Joe Hart has escaped punishment after his altercation with George Boyd last week in Manchester City’s 2-0 win over Hull City.

The former Peterborough winger was adjudged to have dived as he tried to win a penalty for his side, prompting an angry reaction from the England keeper, who appeared to headbutt Boyd.

Both players were both booked by referee Lee Mason but the FA decided not to sanction any further punishment to Hart, whose headbutt was hardly dissimilar to the one Alan Pardew planted on David Meyler one week prior.

It begs the question: where is the consistency in the FA?

When Pardew and Meyler clashed, the FA could have imposed any ban they felt necessary on the Newcastle manager, as there was no previous yardstick on which to judge the clash. Pardew requested a personal hearing and an independent panel issued the 52-year-old with a seven match ban.

When the ban was handed to Pardew, the FA were reportedly unhappy with the length and style of the suspension. Apparently, they wanted the stadium ban to be at least five games and the fine much higher.

This proves that the governing body of English football clearly wants to clamp down on clashes like this, so Hart vs. Boyd would have attracted another ban, or so you would have thought.

The reason why the FA chose not to ban Hart for the butt is that Mason seen the incident at the time and booked the City goalkeeper, so they consider the matter dealt with.

Kevin Friend seen Pardew nut Meyler and sent him to the stands, so was that matter not dealt with at the time too?

We get that the two incidents are not identical, given that one involved a manager and one involved a player (a much more common scenario) but surely the FA should have given retrospective action against England’s no.1.

Until matters like this are sorted properly, the FA will continue to receive criticism for its bizarre decisions.