I think you know you must be on pretty safe ground when an arch-enemy of Newcastle United, such as the mackem Louise Taylor of The Guardian, is even sticking up for you.

This is what ‘Wheeze Keys Louise’ had to say yesterday….

‘Newcastle travel to Spurs without the injured Ryan Taylor who is expected to make a swifter recovery from soft tissue damage to his right shin sustained when he was caught by Stephen Warnock’s studs. Although eyebrows were raised that what seemed a wild lunge as the Villa left-back endeavoured to block Taylor’s shot went unpunished, the FA will not review the incident retrospectively as it it says it was an “on the ball” challenge’.

Confused? I know I am.

The whole thing is a right mess, there is no rhyme or reason in punishments handed out, or rather not handed out in this instance, by the FA.

When Nigel De Jong almost ended Ben Arfa’s career, there was an acceptance by pretty much everyone that the City player deserved a lengthy ban for what was a cowardly savage assault, I wouldn’t even use the word ‘tackle’. However, due to the referee having dealt with it at the time you aren’t allowed to look at it afterwards and deal out a retrospective punishment, no matter how wrong the referee gets it!

Now the FA are saying Warnock’s reckless lunge at Ryan Taylor was an ‘on the ball’ challenge so they won’t review it. God knows what they have written in their rule book to come up with this pathetic excuse for not doing something but how can such a negligent challenge where a player misses the ball and creates such a dangerous situation for an opponent, not be deserving of punishment?

I wish for once the FA were ‘on the ball’.