football Association because he is England captain.
The forward clashed with Cesar Azpilicueta as Spurs lost 2-0 to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday evening.
What’s he said?
Cascarino believes that Kane is being judged differently to other players because he wears the Three Lions’ armband.
Remarking on his fracas with the Spanish full-back in which the centre-forward appeared to move his head towards the Blues star, the pundit, who played for Chelsea during a varied playing career, asserted that he should have been given a retrospective one-match ban.
He wrote in The Times: “The FA is protecting its own interests by showing leniency to Harry Kane. If they can be a little lenient to England’s top scorer and captain, then, of course, they are going to be.
“There was every chance he would have been charged for his clash with Cesar Azpilicueta during Tottenham’s 2-0 defeat to Chelsea on Wednesday, but it wasn’t exactly a “Liverpool kiss”. I think the FA has realised over the years that it makes sense to avoid confrontation with their best players.”
He added: “A three-game ban would have been excessive but it was ungentlemanly conduct and he did deserve a slap on the wrist. I think the maximum punishment could have been a one-match ban.
“I certainly think if it had been another player without the same prestige or importance to England then they would have been made an example of by the FA.”
Ridiculous claim
The fact of the matter is that referee Andre Marriner saw the incident between Kane and Azpilicueta, per Sky Sports.
And Premier League rules are such that a player cannot be given a retrospective punishment if the match official has made a judgement on the altercation.
Thus, Kane has been spared a ban and will be able to play against Arsenal in the north London derby this weekend.
That Cascarino believes it is the FA protecting its golden boy is as laughable as it is ridiculous.
The rules have been applied; Cascarino can disagree with Marriner’s decision, but he made it, and The Times columnist should perhaps look to cloak his Chelsea bias in future.
