By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The sentence is correct grammar and does make sense, but clumsy.
I suspect it is written this way due to the FA laws that it relates to, which will refer to improper conduct. They don't specify the rule against which the charges are made, but it could well be FA Rule E3 - Improper Conduct against a Match Official - (including threatening and/or abusive language/behaviour)
confused me as well... its a triple negative.... excellent work....
could have been "failed to ensure that their players behaved in a proper manner" but instead they added a couple of extra negatives in there
And, if they contest the charge they will state "we did not fail to ensure that our players did not behave in an improper manner." The FA are likely to then go with "we contend that it is not true that you did not fail to ensure that your players did not behave in an improper manner."
I’m sure the subsequent 20k fine will make their players think long and hard about what they’ve done, and they’ll never do it again.
Exactly. Players having their spare change taken from them will now realise they've done a very naughty thing. Time to turn over a new leaf in their next game - away at Palace. Referee Tim Robinson hasn't taken charge of a Chelsea game this season. He has officiated 2 Palace games - 10 yellow cards - which is average for him. 12 games - 61 yellow cards and 1 red (Kalvin Phillips in the Leicester game).
London derby, card happy ref, former PE teacher . What could possibly go wrong?
Don't believe a word I say. I'm only kidding. Or am I?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
. 