HitchinRed Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 So, the evidence we’ve seen is pretty damning, and I’ve been trying to understand how they’ve arrived at this decision. As I understand the position, one panel rescinded the red card, another panel decided to charge Bailey with simulation, and then another panel confirmed his guilt. My concern is how 3 separate panels could arrive at broadly the same conclusion. Did Fulham present video evidence from another angle suggesting that no contact was actually made? I’m just trying to understand their decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, downendcity said: Breaking News FA hand retrospective ban on Kevin Keegan for putting his face in the way of Johnny Giles's fist in the Charity Shield back in the 70s. Billy Bremners wasn't it? But Kegan deserved it. Butting a clenched fist with his lip. Disgusting. Joking apart I was wondering if the Taylor over turning had anything to do with the result. The offense is clear from the pictures. To overturn a red card for what amounts to an assault and would be considered as much anywhere but a football field is nuts. A private prosecution on the Fulham player by City will wake the fnck wits who adjudicated this up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderingred Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, 29AR said: If there is an appeals process I would be half tempted to play him on Saturday. If it gets overturned we haven't done anything wrong in playing him, so can't be penalised and it's brilliant fingers up. Big risk in our position though so that's probably just belligerent me. We'd get a points deduction for sure. Not even worth considering. This whole situation has really really put a bee in my bonnet. It's an absolute joke and right before a potentially pivotal game in defining how our season will turn out. I really hope that there will be some justice for this, but the only thing we can really do to stick two fingers up to the corrupt scumbags is beat Cardiff tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Wow. Just wow. Totally behind the FA on stamping out simulation.... but they've got to be 110% certain that simulation occurred. The video is inconclusive A) if it was a deliberate charge and push and B) whether Bailey held his face due to direct contact or indirectly by being winded/shocked . Fine, if there was clearly no contact and Bailey did double-somersaults clutching his face, then ban. We've seen this type of blatant cheating which, rightly, should be punished. Hope City do the FA for £millions. If you agree that this was simulation, with the 'bar' set this low, there should be hundreds of players suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Balls Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 So Fulham appeal a red card for a clear offence, and we end up having a player banned for 2 matches with no right of appeal. That's the kind of "justice" you would expect from some sort of corrupt banana republic. Oh hang on it's the FA... So I would suggest that in the first instance the club approach the Metropolitan Police to report a case of assault at Craven Cottage on Tuesday night, Bailey sues the FA for unreasonable restriction of his profession, while the club and Bailey both approach the Court of Arbitration for Sport. What annoys me most is that the FA wouldn't dare do this to a big Premier League club full of divers, but think that we are a "soft touch" "little club" who they can punish with impunity. I would suggest that SL flex his financial muscle, employ the best lawyers he can find, and prove the FA wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 52 minutes ago, alexukhc said: Anyone see Kamara also put Bryan in the stands in the same game? Yes already mentioned somewhere. And I'm sure he had a go at CoD at one point too. Lots of emphasis has been put on the fact Bailey fell heavily and held his head. Well that seems to be the pretty much accepted way for players to indicate they need the game stopped for them to get treatment. How many hold their heads, ref calls on trainer only for ankles to be treated. And yes it is natural to be in pain and hold your head, I've even seen players bite their own hands/arms in these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Red Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Already posted this in the other thread, but I'd only been watching Wolves v Fulham for about 5 minutes at the start of the second half and saw two reactions to fouls that were far more theatrical than anything Wright did the other night. I won't hold my breath waiting for any action to be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Rocker Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 The whole thing seems positively Stalinist. You are guilty with no right of appeal, and no, you may not see the evidence we have against you. I find it difficult to believe that this is not some elaborate hoax. Utterly bewildering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Just looking again at the video, Bailey wasn't even looking at the guy and wasn't 'set' for a full frontal body charge, no wonder he went down like a sack of potatoes being hit by that unit. Farcical. If we lose tomorrow, think I will ask the FA to pay my travelling and ticket costs. Ought to do a group action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Either gross incompetence or pure corruption on the part of the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elhombrecito Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Kamara has just come on. Sky Sports still spouting the "off camera" nonsense they've been saying all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gow2gooseya Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 And to think the British used to be renowned and respected world-wide for their sense of fair play This smacks of business bias FA = ******* ARSEHOLES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Am A Cider Drinker Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, El Hombrecito said: Kamara has just come on. Sky Sports still spouting the "off camera" nonsense they've been saying all day. I don’t get this? This could be a huge story. How can forcibly pushing an opponent to the ground, off the ball, be acceptable? And then for the victim to then be punished? Sets a very strange precedent relatively early on in the season. Surely this is news worthy stuff when you consider some of the crap they come up with to fill SSN all day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerseybean Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Like most I didn’t see the incident live as it was off the ball. Nevertheless, based on the video that the Club have released today the decision to overturn the red card and ban BW for simulation seems utterly astonishing. 1 At the time the ref saw nothing, so rightly consulted the lino, whatever he saw/said was enough for the ref to show a red card 2 The video clearly shows Kamara raising his arms and contacting BW 3 As is usually the case nobody, other than the player, knows the real impact of the contact. 4 It is clear there is contact and BW’s reaction is to go down, despite what the panel has concluded his reaction to the impact appears to be proportionate and not an over reaction / simulation Be really interesting to show the video to a few non City fans and ask their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 minute ago, I Am A Cider Drinker said: I don’t get this? This could be a huge story. How can forcibly pushing an opponent to the ground, off the ball, be acceptable? And then for the victim to then be punished? Sets a very strange precedent relatively early on in the season. Surely this is news worthy stuff when you consider some of the crap they come up with to fill SSN all day It`s all about SKy`s cosy little relationship with the FA - one hand washes the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 5 hours ago, sh1t_ref_again said: Being shown on https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/4835175/bristol-city-bailey-wright-diving-ban-aboubakar-kamara/ the bit that is not very clear, after he pushes him in the chest it appears that he catches him with the right elbow on the chin Exactly. And if you look at Bailey's head, it clearly swings back as he is falling and the other guys hand comes into shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Few instances in the Wolves game of clear simulation, but luckily for the FA and their rules they only investigate ones where an opponent has been sent off and goal/penalties whatever it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Still no less annoyed. Not least at all at a process that can dish out bans on a whim based on flimsy evidence with no appeals process. Ranting now but I just can't over it, sat in with the Mrs who doesn't care and we don't have a cat to kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppyDAZE Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 I love Tammy Abraham, but why the fock did he chose to play for those cnts at the FA over Nigeria. Bad choice, Tammy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 14 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: Still no less annoyed. Not least at all at a process that can dish out bans on a whim based on flimsy evidence with no appeals process. Ranting now but I just can't over it, sat in with the Mrs who doesn't care and we don't have a cat to kick. According to the FA if you kick the cat it will be the cat that gets chucked out of the house for a night in the garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 I have No opinion about WHO was at fault as I have nor seen the incident but the English game is getting ruinen by primadonnas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Laughable ***** would be the assessment from the 70's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, downendcity said: According to the FA if you kick the cat it will be the cat that gets chucked out of the house for a night in the garden. 2 nights in the garden actually! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon6956 Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 17 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said: I love Tammy Abraham, but why the fock did he chose to play for those cnts at the FA over Nigeria. Bad choice, Tammy. He's playing for his country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyredredrobin Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Could be the driving forcebehind an England resurgence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderingred Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 From the article quoted earlier: 43% of people think he should have been banned? I've watched the incident several times and I'm still baffled. Exactly what are we missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC11 Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 Absolutely disgraceful decision. Hope we take the FA to the ******* cleaners. Bottlejobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selred Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, Wanderingred said: From the article quoted earlier: 43% of people think he should have been banned? I've watched the incident several times and I'm still baffled. Exactly what are we missing here? Blue and white quartered tinted glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redapple Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 4 hours ago, INCRED said: Perhaps you would like to repeat the scenario with a similar sized athlete and see how you react? i dare say you will go down like a sack of shit!! He would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted November 3, 2017 Report Share Posted November 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, Wanderingred said: From the article quoted earlier: 43% of people think he should have been banned? I've watched the incident several times and I'm still baffled. Exactly what are we missing here? Speaking to a mate (not a gashead) of mine earlier who bought that he was milking it for all he could. Lots of opposition fans will buy that he's simulating as that's what its reported as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.