Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

NickJ

Members
  • Content count

    4,283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

NickJ last won the day on April 12

NickJ had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,905

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Chew Valley
  • Interests
    Bristol City, England. Football. CTID

Recent Profile Visitors

2,796 profile views
  1. Yes another thread about Cotts (Merged)

    That would be a great post if it was factually correct
  2. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    That's the crux of it.
  3. Forgot to say, the answer is at post 112.
  4. Got it. Having googled Bristol City and 190 the answer is in here:
  5. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    Let's see what happens. If there are instances of similar (or probably worse) actions which go unpunished, I will be right up there with you letting the FA have it full barrel. But I can only conclude by re-iterating the salient points in our case. Does Kamara's action or punishment have any bearing on Bailey's punishment if he has committed an offence? NO. Is the rule on simulation badly worded? YES. Is the rule designed to cut out simulation? YES. Has Bailey made a meal of it? YES. Therefore have the FA made a decision which is in accordance with the spirit of the rule? YES. Should fans therefore applaud the decision? IMO, YES. Instead of sulking and trying to get off on a technicality, BCFC and Bailey should be bigger and take it on the chin...... which is what did not happen to Bailey at Fulham and is therefore why his reaction was a bit embarrassing.
  6. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    A fair point, but does not in any way alter the point that I - and a few others now it would seem - are making, which is that: - the spirit of the rule is to cut out simulation - the wording of the rule may not be the best - the panel has made a decision in accordance with the spirit of the rule But like you I too hope that the cheats in the Premiership - and other leagues - are pursued as vigorously, and indeed IMO what BCFC should be doing is highlighting those instances to the FA, not to get Bailey off, but to ensure the FA uphold the rule in all cases.
  7. Fortunately for those of us that were there the scoreline didn't in fact, say it all. Hindsight a wonderful thing of course but can't resist replying to this. I went up last night and was told by both my son and my dad beforehand for the same reasons you allude to, that it would be a waste of time. In fact it was a very enjoyable game and - and to be fair like you I had reservations to say the least about our midfield - our midfield, with obviously L-C the standout, was very effective in both nullifying the Germans the longer the game went on, and instigating some very worthwhile attacking moves. All in all I was greatly encouraged and the only shame for me was that - and this is just my opinion - Tammy looked a bit out of place at times.
  8. Jobsworth much...?!

    Aah yes the good old "I was only following orders" excuse. Looking at the video and all those empty seats surrounding a few fans causing no problem or harm to anybody, that is a bit lame to say the least.
  9. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    As you will have seen from my posts, I am 100% in agreement with you, and the bit I have highlighted is exactly the point which seems to be missed. On the contrary, 'exaggerating the effect' is exactly the point. The wording of the rule, particularly "normal contact challenge", without doubt does not make any sense, but we all know that the purpose of the rule is to discourage players from simulation, which is what 'exaggerating the effect' is. Yes, BCFC IMO would have a legal basis to challenge the decision, if they wished to do so, on a literal interpretation of the wording of the rule. But it would go against the very essence of what the FA is very laudably trying to achieve.
  10. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    Are you always this angry and dismissive of somebody's opinion?
  11. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    Regarding whether the video evidence is inconclusive, what can we see. It is clear that Bailey has been pushed quite forcefully, so there cannot possibly be any simulation in the act of falling to the floor. So the FA have obviously decided that simulation has arisen from what happened thereafter. What happens thereafter is that rather than get back up straight away, as for example the referee did when di Canio pushed him in the chest to the floor, Bailey spends 20 seconds on the floor alternately holding his head and his face. (I wonder how many contributors to this thread have viewed the BCTV highlights which shows the full aftermath, rather than the shortened version included in the BCFC statement). Leading on from that, I would guess that both of the FA panels have considered whether the push to the chest was sufficient to warrant those 20 seconds, clearly they have decided not. And think about it, had he actually been struck in the head or the face, surely this would have been emphasized by BCFC in the statement, which does not but focuses instead on "falling awkwardly". I agree with those that would say, compared with other instances of simulation we have all seen, that the decision is harsh. I would also agree that if the rule is not applied to all clubs consistently, then it is unfair on Bailey and BCFC. And I also agree @Chivs that being pushed in the chest is not a "normal contact challenge", and that is what the BCFC statement appears to be all about. But it is a statement based on a technical argument, failing to accept that irrespective of that, Bailey has almost certainly exaggerated the effects of the push. So, irrespective of whether Kamara deserves a red or a yellow, irrespective of whether the FA are right to rescind his red, irrespective of whether there is a technical flaw in the FA's decision due to its odd phrase "normal contact challenge", irrespective of whether other players should have been punished but haven't been, irrespective of whether the FA is "fit for purpose" (@Esmond Million's Bung) I think that Bailey has exaggerated the effects of the push. And as such, if this is the start of a zero tolerance policy towards simulation, which most fans have been complaining about for years, I think it should be supported by fans and players and clubs, not challenged just because one of the first decisions goes against you.
  12. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    Where have I said I haven't bothered looking at the rules. Irrespective of what the rules say, my view and original point is that a player should not exaggerate an injury caused by a foul in order to get another player booked or sent off. In my view having looked not just at the video clip included in the BCFC statement, but also the longer clip following the incident on the BCTV highlights, Bailey appears to do just that, although as I have said, we have all seen much worse. Regarding the rules, I would assume that the FA have reached their conclusion under the rule which says "exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee". Quite what is meant by a "normal contact challenge" is anybody's guess, but a 3 man panel made the decision and a further 3 man panel confirmed it. Following the push Bailey is on the floor for 20 seconds, firstly horizontal holding his head, then sideways clutching his face, then reverts to horizontal again, then sits up holding his head, then as the referee walks over lies back down once again holding his head. I would imagine both panels looked at this and did not believe a push to the chest could cause such trauma. Kamara received a red which should have been a yellow because the contact was in the chest not the face. It seems to me that both rules have been applied correctly. I get the point about FA inconsistency, but if Bailey is guilty of attempting to deceive the ref, then to argue that he should not be punished because other players have not received the same for similar (or worse) simulations, is totally the wrong way round in my view - all clubs with the interest of the game at heart should be seeking to have all players punished, including their own. The statement by BCFC argues that the rules have not been applied properly - that may or may not be the case, but BCFC would be a bigger and better club in my view to take a detached view and answer themselves honestly whether Bailey really was as badly hurt as his time on the ground holding his head would have us believe.
  13. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    If we take a non-partizan view, as I have tried to, I think most people would have to agree that Bailey's prolonged holding of his head after being pushed in the chest is not what you would expect. Not that it was that bad, we have all seen a lot worse, but there is a definitely a case to answer, if we want football cleared of diving, simulation, and players trying to get other players sent off. Would it not be better if, rather than defend an offence which the FA has determined should be punished, BCFC took a lead in making representations to the FA highlighting similar or worse offences which should also be punished.
  14. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    Try debating the issue rather than make a personal dig. You should get your facts right. I am rarely critical of any player. Rules are rules. The FA has made its decision. BCFC should respect the decision which has been made, whether they agree with it or not. To openly challenge a legitimate decision made in accordance with the rules is futile, achieves nothing - unless we want to adopt the Millwall "no-one likes us we don't care" mentality - and does not set a good example to the players, IMO. The rule has been introduced for good reason which most of us would agree with, the club should support the FA in this, not sulk about the first decision that goes against us.
  15. Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches

    Haven't seen the FA wording, but what their rules say wouldn't be my main point. Bailey was pushed in the chest but went down clutching his face and stayed horizontal for a lot longer than you would expect. The footage included in the club statement does not show the full amount of time Bailey stayed down for, nor does it show him sit up, then go back down holding his head again.
×