Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

A player who uses excessive force shall be sent off. 

 

4 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

A player who commits violent conduct shall be sent off. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

 

A player who commits serious foul play should be sent off

Any player that commits simulation has committed unsporting behavior and should be cautioned. 

Any of this help anyone!?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ref would not have shown a red just because BW was on the ground holding his face, it was because the Lino would witnessed the incident and told the ref. He may have had his hands over his face to cover the look of pain from landing on his back. There are 2 people at fault. The Fulham player for giving the ref a decision to make and the Lino for getting it wrong, neither of these two appear to have been punished. Farcical decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Whitchurch1966 said:

The ref would not have shown a red just because BW was on the ground holding his face, it was because the Lino would witnessed the incident and told the ref. He may have had his hands over his face to cover the look of pain from landing on his back. There are 2 people at fault. The Fulham player for giving the ref a decision to make and the Lino for getting it wrong, neither of these two appear to have been punished. Farcical decision.

Remember that incident at P'boro' a few years ago when El Abd was sent off? A Posh player went down. He didn't appeal for anything and neither did his team mates or the fans. The Ref had continued with the game, but the Lino waved as he (thought he) had spotted something no one else had leading to a red card. Did City ever appeal that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Whitchurch1966 said:

The ref would not have shown a red just because BW was on the ground holding his face, it was because the Lino would witnessed the incident and told the ref. He may have had his hands over his face to cover the look of pain from landing on his back. There are 2 people at fault. The Fulham player for giving the ref a decision to make and the Lino for getting it wrong, neither of these two appear to have been punished. Farcical decision.

The linesman saw violent behavior.   He informed the referee. The officials were correct the FA was not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, bristolcitysweden said:

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.

Are you realky saying that there was no contact? because if you are you need a trip to Sweden’s version of Specsavers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the Cardiff player yesterday (Bogle I think) who stayed down after an innocuous challenge, and stayed down.  The ref looked over to him and played on.  The ref looked over again a few seconds later and played on.

Bogle sheepishly got to his feet and trotted around a bit before carrying on as per normal.

Was this not simulation?  Is it not covered because the ref had seen the incidence and decided to take no action?

I wouldn't want a 2-game ban for this as Warnock's squad will end up consisting of the tea lady and himself....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chivs said:

What about the Cardiff player yesterday (Bogle I think) who stayed down after an innocuous challenge, and stayed down.  The ref looked over to him and played on.  The ref looked over again a few seconds later and played on.

Bogle sheepishly got to his feet and trotted around a bit before carrying on as per normal.

Was this not simulation?  Is it not covered because the ref had seen the incidence and decided to take no action?

I wouldn't want a 2-game ban for this as Warnock's squad will end up consisting of the tea lady and himself....

I think Warnock himself should get a two season ban on the ground of his past dramatics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 22A said:

Remember that incident at P'boro' a few years ago when El Abd was sent off? A Posh player went down. He didn't appeal for anything and neither did his team mates or the fans. The Ref had continued with the game, but the Lino waved as he (thought he) had spotted something no one else had leading to a red card. Did City ever appeal that?

The club didn't appeal that one.

Probably because being without El-Abd for three games infinitely improved our chances of winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cider_boy said:

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?

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.

Where have I said I haven't bothered looking at the rules. :facepalm:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Where have I said I haven't bothered looking at the rules. :facepalm:

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.

Actually admire your stance on this @NickJ. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I respect anyone who's willing to put together a decent counter argument.

My personal view is that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to dish out a two match ban that cannot be contested. Irrespective of the wording, that sets a dangerous precedent.

However, following your theory to its logical conclusion we must surely expect (rather ironically) this Fulham player to suffer the same fate as Bailey Wright?

(I posted this link further up but thought it was worth reposting in light of the interesting debate since).

The FA have set a benchmark here that they simply must now follow. I bet they don't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that Kamara's hand has not caught Wright's face. His arm ends up above shoulder height - and the footage to grainy to draw firm conclusions either way. Ergo, the default should be to take no retrospective action, not take a punt on what might have happened.

IMG_7032.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Where have I said I haven't bothered looking at the rules. :facepalm:

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.

Being pushed in the chest off the ball is not a "normal contact challenge".  Happy to help.  Don't mention it.

31 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Actually admire your stance on this @NickJ. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I respect anyone who's willing to put together a decent counter argument.

My personal view is that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to dish out a two match ban that cannot be contested. Irrespective of the wording, that sets a dangerous precedent.

However, following your theory to its logical conclusion we must surely expect (rather ironically) this Fulham player to suffer the same fate as Bailey Wright?

(I posted this link further up but thought it was worth reposting in light of the interesting debate since).

The FA have set a benchmark here that they simply must now follow. I bet they don't.

 

There's nothing admirable here. Move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Kamara received a red which should have been a yellow because the contact was in the chest not the face.

I think most of what you say is fair enough, but what would the yellow card be for?

Surely either it is violent conduct or not. Red card or nothing isn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RidgeRed said:

I note the full reasoning of the panel will be given to the club some time this coming week. Wonder if it will be kept confidential. All those ITK be alert & ready. 

The FA publish written reasons for at least some cases... 

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, REDOXO said:

A player who uses excessive force shall be sent off. 

 

4 hours ago, REDOXO said:

A player who commits violent conduct shall be sent off. 

 

 

4 hours ago, REDOXO said:

 

A player who commits serious foul play should be sent off

However, the player who is the victim of said excessive force, violent conduct and serious foul play shall be punished more severely than the perpetrator, and the perpetuator absolved of any guilt.

This under FA rule Bu(11) 5H 1 T

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

 

 

However, the player who is the victim of said excessive force, violent conduct and serious foul play shall be punished more severely than the perpetrator, and the perpetuator absolved of any guilt.

This under FA rule Bu(11) 5H 1 T

 

Exactly. 

Where does this push in the chest is a yellow stuff come from. 

The rules are clear on violent conduct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Actually admire your stance on this @NickJ. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I respect anyone who's willing to put together a decent counter argument.

My personal view is that the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to dish out a two match ban that cannot be contested. Irrespective of the wording, that sets a dangerous precedent.

However, following your theory to its logical conclusion we must surely expect (rather ironically) this Fulham player to suffer the same fate as Bailey Wright?

(I posted this link further up but thought it was worth reposting in light of the interesting debate since).

The FA have set a benchmark here that they simply must now follow. I bet they don't.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to know that it is only the football league that is subject to the plague that is player simulation, as watching MOTD over the week end, it was good to see that there was no sign of any player simulation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not! 

However, do not hold your breath for any retrospective action against the highly paid stars of wealthy and powerful premier league clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now Wenger is accusing Sterling of diving which resulted in a penalty, (which was scored). I guess this will be looked at and Sterling sitting out for two matches, oh and Wenger getting punished for 3 matches for his comments perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedM said:

Now Wenger is accusing Sterling of diving which resulted in a penalty, (which was scored). I guess this will be looked at and Sterling sitting out for two matches, oh and Wenger getting punished for 3 matches for his comments perhaps?

Wenger's comment was along the lines that we know Sterling does this very well, but from the replays Ive seen Sterling was tripped so absolutely no simulation at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Wenger's comment was along the lines that we know Sterling does this very well, but from the replays Ive seen Sterling was tripped so absolutely no simulation at all.

 

Still worth a try in Wenger's eyes to appeal the decision maybe, if he feels the FA are looking at incidents leading to red cards or penalties and finding against video evidence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickJ said:

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.

You dont think being shoved to the floor when the ball is out of play is an unusual challenge?

In that case I wonder why there are rarely (read "almost never") people being put on their arse when we are waiting for goal kicks or corners to be taken...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, RedM said:

Still worth a try in Wenger's eyes to appeal the decision maybe, if he feels the FA are looking at incidents leading to red cards or penalties and finding against video evidence!

Perhaps hoping that Sterling will be given a retrospective ban to help Arsenal's cause!

Mind you he would also need bans for half the Man City team for aiding and abetting Sterling if anyone else is going to stay a chance in this season's premier league title race.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

You dont think being shoved to the floor when the ball is out of play is an unusual challenge?

In that case I wonder why there are rarely (read "almost never") people being put on their arse when we are waiting for goal kicks or corners to be taken...

I do remember during  the 1996 European Championship that Frank Skinner said that Klinsmann went down after he ( Skinner) brushed past the telly on the way to get a beer. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickJ said:

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.

Well that's debate out of the window your post is nonsense especially the highlighted bit, please show us where within the new law or it's guidelines it has any provision for length of being injured or where exaggeration is even a consideration?.

Firstly if Wright is being punished for exaggeration I would say that if the wonderful FA used that shit as evidence we could end up with 10 players per game being retrospectively banned, how about this if a player goes down like he has been shot and rolls around and looks as though he is having a convulsion (which has and does occur) and doesn't end up being stretchered off it must be exaggeration by your standard?.

Your very last sentence demonstrates how ridiculous the rest of your post actually is, if the FA from here on in adopt a zero tolerance programme which would be incredibly laudable, how many cases will be referred to the panel from last weekends games, will the Cardiff player who went down under Pack's early 2nd half challenge be banned for 'exaggeration'?.

If the FA from here on in do not show a consistency in this field then they have brought the system already into disrepute, because if they were going to be consistent the panel would have a mountain of work to do between now and the end of the international break, because 'exaggeration' and staying down for longer than 20 seconds will have occurred in every single game in the UK and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did BW exaggerate the contact possibly , without a view from the other side we'll never know if the elbow/arm makes contact with his face but. Any MotD , channel 5 , Sky game that a pen is given, the discussion will come down to, is there any contact or does the forward feel contact and if there is most pundits will support the player going down. 
What I really struggle with is the fact it has to be unanimous , I'm amazed that 5 (?) people all think that running into a player arm first is natural , and that if you fall over when a  13 stone athlete deliberately runs into you're play acting. 
What makes it even worse is no explanation or chance to appeal. What happens now, they can't possibly say they were wrong as they haven't given themselves room to make mistakes. If there was an appeal period they could hear it , then see if the explanation changes minds then impose bans or repeal them.  If they (the panel) hear the feedback and decide , well I wasn't 100% really, what do we get (or any team effected) if we drop points in any game effected? Another apology ? That'll come in handy if any team that has had a ban cost them points, they can cash the 'sorry' in at the end of the season.

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...