wendyredredrobin Posted November 6, 2017 Report Share Posted November 6, 2017 I suspect that the 5 all made the decision in haste due to needing to be at an FA boozing event shortly after. Either that or the boozing event was before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted November 6, 2017 Report Share Posted November 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: 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. Are you always this angry and dismissive of somebody's opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 6, 2017 Report Share Posted November 6, 2017 2 hours 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! Bailey Wright was banned for 2 games as there was conclusive evidence that he was attacked by Kamara, and pretty conclusive evidence he was struck in or around the head. On that basis, as the evidence completely supports the referees decision to award a penalty, we should expect Sterling to be banned until after Christmas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted November 6, 2017 Report Share Posted November 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, downendcity said: Bailey Wright was banned for 2 games as there was conclusive evidence that he was attacked by Kamara, and pretty conclusive evidence he was struck in or around the head. On that basis, as the evidence completely supports the referees decision to award a penalty, we should expect Sterling to be banned until after Christmas. FA logic yes, and Wenger banned for asking for FA to look at it too I expect, even if found in his favour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 6, 2017 Report Share Posted November 6, 2017 1 hour ago, NickJ said: Are you always this angry and dismissive of somebody's opinion? Your opinion is highly flawed by a) the available evidence b) by your personal interpretation of what happened and c) your interpretation of how the FA arrived at their decision but most of all because if fans from the 92 clubs + others involved in the FA cup were canvassed about similar events in every single game over the weekend that the FA has jurisdiction over I suspect that every one of them could point to an incidence of simulation, exaggeration and cheating, how many will be investigated? does that add up to zero tolerance?. For what it's worth here is what I believe has occurred, Fulham appealed and the FA studied their evidence, an outraged BCFC have since posted a video of exactly what actually occurred in the incident and the FA who can never ever be wrong because of their impeccable record of getting things so right all of the time are sitting in various corners of their nice offices with their fingers in their ears and their eyes closed saying we cannot hear or see you in their usual manner. With all of the choices of simulation that the FA could have chosen to have made their stand about, this case is without doubt the most ridiculous imaginable and has now placed the FA in an embarrassing situation of having to defend not only their decision that is universally being laughed at but also explain why similar incidents will go totally unpunished. I abhor cheating, did Wright over react of course he did, was the shove enough to put him on the ground of course it was, was there contact with his face probably not but inconclusive, was the shove an act of violence of course it was within the context of a game of football and would it constitute a minor assault in common law yes it would. I await with baited breath the FA banning Manu's Phil Jones for his acrobatic dive leading to a disallowed own goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddevon Posted November 8, 2017 Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 Any further news on this. Thought the FA were supplying report/evidence to BCFC "after the weekend". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenzos Only Goal Posted November 9, 2017 Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 23 hours ago, reddevon said: Any further news on this. Thought the FA were supplying report/evidence to BCFC "after the weekend". Yup week is nearly over, I wonder if we have the full reasoning yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Block Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2017/the-fa-v-bailey-wright---3-november-2017.ashx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I'm struggling for words, he's literally banned because they've deemed it a normal contact challenge WHEN THE BALL ISN'T EVEN IN PLAY! And on the basis of Bailey holding his face, you know what a lot of people do when they're in pain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, hodge said: I'm struggling for words, he's literally banned because they've deemed it a normal contact challenge WHEN THE BALL ISN'T EVEN IN PLAY! And on the basis of Bailey holding his face, you know what a lot of people do when they're in pain! I was holding my face when I heard the FA decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 'Mr Wright is a centre back experienced in the Championship and the physical demands of this league. Therefore, this confounds his reaction where he holds his face after going to ground' So if you do hurt yourself it doesn't count because you're experienced in the physical demands of the league...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Well at least we now know the FA took it seriously. Wright's panel was Ken Monkou, now on Chelsea TV & owner of a pancake house after retiring from football, plus Tony Agana who does matchday hospitality for Sheff U. It must have been almost impossible to find any bigger hitters in football than a washed up 54 year old former journeyman & a Dutch player with no recent serious connection to the game.. For ****'s sake this is Carabou Cup draw in his amateurishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, GrahamC said: Well at least we now know the FA took it seriously. Wright's panel was Ken Monkou, now on Chelsea TV & owner of a pancake house after retiring from football, plus Tony Agana who does matchday hospitality for Sheff U. It must have been almost impossible to find any bigger hitters in football than a washed up 54 year old former journeyman & a Dutch player with no recent serious connection to the game.. For ****'s sake this is Carabou Cup draw in his amateurishness. The FA and EFL keep trying to outdo each other in shitness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSSEL85 Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Can we delete this thread? Every time I see it pop up I want to kick the cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 'Normal contact challenge'. What??????? Even if the ball was in play, that contact was more fitting of a rugby match than football. Given the ball is not in play, that statement truly beggars belief. So Bailey fails one out of five tests on totally flawed grounds. City should charge the FA for bringing the game into disrepute and the denial of basic natural justice for denying an opportunity to appear at the Panel and to appeal the Panel's decision. Truly shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxy27 Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 So in a nutshell... If our players were to put in 'normal contact' sliding challenges randomly across the pitch, regardless of the current play or position of the ball, any opposition player going down in pain would be banned for two matches. Hmm, these new rules could make it interesting to watch. UFC has been gaining popularity, but I wasn't aware we were merging the sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italian dave Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Even more reason now for the club to take this further. Normal contact challenge; rarely seen such utter garbage even in the opinionated world of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 It's utter toss. They know it we know it. But what I can't get my head around is why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderEyed Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 **** the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChippenhamRed Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 On 05/11/2017 at 18:42, 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. So did this Fulham player get banned for "simulation" then? And if not why not? Haven't heard anything about it and a quick Google didn't throw anything up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Dante Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I might be missing something here, but it's important to note the composition of the panel - 3 ex players by way of Gareth Farrelly, Ken Monkou (probably holds a grudge from Robbie Turners dismantling) and Tony Agana. Three ex players. Now read the FA story confirming how any ruling panel on this will be comprised: http://www.thefa.com/news/2017/aug/04/fa-confirm-pool-for-successful-deception-offences-040817 The key point is the paragraph below. It's the second case heard, and yet they can't constitute a panel of a manager, player and a referee which they say is how the panel must be made up. For avoidance of doubt I don't think Farrellys 2 years managing in league of Ireland 10 years ago or Aganas 1 year of non league in 2000 can class them as managers - they have never managed a full time professional club in the football league. The fact they can't get a referee at all is shameful. My question becomes if they can't constitute a panel which is made up in line with their guidelines for judging the event, then surely the legal case for miscarriage is high - particularly when the scheme is in its infancy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooRya Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Let me get this straight...................... A player being pushed hard enough to fall to the floor, is a "normal" contact challenge.....even when the ball is not in play? WTF! Am I really expected to believe that, in our next game against Wednesday, if just before kick off a City player walked up to a Wednesday player at speed, pushed him in the chest with both hands and the Wednesday player went to ground, the City player would NOT be sent off? Yeah right........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Did the panel take representations from the referee (or read the referee's report)? If "Letter confirming the successful claim for wrongful dismissal, dated 2 November 2017" is from the referee then they know why he sent the player off. If not, on what basis are they saying the referee was duped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 25 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said: So did this Fulham player get banned for "simulation" then? And if not why not? Haven't heard anything about it and a quick Google didn't throw anything up. Because it didn't lead to a red card or penalty, in other words the FA can't be arsed to do a proper job, having those two requirements massively streamlines the requirements for how much work they have to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitchinRed Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Can the panel members be charged with bringing the game into disrepute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1t_ref_again Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I think Sky has summarised the FA written report well The FA commission said: "It is not in dispute that player goes to ground following a foul challenge. But club and player made no reference that contact was made with his face. He [Wright] can clearly be seen holding his face. Therefore, this deception would naturally lead a match official to the conclusion that there had been contact with this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said: I think Sky has summarised the FA written report well The FA commission said: "It is not in dispute that player goes to ground following a foul challenge. But club and player made no reference that contact was made with his face. He [Wright] can clearly be seen holding his face. Therefore, this deception would naturally lead a match official to the conclusion that there had been contact with this area. Well if the FA accept that it was a foul challenge, then by their own wording of Clause 5 he surely cannot be found guilty. It states 'normal contact challenge'. A foul is not a 'normal contact challenge'. This sets aside the issue that you can't commit a 'foul' if the ball is not in play. Seriously this is a woeful process, set of disciplinary regulations and decision. Anyone with a CSE in law could rip the FA to shreds on this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidercity1987 Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 They have definitely read this thread before producing the report, bastards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRed Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 Maybe Bailey should have said he was holding his face because of the pain he suffered in his neck etc having been pushed over by Kamara. The FA has admitted that it was a foul but seem to rely on the issue of Bailey holding his face but not stating why he did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyredredrobin Posted November 10, 2017 Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 I firmly believe that in the absence of any further appeals process, BCFC and the player should use the legal system to seek redress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.