Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

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.  

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RidgeRed said:

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. 

Perhaps, but I assume that the standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

I find it odd though that in other circumstances the referee's decision cannot be overturned if he saw the incident but there is now an exception for simulation.

That leaves the FA open to challenge where a referee has made a decision in good faith having seen a different kind of incident on the grounds that they have set a precedent imo.

I predict that this will go the way of other alleged crackdowns - e.g. holding in the area - and be quietly forgotten within a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you're right China. The initiative will disappear, eventually. Seems the FA has backed itself into a corner here as opposed to other rules re ref's decisions. Also find it odd that the rule came in for this season, August, but they didn't "prosecute" until October & even that was a very doubtful case - Miller. Did they not find any worthy incidents Aug, Sept? Guess we'll never know.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Bailey was pushed in the chest or head is only relevant in deciding whether its a red or yellow (based on the rules as I understand them, not that I agree).

If it was only chest, no one upon no one except Bailey knows whether he landed badly on his neck/head or even jarred it from the totally unexpected and quite violent push. 

Overwhelming evidence bullshit.

Unsurprising comments from Nick J though given his general anti BCFC rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

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.

Let’s be clear about this, firstly so far the club have been given a ruling with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, secondly the referee never saw the incident and acted purely on the word of the assistant, how does the referee even know that Wright is claiming to be hit in the face?, just because he is holding his face is not evidence, it seems to me that the push was forceful enough to put the player on the ground and the only person who has ****** up (if any) is the referee and his assistant it was the referees decision based on information from the assistant, end of, maybe rescind the red on seeing the video but the FA’s outcome is nonsense and has already brought this new process into ridicule and meanwhile later today in 2 premiership games the real guilty cheats won’t even be investigated, it’s utter nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Just seen the Millwall vs Burton highlights and you have to feel for the Burton player. Bursts forward and beats Jed Wallace to the ball who clips his heel as he dives in. Wallace is subsequently sent off but the Burton player can be observed firstly clutching his shin and then his forehead when clearly contact was made with his heel and will now inevitably be handed a 2 game ban for simulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per usual with the FA the system is totally and utterly bent, cheating in the premiership the supposed flag ship league in England is rife with cheating in pretty much in some way shape or form in every single game, I suspect the 2 high profile games today will contain more cheating than say 6 championship games did yesterday and I am not aware of one prem player yet being charged but a 2nd division player and now a championship player have already fallen foul.

The evidence was there very early in the season.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/22/calvert-lewin-sergio-aguero-fa-simulation-manchester-city-everton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Just seen the Millwall vs Burton highlights and you have to feel for the Burton player. Bursts forward and beats Jed Wallace to the ball who clips his heel as he dives in. Wallace is subsequently sent off but the Burton player can be observed firstly clutching his shin and then his forehead when clearly contact was made with his heel and will now inevitably be handed a 2 game ban for simulation.

Wasn't there also a game in the championship shown last night where a defender clearly kept the ball from crossing the line with his hand, which was missed by the officials and then to back his case up crouched in the goal rubbing his head, will that be punished?.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

As per usual with the FA the system is totally and utterly bent, cheating in the premiership the supposed flag ship league in England is rife with cheating in pretty much in some way shape or form in every single game, I suspect the 2 high profile games today will contain more cheating than say 6 championship games did yesterday and I am not aware of one prem player yet being charged but a 2nd division player and now a championship player have already fallen foul.

The evidence was there very early in the season.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/22/calvert-lewin-sergio-aguero-fa-simulation-manchester-city-everton

If you read this report there is clearly a case of double standards, depending on what level of football you are playing at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cidercity1987 said:

Whether Bailey was pushed in the chest or head is only relevant in deciding whether its a red or yellow (based on the rules as I understand them, not that I agree).

If it was only chest, no one upon no one except Bailey knows whether he landed badly on his neck/head or even jarred it from the totally unexpected and quite violent push. 

Overwhelming evidence bullshit.

Unsurprising comments from Nick J though given his general anti BCFC rhetoric.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Just seen the Millwall vs Burton highlights and you have to feel for the Burton player. Bursts forward and beats Jed Wallace to the ball who clips his heel as he dives in. Wallace is subsequently sent off but the Burton player can be observed firstly clutching his shin and then his forehead when clearly contact was made with his heel and will now inevitably be handed a 2 game ban for simulation.

Hard to "feel for" any Burton player after the time wasting, simulating, fouling, game stopping crap they served up at Ashton Gate. I still fume about the guy who went down clutching his head, got the game stopped, the said he didn't need the trainer and so got up without having to even leave the pitch. Job done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NickJ said:

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.

Debate:- Firstly the FA are totally unfit for purpose, secondly if you read my guardian link you will see how bent the system has been from the start.

The rule has been introduced for a good reason but as usual with the FA it is not implemented in an even handed way, they seek to protect the worst cheats because it is their flagship money making gravy train.

Sometimes in life you have expose hypocrisy otherwise you will be force fed shit for the rest of your life, I might have some sympathy for your view if some of the prem's serial cheats already plying their trade this season had been punished but so far?, nothing and nothing will happen today either and yet we all know that open cheating/simulation will happen in today's 2 games.

I hope the club expose the ridiculousness of this the latest in a long line of embarrassing FA decisions, I am amazed how anybody working at the FA at a high level are still in position given it's scandalous handling of the Aluko/SAmpson case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Debate:- Firstly the FA are totally unfit for purpose, secondly if you read my guardian link you will see how bent the system has been from the start.

The rule has been introduced for a good reason but as usual with the FA it is not implemented in an even handed way, they seek to protect the worst cheats because it is their flagship money making gravy train.

Sometimes in life you have expose hypocrisy otherwise you will be force fed shit for the rest of your life, I might have some sympathy for your view if some of the prem's serial cheats already plying their trade this season had been punished but so far?, nothing and nothing will happen today either and yet we all know that open cheating/simulation will happen in today's 2 games.

I hope the club expose the ridiculousness of this the latest in a long line of embarrassing FA decisions, I am amazed how anybody working at the FA at a high level are still in position given it's scandalous handling of the Aluko/SAmpson case.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NickJ said:

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. 

It is not a partizan view to say that the FA have undoubtedly instigated a system whereby it ignores the biggest cheats because of money, the system would have a far greater impact if several high profile serial cheats were given lengthy bans, not just one player from the championship and one from the 2nd division, the high profile serial cheats will continue to ply their trade because they are being enabled by the FA's system, how is that going to stop the cheating?.

A case to answer needs far more evidence than a man holding his face and so far that evidence has not been forthcoming, all that BCFC have received is a conclusion with absolutely no detail as to how they arrived at their decision.

Of course we want football to be cleared of all diving and simulation, I hate it but is it too much to ask for a system that punishes ALL including the biggest cheats the people whose behaviour in the main brought about the necessity of having this system brought in?, you know the premier league players all of whom have so far escaped and will continue to escape today, tomorrow and next week, because of the gravy train implications.

And no it would be better if the FA did their job honestly and started the process where it is needed most and not trial it with the servants below stairs first in the typical British FA way.

Also please explain the fairness in a system that allows Fulham having the time to launch an appeal but BCFC not only not being given the full evidence but not even the courtesy of an appeal?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there is an element of every sport which involves, to a certain extent, trying to hoodwink whoever is “reffing/umpiring etc”... when a bowler shouts “Howzat!” in cricket, he’s basically asking the umpire to give it, similarly in tennis, John McEnroes tantrums about balls being in and chalk dust we’re again all about getting a decision to go his way. These sports have therefore compensated for human error/ eyesight etc by bringing in video technology. If football were to do the same, not for every incident but certainly for apparent red cards surely any “simulation” could be spotted then and there. It’s a hard thing to teach kids that a refs decision is final when it either isn’t ( see numerous appeals which have resulted in decisions being overturned) or isn’t checked out at the time. I’m no expert and can’t tell if, I’m this case, there is simulation or not but then, neither am I being paid to make that decision...we either say the ref is always right ( and if there is an error this is addressed as would any other error in any profession be) or we give him/ her the technology with which to review critical decisions- penalties/ red cards would surely be enough as these have the most impact. Personallt I feel if Bailey is shoved hard enough to fall over he is entitled to hold/ protect any part of his body as he falls as it’s the shove that is the misdemeanour....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RedKatieScarlett said:

Surely there is an element of every sport which involves, to a certain extent, trying to hoodwink whoever is “reffing/umpiring etc”... when a bowler shouts “Howzat!” in cricket, he’s basically asking the umpire to give it, similarly in tennis, John McEnroes tantrums about balls being in and chalk dust we’re again all about getting a decision to go his way. These sports have therefore compensated for human error/ eyesight etc by bringing in video technology. If football were to do the same, not for every incident but certainly for apparent red cards surely any “simulation” could be spotted then and there. It’s a hard thing to teach kids that a refs decision is final when it either isn’t ( see numerous appeals which have resulted in decisions being overturned) or isn’t checked out at the time. I’m no expert and can’t tell if, I’m this case, there is simulation or not but then, neither am I being paid to make that decision...we either say the ref is always right ( and if there is an error this is addressed as would any other error in any profession be) or we give him/ her the technology with which to review critical decisions- penalties/ red cards would surely be enough as these have the most impact. Personallt I feel if Bailey is shoved hard enough to fall over he is entitled to hold/ protect any part of his body as he falls as it’s the shove that is the misdemeanour....

Couldn't agree more about video tech for such incidents as per so many other sports. Instead the FA look at it in secret & stir up the sort of debate we're now having because some of us feel BW has been victimised, others feel we should accept the ruling even though other clubs/players may get away with cheating. Total mess the governing body has made of this. NickJ suggests City highlight other instances that may have gone unpunished, if I read him right (apologies if not), but it's not our place to do that & it would make us rather unpopular. Needs all clubs to make a stand, as one, on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Es MB for posting the Guardian article. The FA rule re referral to the "simulation panel" seems to hinge on there clearly being no contact. So re BW's case they must have seen video that shows Kamara didn't actually touch Wright to be able to ban him for simulation. Assume the club will demand to see that video, too. If it exists then BW deserves the ban. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RidgeRed said:

Well done Es MB for posting the Guardian article. The FA rule re referral to the "simulation panel" seems to hinge on there clearly being no contact. So re BW's case they must have seen video that shows Kamara didn't actually touch Wright to be able to ban him for simulation. Assume the club will demand to see that video, too. If it exists then BW deserves the ban. 

The video is already on this thread and clearly shows quite violent contact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The video is already on this thread and clearly shows quite violent contact.

Exactly Es, it does, but I'm wondering if Fulham supplied a different video to the FA to support their man. Maybe a steward took it with his phone!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Situations like this happen all the game. Both players were aware of what was going to happen five sceonds before the incident. If Wright was heavily pushed in the chest he would have been backpaddling and then falling over. Wright took a few step backwards and ended the act with a Fosbury flop holding his head were there was clearly no contact. As said these things happen all the time. We had to pay the price for the assistant refs misstake. The Fulham player should not have been sent off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NickJ said:

Haven't seen the FA wording, but what their rules say wouldn't be my main point.

Then I'm not entirely sure how you can 'debate' the position. Surely the wording of the FA rules are a vital part of the debate?

4 hours ago, NickJ said:

Try debating the issue rather than make a personal dig.

Rules are rules. The FA has made its decision.

 

Yep, rules are rules, but you can't be bothered to read what they say before debating the issue?:facepalm:

Most posters on this thread are annoyed about the fact that the FA (EFL) don't appear to actually be sticking to their own rules, what the rules say is a vital point of the debate.

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...