Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, P'head Red said:

Fuming. One thing to remove the ban imposed on the Fulham player, but to penalise BW when he way clearly INTENTIONALLY SHOVED over in an incident completely off the ball. Madness..

Not disagreeing wth your summary, but seeing this 'he was shoved' a lot. It's not so much a shove as a pretty big unit running at you and barging you over. At full speed, Wrights fall seems entirely natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Not disagreeing wth your summary, but seeing this 'he was shoved' a lot. It's not so much a shove as a pretty big unit running at you and barging you over. At full speed, Wrights fall seems entirely natural.

The panel have decided that this does not even merit a yellow card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, otib118 said:

Part that seems to be forgotten is that the game had already been stopped at the other end of the pitch with a Fulham player having the ball in his hand so why wwould he be making a run and shoving Wright in the first place?

Also a good point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spudski said:

I've not had the chance to read all through the posts, but I really can't understand why the Club have published this NOW. Why not wait until after the teams have been announced?

Surely this gives Cardiff an advantage knowing he's not gong to play?

Why not keep shtum?

Presumably because the FA would announce something about how they've managed to successfully managed to end cheating forever :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be pedantic a little.

Our statement makes the point the guidelines for over ruling are:

1.  Is there contact between the players involved?

2.  Is there fair/normal contact between the players, resulting in no offence being committed?

3.   Is a player legitimately avoiding contact with his opponent to prevent injury?

4.    Has the player initiated the contact between his opponent and himself in order to deceive the referee?

5.   Does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee?

They then draw I assume the right conclusion that the FA are relying on 5).

Is there anyone, whatever rose tinted glasses we wear from time to time, who sees the challenge as a 'normal contact challenge'? If not, they cannot over rule.

Yet we have no right of appeal?!!?

Its just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

I've not had the chance to read all through the posts, but I really can't understand why the Club have published this NOW. Why not wait until after the teams have been announced?

Surely this gives Cardiff an advantage knowing he's not gong to play?

Why not keep shtum?

Because the FA announced it on their Twitter account??

https://twitter.com/FAspokesperson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

I've not had the chance to read all through the posts, but I really can't understand why the Club have published this NOW. Why not wait until after the teams have been announced?

Surely this gives Cardiff an advantage knowing he's not gong to play?

Why not keep shtum?

First announced by the FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem amazing that there is no right of appeal, have a look at this case.

In March 2017, Ben Turner received a 5 match ban, for an offence committed in December 2016. Already 4 months later, then he appealed the decision which was upheld. He served his ban at the start of this season, after Burton managed to stay up with him in the team

It was a serious charge he faced, but so is being labelled a cheat. Bailey Wright is unable to appeal, and was given very little warning of the charge.

More FA inconsistency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are a few lawyers who are OTIBers so let me help them out in pin pointing where we COULD challenge the FA to an appeal.

I am basing this on our own ongoing court case which has now been heard in the Royal Court of Justice here in Northern Ireland and is partly about discrimination to my registered blind wife by the DWP. 

The DWP's stance, in my opinion, is that the law was made in 2011 and therefore, isn't open to review as it had been well thought and been made with other outside organisations as consultants. Because it is law, it cannot now be challenged. If you take my above words and substitute DWP for the FA, my wife for our favourite Australian footballer and Discrimination for Simulation you'll find we're in the same legal territory. Here's why I am posting and for lawyers to consider as a result.

One of our arguments for discussion in court was that actually we can challenge a legal law as there is precedent. Carmichael vs Bedroom Tax (as it is known) successfully challenged a legal law in Court a few months ago and won. This made history. However, for the FA to say it can't go to Appeal I would say can in fact now be challenged because of the Carmichael case.   

I would say that whilst our case and that of the Carmichaels was because of a Benefits ruling and therefore a legal matter, the FA isn't actually a Governmental body and could say they are part of the Entertainment industry. However, Bailey has been forced to not do his job for two weeks and is unable to appeal. I would say that he can now appeal because of the Carmichael case. We used this case in our submission.

Finally, it was encouraging to see just how our court system operates. It was fascinating to see that whilst American TV court room dramas show that you can present new evidence just before summing up, that's not the way us Brits do it! Discussion points (called Skeleton) have to be submitted before a certain date and then are subsequently discussed at the court hearing. We will know the Commissioners decision within the next 6 months.

Should anyone know somebody with Retinitis Pigmentosa (genetic eye condition) this is what we have been trying to change from a Benefits point of view. It's taken 3 1/2 years to get this far! Please tell anyone with RP that they haven't been forgotten and that my wife and I, plus our Solicitor, are trying to change the law. One of the ways is using the Carmichael case and hopefully lawyers who read this post, will be able to suggest if this can be applied to make a successful challenge to the FA because of a lack of appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked at the vid and I'm baffled.

No right to appeal, how can that be right given the evidence.

If this was FIFA, I'd understand - their processes are less than transparent.

This is tinpot stuff and the FA are making themselves look stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

 

Oh here we go. Let's all slag off Zak Vyner before we even know if he'll be in the side.

Not slagging him off the slightest. Rate him. 

Play him tomorrow and he’ll be eaten alive. 

Warnock will read “teenage third choice RB plays due to defensive crisis” and lick his lips 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

There’s absolutely no mention of this on any seemingly official FA website. Just an “FA Spokesman” twitter account with about a thousand followers. 

Is this just a very good blag?

Interesting, although the club did confirm that they were contacted by the FA, told about this charge and given (very little) time to respond. Given that, it feels to many steps just for somebody blagging it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Interesting, although the club did confirm that they were contacted by the FA, told about this charge and given (very little) time to respond. Given that, it feels to many steps just for somebody blagging it.

I’d be ringing the FA myself if I were the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...