Manchester United midfielder Marouane Fellaini is likely to face retrospective action from the FA after he was filmed hitting out at Leicesters Robert Huth off the ball on Super Sunday, according to Graeme Souness. The 28-year-old appeared to deliberately elbow Huth in the neck before taking another swipe at the defender as they clashed at a corner in the first half of the Premier League clash at Old Trafford.The incident was not penalised by the officials, nor seemingly spotted, and standard procedure for retrospective action for violent conduct - should a player be found guilty - is a three-match ban, which was recently handed to Tottenhams Dele Alli for a similar incident on Monday Night Football last week. Fellaini appeared to deliberately swing an elbow at Huth at a corner Alli will not play again this season after kicking out at West Broms Claudio Yacob in the 1-1 draw at White Hart Lane.Sky Sports football expert Souness, commenting on the incident at half-time on Sky Sports 1 HD, said Fellaini will be lucky to escape without a ban. Louis van Gaal says Manchester United should have been awarded a penalty when Leicesters Robert Huth pulled Marouane Fellainis hair in the box He said: This is no surprise. They are both big, strong aggressive men especially in the air.There is a bit of a tangle and I tell you what, Huth is lucky as well as Fellaini. I say Huth is lucky because he has caught him under the chin. If that catches him full square across his face, then hes lost several teeth or broke his nose and I dont think he can stay on the pitch. Huth was seemingly hurt by the incident as the corner came to nothing In that respect, he is lucky, but Fellaini wont escape a ban for that. I just cant see it.Fellaini started in midfield for the 12th time in the Premier League this season as Leicester and United fought out at a 1-1 draw which kept the Foxes title celebrations on hold. Fellaini started his 12th Premier League game of the season versus Leicester Also See: Van Gaal backs Fellaini Man Utd 1-1 Leicester Charlies Man Utd-Leicester XI Van Gaal: See you next year WATCH: Have Utd approached Jose? Kyle McGowin Jersey . - In about six minutes, the Memphis Grizzlies had allowed their 23-point lead to be cut to seven. Stephen Strasburg Jersey .com) - The fading Ottawa Senators have a chance to make up some ground in the playoff race on Tuesday night as they play host to the New York Rangers. https://www.cheapnationals.com/1757r-adr...ionals.html.com) - Brad Stuart has yet to play a regular-season game for the Colorado Avalanche, but that didnt deter the club from signing the veteran defenseman to a two-year contract extension on Monday. Max Scherzer Jersey .Manager Brendan Rodgers told the Liverpool Echo on Friday that Sturridge pulled his calf muscle in training as he prepared to return from a five-week layoff due to a thigh strain. Erick Fedde Jersey . Mesoraco hurt his hamstring while scoring from second in Friday nights 5-4 loss at Atlanta. Chapman was hit by a line drive during an exhibition game on March 19, breaking his nose and a bone above his left eye. The left-hander looked strong while throwing 43 pitches in batting practice before Saturday nights game against the Braves.A jury has awarded Brian Stow about $18 million for a brutal beating at the hands of Louie Sanchez and Marvin Norwood in the Dodger Stadium parking lot back on opening day in 2011. On March 31, 2011, Stow and some friends went to a Giants-Dodgers game in L.A. Wearing his Giants jersey, Stow was taunted during the game. While leaving the game, he was savagely beaten into unconsciousness by Norwood and Sanchez. He was placed in a medically induced coma for several weeks and a portion of his skull was removed to relieve pressure on his brain. Stow, a Santa Cruz paramedic and the father of two young children, was left with permanent brain damage, unable to work again and will require around the clock care for the rest of his life. The jury found the Dodgers 25 per cent responsible, while Norwood and Sanchez were each found 37.5 per cent responsible. The liability of the Dodgers stems from providing inadequate security at the ballpark. Its been reported that the verdict means that the Dodgers will pay $4.5 million, with Norwood and Sanchez being on the hook for the remaining $13.5 million. Thats not quite accurate. The Dodgers will have to pay the whole amount less $3 million. Under California law (where the trial was held), defendants in personal injury cases are considered "jointly and severally" liable for economic losses. That means that each defendant is ultimately responsible for the entire amount owed to the plaintiff even if he or she is only partly responsible. So if there are three defendants being sued, and two dont have any money, the third has to pick up the tab irrespective of his share of the liability. So that means if the Dodgers were found to be only one per cent liable, the team would still have to pay just about the entire award (some have criticized this legal principle, saying that it unfairly allocates liability). Its important to note, however, that under this legal principle, the Dodgers are only on the hook for Stows economic losses. These are called "special damages" and include things like medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of earnings and loss of future earnings.dddddddddddd On the flip side, the Dodgers are not obligated to pay more than their share of "general damages", which includes pain and suffering and mental anguish. In the Stow case, special damages account for most of the award. According to my math, the jury awarded Stow $14 million in special damages and another $4 million for pain and suffering. So while the Dodgers are only 25 per cent responsible for the $14 million, they pay all of it because Norwood and Sanchez cant pay. On top of that, they only pay $1 million of the $4 million pain and suffering award. So that grand total for the Dodgers is $15 million of the $18 million despite only being 25 per cent responsible. The Dodgers could turn around and sue Norwood and Sanchez, but since they have no money, its probably pointless. By the way, the jury didnt find former Dodger owner Frank McCourt liable. While McCourt was not beloved by Dodger fans or Major League Baseball, that is the right finding. It can be very tough to find an owner responsible in a case like this. Generally, liability will be assigned to the company and not the person running it. McCourt did not assault Stow and should not be liable for his customers engaging in reprehensible behaviour. Its not inappropriate, however, to find a team partly responsible in certain circumstances. Finally, according to this Court Order, Stow has agreed to only seek money from the 17 Dodgers insurance policies and not the team itself. While these insurance policies are unavailable, the Dodgers have said they are worth $300 million. So Stow should get his money. The Court Order was part of a deal to get the Dodgers, who were in bankruptcy court, to agree to move the trial from bankruptcy court in Delaware to a more favourable venue for Stow, namely, a California court. As a result of the incident, Stows life and that of his young family have been forever and irreparably changed. This damage award will help, but of course will never return Stow to any type of normal life. He and his family will always struggle. ' ' '