Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Crackers Corner said:

Wow now that should be a 2 game ban, bet it doesn't though 

Did it result in a red card though? That seems to be the issue. Blatant simulation like that, ref misses it and nothing happens, ref sees it and yellow cards either player, nothing happens. So, basically, its got nothing to do with how extereme the simulation was, and everything to do with how crap the ref was. FA are going to get themselves into a complete mess over this, and I hope that we take it further as a club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I try to see these things from a unbiased perspective, which often leaves me at odds with the majority of supporters.

But in this instance, I'm disgusted. The Fulham player has quite clearly raised his arms. There is absolutely no way a video panel can be anywhere near certain that Wright has "simulated" the fall. An absolute disgrace.

Personally I think he is pushed in the chest, he is barely touched in the face. He is then holding his face just before he touches the ground. 

Am I surprised at the decision - yes

is it the wrong decision - I’m not so sure.

i certainly don’t think there is enough evidence to make that call though, and if this is the line they are taking in this instance then we can expect hundreds of these ban by the end of the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Did it result in a red card though? That seems to be the issue. Blatant simulation like that, ref misses it and nothing happens, ref sees it and yellow cards either player, nothing happens. So, basically, its got nothing to do with how extereme the simulation was, and everything to do with how crap the ref was. FA are going to get themselves into a complete mess over this, and I hope that we take it further as a club.

Agree. Said same earlier in the thread. You get penalised more because the ref is poor  and doesn’t spot it which is daft.The same conduct should warrant same penalty.

Basically, in the face off being hit off the ball, you are supposed to act like a robot and not react, which means the aggressor is more likely to get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, eardun said:

Agree. Said same earlier in the thread. You get penalised more because the ref is poor  and doesn’t spot it which is daft.The same conduct should warrant same penalty.

Basically, in the face off being hit off the ball, you are supposed to act like a robot and not react, which means the aggressor is more likely to get away with it.

Brilliantly put. Top man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

Not going to read through all of this thread but Mark seems to suggest that the panel could not possibly have reached their verdict had they examined the footage of Kamara ploughing into Wright. It could also be read that the said panel may also not have been given that part of the footage. In short, one could not blame the panel but the FA process. 

Is that what people are getting worked up about? If so then justified. 

IF they weren’t given the footage, then the only other thing I’ve seen, on the highlights, didn’t show the incident at all, so that would be even less reason to justify banning Bailey Wright! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wanderingred said:

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.

Said the same thing on my post,  let's hope this circus gees the boys up to hammer Cardiff and show the world we don't bow down to corruption and are not pussy cats.  COYR's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Yeah and Joe was not a happy bunny . Refused a hand shake afterwards and was forced by the ref to shake .

Their player was agressive through out and deserved to get sent off .

He was a danger to all .

 

If you saw him last night you would have seen him come on as a sub, and within minutes the guy is throwing the ball in a hissy at the Wolves guy who has the throw in. What a knob this bloke is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a start the people that run football are ******* clowns, the whole episode was avoidable the behaviour of the Fulham player should have been dealt with in the first half when it became obvious that he had lost his head and committed several fouls (including pushing Joe Bryan over the barriers) and showing a ridiculous amount of contempt towards the referee over every decision. The referee clearly did not see the incident but obviously the assistant did and immediately passed onto the referee what he saw.

Let's hope that any FA clowns at today's game report what they see because I suspect knowing how Warnock teams normally operate they will have a lot to deal with.

What makes matters worse is the amount of simulation happening today in the premier that will go unpunished.

This sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, slartibartfast said:

Any justice, the FA should be taken to the ****** cleaners !

They have proved themselves not fit to run the game, just a couple of weeks ago they were exposed as a corrupt organisation, and this incident rather proves that they see things differently to any number of people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, steveybadger said:

BW made the most of it (possibly). It's still a very very clear red card.

Exactly. I would disagree, but could accept, if they said "Wright made a meal of it, he needs a ban". But as they've rescinded the red card they're essentially saying that Kamara did nothing wrong when he ran at BW and shoved him hard in the chest. It's nonsense. If I were the club I would give serious consideration to a civil action against Kamara for assault- not because I think that's an appropriate way to deal with incidents like this on the football pitch, but because the FA need to be shown that as much as 'simulation' needs to be stamped out, they have a duty of care to stop acts of violence on the pitch

I remain utterly flabbergasted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

Exactly. I would disagree, but could accept, if they said "Wright made a meal of it, he needs a ban". But as they've rescinded the red card they're essentially saying that Kamara did nothing wrong when he ran at BW and shoved him hard in the chest. It's nonsense. If I were the club I would give serious consideration to a civil action against Kamara for assault- not because I think that's an appropriate way to deal with incidents like this on the football pitch, but because the FA need to be shown that as much as 'simulation' needs to be stamped out, they have a duty of care to stop acts of violence on the pitch

I remain utterly flabbergasted 

Yep, if Wright wasn't hit in the head and went down clutching it, then whether he was pushed or not it could be perceived as simulation, ie conning the ref it was worse than it was. But for Kamara to get away without a ban after being correctly sent off for violent conduct (i don't buy that a 'push' is only worth a yellow - he raised his hands)...... Your word of flabbergasted applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2017 at 15:51, Merrick's Marvels said:

You're not understanding my point.

The panel appear to have decided that Wright gets pushed in the torso/arm but he pretends it was to his face - that's simulation, nothing to do with what the Fulham player did, it's what Wright did.

Forget the Fulham player - we're agreed he deserved a red for raising his arms.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 16:18, Merrick's Marvels said:

The simulation has nothing to do with whether the Fulham player raised his arms (it's not disputed), nothing to do with the fact "Bailey got whacked" (it's not disputed), nothing to do with whetehr his fall to the floor was appropriate.

The simulation is to do with where he got hit. The panel have decided it was not on the face and punished our player for pretending it was.

Not sure how many different ways there are to explain it, so I'm out.

 

 

On 11/3/2017 at 16:50, Merrick's Marvels said:

The Sky highlights show Wright clutching his face... 

 

On 11/3/2017 at 17:10, Merrick's Marvels said:

Laughable. A big tough Aussie gets a whack on the torso so clutches his face and his legs collapse.

He'll be playing in a pink tutu next!

I'm sure dislocating your knee was excruciating btw but the same level of agony seems highly unlikely in Wright's case.

Fully agree with you, one of the few that does it seems.

Kamara pushed Bailey in the chest, which is a yellow not  a red.

Bailey went down holding his face and stayed there a long time, which is simulation.

Under the rules, FA spot on.

 

On 11/3/2017 at 17:41, Fordy62 said:

Lets look at facts:

Is it an assault in terms of the law? Yes. 

Is it a red card? Maybe. 

Can we definitely tell that Wright was struck to the face? No. 

Can we definitely tell that Wright wasn’t struck to the face? No. 

Can we definitely say that Wright over egged it? No. 

 

Is it a red card? No - pushing in the chest is a yellow not a red.

Did Kamara's arms flick up on to Bailey's face after the push in the chest? Possibly, but any impact would have been his chin and as Bailey by then was falling away, force would be minimal.

Can we definitely say Bailey over egged it? No.

Can we say on the balance of probabilities he did? Yes, and if it had been the other way round most of the responses on this thread would have been the complete opposite.

In my view the club statement supporting what was almost certainly an act of exaggeration by Bailey is inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NickJ said:

 

 

 

Fully agree with you, one of the few that does it seems.

Kamara pushed Bailey in the chest, which is a yellow not  a red.

Bailey went down holding his face and stayed there a long time, which is simulation.

Under the rules, FA spot on.

 

Is it a red card? No - pushing in the chest is a yellow not a red.

Did Kamara's arms flick up on to Bailey's face after the push in the chest? Possibly, but any impact would have been his chin and as Bailey by then was falling away, force would be minimal.

Can we definitely say Bailey over egged it? No.

Can we say on the balance of probabilities he did? Yes, and if it had been the other way round most of the responses on this thread would have been the complete opposite.

In my view the club statement supporting what was almost certainly an act of exaggeration by Bailey is inappropriate.

So then, in essence you’re admitting that the FA shouldn’t have banned BW for simulation. Your use of “on the balance of probabilities” is a far cry from the FA’s very own wording of requiring “overwhelming evidence” - which they definitely don’t have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Fully agree with you, one of the few that does it seems.

Kamara pushed Bailey in the chest, which is a yellow not  a red.

Bailey went down holding his face and stayed there a long time, which is simulation.

Under the rules, FA spot on.

Is it a red card? No - pushing in the chest is a yellow not a red.

Did Kamara's arms flick up on to Bailey's face after the push in the chest? Possibly, but any impact would have been his chin and as Bailey by then was falling away, force would be minimal.

Can we definitely say Bailey over egged it? No.

Can we say on the balance of probabilities he did? Yes, and if it had been the other way round most of the responses on this thread would have been the complete opposite.

In my view the club statement supporting what was almost certainly an act of exaggeration by Bailey is inappropriate.

I totally get where you're coming from and, personally, I think you make a decent argument.

The issue for me is one of consistency...

- Why has Wright been punished for this when 'deception' of officials happens all game, every game?

- How can the FA make this the first ruling of its type when, as you allude to yourself, you can't even be certain Wright has 100% exaggerated?

- If Kamara only got booked, would Wright really still have received a two-game ban even though his behaviour was exactly the same? In essence, in my opinion, whether the deception is successful or not should be irrelevant - it's the intention, not the result, that should be punished.

To sum up, I think if this was the 50th such example of this type of ban you could disagree with it but perhaps accept it a bit. What we shouldn't accept is the FA only applying their rules once every few weeks and, seemingly, to smaller clubs in the ladder.

Just my two cents' worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Fordy & NickJ are correct in different ways. There is a lack of certainty that Bailey deceived the ref or the assistant, to be more accurate, as the ref apparently didn't see Kamara's action. I'm in favour of the FA initiative but they have to find cast-iron cases not probable ones or the whole thing lacks credibility. 

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...