After nearly two weeks of silence, the CFA unveiled its weighty decision in the late afternoon of August 27: Zhang Yuning was banned for three matches and fined 30,000 yuan for violations. Personal opinion is that this punishment is the same as the previous referee review results, simply become a laughing stock. The FA's move can be described as "lifting a stone to hit its own feet", making an obvious mistake.
Whether or not Zhang Yuning's foul constitutes an act of "violence" has been discussed at length, so I won't repeat it here. I will only comment briefly on some aspects of the matter.
According to the 18th evaluation report, Zhang Yuning intentionally elbowed an opposing player in the face without the ball, the force used should not be underestimated and "should be regarded as violence". According to Article 53 of the CFA Disciplinary (2024), Zhang Yuning's punishment has been officially issued.
However, there is one flaw in this penalty list.
First, article 53 (iii) of the Code provides that a three-match suspension and a fine of $30,000 is the "starting price" for acts such as elbowing, punching or kicking. Secondly, the penalty list omits Article 48 of the Code, which stipulates that a heavier penalty can be imposed if the target of the penalty involves an assault on the face, head or crotch. Zhang Yuning's behavior fits this condition and deserves to be treated more severely. With reference to the FA's penalties for Karanga and Achimphan, Zhang Yuning's additional punishment should be at least a four-match suspension and a 40,000 yuan fine.
Is it possible, then, to impose "lighter" penalties? The answer is yes, but only if the two conditions set out in article 47 of the Code are met: first, that the person takes the initiative to recognize the error and take measures to eliminate its effects; and second, that there are other circumstances that may justify a lighter penalty. However, Zhang Yuning clearly does not meet these two conditions, at least not publicly.
Why is the penalty imposed by the Football Association "a cover-up", adding insult to injury? The reasons are as follows:
First of all, characterizing Zhang Yuning's offense as an act of violence is itself a mistake, or at least an overly hasty judgment. As you can see from the video in question, Zhang Yuning's left hand did touch the head of the opposing player. However, I believe that all viewers who have watched the Karanga foul in the 18th round of the China First Division and the Achim Peng foul in the 21st round of the Chinese Super League will agree that Zhang Yuning's behavior is significantly different from these two incidents, especially the foul with Karanga.
Frankly speaking, Zhang Yuning's action is nothing more than a common foul on a soccer field. To be taken seriously, it would be sufficient to characterize it as a serious foul, i.e., the brute force has reached its peak, and a one-match suspension and a $10,000 fine would be sufficient under Rule 53(1) of the Code.
After in-depth analysis, due to the referee evaluation report on the "violent behavior" of the misjudgment, the Football Association finally issued a "suspension of three penalties" ticket.
Fans can't help but wonder if all fouls against the head of an opposing player are considered "violent acts" and should be penalized more severely. For example, in order to gain possession of the ball, player A pushes player B away with his hand and accidentally touches his opponent's head. Can this be considered an act of violence? Can Zhang Yuning's behavior be called "using a force that is not slight and negligible", as opposed to Karanga's swinging of his arms and intentional retaliatory strikes to the opponent's head? Does Zhang Yuning feel confused and overwhelmed by the upcoming 18-team tournament?
Secondly, the FA has no choice. The FA is also aware that the comment report is too heavy on Zhang Yuning's foul and it is difficult to introduce an appropriate penalty. However, the report has been published on August 21, the fact can not be changed.
As commented by the well-known media personality surnamed Miu, the FA is also under pressure. However, since it has been characterized as violent behavior, it would be a slap in the face not to punish it. After careful consideration, the Association finally gave a "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 Achimphan, they did not qualify as mitigating circumstances. Therefore, the ticket was in conflict with the provisions of the Guidelines, which can be described as "inappropriate sentencing" and a manifestation of self-deception. In any event, having been punished and explained, it should not be dwelled upon indefinitely.
At the same time, we have the heavy task of preparing for the national team's upcoming 18-team tournament.
