Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

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??

 

 

IMG_0849.PNG

Absolutely spot on. The last sentence of the FA’s rule on gets me though, ‘subject to conflicts of interest’ didn’t I see somewhere that Agana is on Sheff Utd’s payroll? One of our rivals at the top of the championship.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BCFC11 said:

Absolutely spot on. The last sentence of the FA’s rule on gets me though, ‘subject to conflicts of interest’ didn’t I see somewhere that Agana is on Sheff Utd’s payroll? One of our rivals at the top of the championship.....

We should have just told him to check the fixture list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hodge said:

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. 

So basically the intent to deceive will only be punished if the deception happens to be successful. Which means dubious cases (Wright) get punished while obvious cases (above) are ignored. What an absolute shambles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ooRya said:

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........

Exactly this. Under their `judgement` it would be perfectly OK to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulating again - just won Australia a penalty - but ref changed his mind.

"21 mins: Mooy swings in a free-kick from out wide, it’s cleared... but when it comes back in there’s some argy bargy in the box and the ref points to the spot! Then he changes his mind after a chat with his assistant and give Honduras a free-kick. Odd. Very odd."

Bailey went up for the header with the keeper and won the ball but headed over and collided with the keepers fist. The referee gave a penalty which looked a bit soft and then went to talk to the linesman and changed his decision to a free kick to Honduras. I'm not sure who will be banned for two games, but I'm hoping it's the referee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

So basically the intent to deceive will only be punished if the deception happens to be successful. Which means dubious cases (Wright) get punished while obvious cases (above) are ignored. What an absolute shambles.

Nail. Head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CiderJar said:

Simulating again - just won Australia a penalty - but ref changed his mind.

"21 mins: Mooy swings in a free-kick from out wide, it’s cleared... but when it comes back in there’s some argy bargy in the box and the ref points to the spot! Then he changes his mind after a chat with his assistant and give Honduras a free-kick. Odd. Very odd."

Bailey went up for the header with the keeper and won the ball but headed over and collided with the keepers fist. The referee gave a penalty which looked a bit soft and then went to talk to the linesman and changed his decision to a free kick to Honduras. I'm not sure who will be banned for two games, but I'm hoping it's the referee.

Just seen the video - joke decision, the keeper whacks Bailey and is nowhere near the ball. The crowd got to a weak ref it looks like to me.

The biggest worry for me is that Bailey rubbed his head afterwards so I`m guessing a ban till the end of the season is on it`s way now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m with @Esmond Million's Bung. I really can’t see how anyone can defend the FA on this. 

The inconsitencies are massive and I have several issues:

1) The shove off the ball by Kamara was deemed ‘normal’ contact, because at worse it was a free kick, given the FA rescinded his card, not even downgraded to yellow. I mean, come on. That’s a yellow card incident at least.

2) The FA are basically admitting that the referees rely on player’s reactions to ‘judge’ an incident rather than using there own judgement or view of the incident. I.E they saw Bailey holding his face and thought, ah yes, must be a red card. This for me is key, and utter bullshit. How can that be a defence by the FA - The game would descend into chaos every match if that was the case and they’d have to employ an army of analysts to scroll through hours of football to check how many times players had deceived the ref, now they are relying on the players honesty to make decisions. This simply isn’t and can’t be the case, surely. How many times have seen challenges or tackles where nothing is given, and the player has a cut on his face or gash on his leg from an elbow or stud, they show it to a ref, who will say “sorry I didn’t see the incident”. Not, “oh yeah, ok everyone stop, I’ve seen the evidence, let’s go back and I change my decision”. Full stop - the referee and his assistants need to judge every incident with what they actually see, surely? 

3) The severity of the 2 game ‘simulation’ ban. For arguments sake, let’s say Bailey did exaggerate the face push. Well, what about this - A forward goes through on goal. The last defender steps across to make a challenge and sticks a leg out. The forward side steps the challenge, drags his foot and dives in the area, feigning contact. Now if the ref deems it a foul, it’s a penalty and a red card for the defender. If the ref spots the dive, it’s a red card and two game ban for the forward? No, it’s a yellow card.

So basically if a player simulates and the ref gets the decision wrong (doesn’t spot the simulation), the FA will just increase the usual punishment, just to cover the back of the useless referee.

And to top it off - the FA will only enforce the ban if the ‘simulation’ resulted in fooling the ref. I.E you’ll be punished for simulation if you get away with it:

So yes, go around punching people everyone, but we will only do anything about it if you actually knock someone out. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t agree with the majority on here, going to great analytical lengths to attack the FA decision.

Trying to look at the incident honestly and without any pro BCFC bias, it looks clear to me that while BW was violently pushed (maybe worth a red card in itself) he almost certainly exaggerated the effect by holding his face in an effort to get the Fulham player’s punishment maximised.

Most of us agree that simulation is bad and should be punished. That should apply to BCFC as much as anyone else. The FA and PL should be tougher than they are, but failing to punish other offenders doesn’t change the facts in this case. And the spirit of the rule is more important that nitpicking analysis of the wording, in my view.

Overall, I find the club’s original statement a bit embarrassing. They should have waited a couple of days longer before they reacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should imagine that the  Bristol City legal team, are about to tear this little report to shreds.

Running  at a player and putting him on the deck while a break in play, is not even a yellow card.  Cue free for all in breaks in play.

Three ex professionals not believing the testimony of a current professional. I wonder what PFA think?

Two game ban for every player who does not hold the actual part of their bodywhere the footage, shows where they are struck. I do wonder if the assistant referee would actually have seen BW on the floor. Lots of suspensions coming soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I can’t agree with the majority on here, going to great analytical lengths to attack the FA decision.

Trying to look at the incident honestly and without any pro BCFC bias, it looks clear to me that while BW was violently pushed (maybe worth a red card in itself) he almost certainly exaggerated the effect by holding his face in an effort to get the Fulham player’s punishment maximised.

Most of us agree that simulation is bad and should be punished. That should apply to BCFC as much as anyone else. The FA and PL should be tougher than they are, but failing to punish other offenders doesn’t change the facts in this case. And the spirit of the rule is more important that nitpicking analysis of the wording, in my view.

Overall, I find the club’s original statement a bit embarrassing. They should have waited a couple of days longer before they reacted.

Surely 'exaggerating the effect' isn't the point?  If someone kicks someone on the leg then it's a foul whether the player kicked rolls around on the ground as though they are dying, or stands their ground.  The act of kicking them is still the same.  This is not the same as the Brazilian player (I've forgotten his name) being hit by the ball on his body and going down clutching his face - that was a clear attempt to deceive match officials by converting something that wasn't an offence into an offence.  But in Bailey Wright's case, an offence was clearly committed and it is for the referee to judge what punishment that offence merits.  It strikes me that whatever Bailey Wright does after the offence is committed is pretty much irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Leveller said:

I can’t agree with the majority on here, going to great analytical lengths to attack the FA decision.

Trying to look at the incident honestly and without any pro BCFC bias, it looks clear to me that while BW was violently pushed (maybe worth a red card in itself) he almost certainly exaggerated the effect by holding his face in an effort to get the Fulham player’s punishment maximised.

Most of us agree that simulation is bad and should be punished. That should apply to BCFC as much as anyone else. The FA and PL should be tougher than they are, but failing to punish other offenders doesn’t change the facts in this case. And the spirit of the rule is more important that nitpicking analysis of the wording, in my view.

Overall, I find the club’s original statement a bit embarrassing. They should have waited a couple of days longer before they reacted.

As you will have seen from my posts, I am 100% in agreement with you, and the bit I have highlighted is exactly the point which seems to be missed.

6 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Surely 'exaggerating the effect' isn't the point?  If someone kicks someone on the leg then it's a foul whether the player kicked rolls around on the ground as though they are dying, or stands their ground.  The act of kicking them is still the same.  This is not the same as the Brazilian player (I've forgotten his name) being hit by the ball on his body and going down clutching his face - that was a clear attempt to deceive match officials by converting something that wasn't an offence into an offence.  But in Bailey Wright's case, an offence was clearly committed and it is for the referee to judge what punishment that offence merits.  It strikes me that whatever Bailey Wright does after the offence is committed is pretty much irrelevant.

On the contrary, 'exaggerating the effect' is exactly the point.

The wording of the rule, particularly "normal contact challenge", without doubt does not make any sense, but we all know that the purpose of the rule is to discourage players from simulation, which is what 'exaggerating the effect' is.

Yes, BCFC IMO would have a legal basis to challenge the decision, if they wished to do so, on a literal interpretation of the wording of the rule. But it would go against the very essence of what the FA is very laudably trying to achieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Surely 'exaggerating the effect' isn't the point?  If someone kicks someone on the leg then it's a foul whether the player kicked rolls around on the ground as though they are dying, or stands their ground.  The act of kicking them is still the same.  This is not the same as the Brazilian player (I've forgotten his name) being hit by the ball on his body and going down clutching his face - that was a clear attempt to deceive match officials by converting something that wasn't an offence into an offence.  But in Bailey Wright's case, an offence was clearly committed and it is for the referee to judge what punishment that offence merits.  It strikes me that whatever Bailey Wright does after the offence is committed is pretty much irrelevant.

BWs reaction is not irrelevant though is it, that’s completely the point, his reaction by clutching his face was IMO a deliberate attempt to make it look like he got struck in the face.  The push on him was pretty tame as well, and he should be embarrassed he fell over to be honest.  BW has himself to blame completely.  Trying to gain an advantage by pretending to be hurt is cheating, and it’s conpletely rife in the game now which is a real shame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

I can’t agree with the majority on here, going to great analytical lengths to attack the FA decision.

Trying to look at the incident honestly and without any pro BCFC bias, it looks clear to me that while BW was violently pushed (maybe worth a red card in itself) he almost certainly exaggerated the effect by holding his face in an effort to get the Fulham player’s punishment maximised.

Most of us agree that simulation is bad and should be punished. That should apply to BCFC as much as anyone else. The FA and PL should be tougher than they are, but failing to punish other offenders doesn’t change the facts in this case. And the spirit of the rule is more important that nitpicking analysis of the wording, in my view.

Overall, I find the club’s original statement a bit embarrassing. They should have waited a couple of days longer before they reacted.

So where shall I start?.

Failing to punish other offenders?, begs the question why?, especially given that on daily basis in virtually every single game there are far far worse examples of cheating minus the 'violent push' and especially in the gravy train premier league where the worst offenders ply their trade.

If this ridiculous decision was the heralding of a zero tolerance policy from the FA I might have sympathy for your view, but there has been absolutely nothing to suggest that to be the case, the Chelsea v Manu last week is a case in point.

As some form of analogy it's like you being reported for illegally parking on a street where nobody else was reported for the same offence at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NickJ said:

As you will have seen from my posts, I am 100% in agreement with you, and the bit I have highlighted is exactly the point which seems to be missed.

On the contrary, 'exaggerating the effect' is exactly the point.

The wording of the rule, particularly "normal contact challenge", without doubt does not make any sense, but we all know that the purpose of the rule is to discourage players from simulation, which is what 'exaggerating the effect' is.

Yes, BCFC IMO would have a legal basis to challenge the decision, if they wished to do so, on a literal interpretation of the wording of the rule. But it would go against the very essence of what the FA is very laudably trying to achieve.

Then why has their not been a sharp increase in the charging of these incidents in virtually every single game in all of the 4 English divisions and the especially the premier league?, Chelsea v Manu would have been a great starting point, when can we expect to see the zero tolerance?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NickJ said:

As you will have seen from my posts, I am 100% in agreement with you, and the bit I have highlighted is exactly the point which seems to be missed.

On the contrary, 'exaggerating the effect' is exactly the point.

The wording of the rule, particularly "normal contact challenge", without doubt does not make any sense, but we all know that the purpose of the rule is to discourage players from simulation, which is what 'exaggerating the effect' is.

Yes, BCFC IMO would have a legal basis to challenge the decision, if they wished to do so, on a literal interpretation of the wording of the rule. But it would go against the very essence of what the FA is very laudably trying to achieve.

Surely simulation and 'exaggerating the effect' are different things?

IMO simulation describes something where the player is trying to mislead the official to an incident that hasn't happened...'exaggerating the effect' relates to an incident that has taken place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So where shall I start?.

Failing to punish other offenders?, begs the question why?, especially given that on daily basis in virtually every single game there are far far worse examples of cheating minus the 'violent push' and especially in the gravy train premier league where the worst offenders ply their trade.

If this ridiculous decision was the heralding of a zero tolerance policy from the FA I might have sympathy for you view, but there has been absolutely nothing to suggest that to be the case, the Chelsea v Manu last week is a case in point.

As some form of analogy it's like you being reported for illegally parking on a street where nobody else was reported for the same offence at the same time.

And in your parking analogy I’d be annoyed, but wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in any appeal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leaning To One Side said:

Surely simulation and 'exaggerating the effect' are different things?

IMO simulation describes something where the player is trying to mislead the official to an incident that hasn't happened...'exaggerating the effect' relates to an incident that has taken place?

No, I don’t think many will agree with you on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Then why has their not been a sharp increase in the charging of these incidents in virtually every single game in all of the 4 English divisions and the especially the premier league?, Chelsea v Manu would have been a great starting point, when can we expect to see the zero tolerance?.

A fair point, but does not in any way alter the point that I - and a few others now it would seem - are making, which is that:

- the spirit of the rule is to cut out simulation
- the wording of the rule may not be the best
- the panel has made a decision in accordance with the spirit of the rule

But like you I too hope that the cheats in the Premiership - and other leagues - are pursued as vigorously, and indeed IMO what BCFC should be doing is highlighting those instances to the FA, not to get Bailey off, but to ensure the FA uphold the rule in all cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leveller said:

And in your parking analogy I’d be annoyed, but wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in any appeal!

Nice try, you know exactly what I am getting at.

The FA have laid down a marker in incredibly suspect circumstances, that incident and the FA's subsequent decision should now be the incident on what all cases should be judged and clearly it is not and will not and that brings the whole mess into disrepute. There will similar and worse today in every 1st and 2nd division games and when the premier league restarts after the international break the international cheats will be in full flow again and nothing will be done and that is the point.

The marker that the FA have laid down should lead to anything from 10 to 100 offences per week and it will not in fact we haven't seen one since this one and yet we can all point worse offences seen in every game we have seen.

I am all for it as long as the FA now adhere to their own strict edict from this incident, I wait with baited breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NickJ said:

A fair point, but does not in any way alter the point that I - and a few others now it would seem - are making, which is that:

- the spirit of the rule is to cut out simulation
- the wording of the rule may not be the best
- the panel has made a decision in accordance with the spirit of the rule

But like you I too hope that the cheats in the Premiership - and other leagues - are pursued as vigorously, and indeed IMO what BCFC should be doing is highlighting those instances to the FA, not to get Bailey off, but to ensure the FA uphold the rule in all cases.

Hope, spirit, wording and especially panel doesn't cut it, only deeds will achieve that, the FA have chosen to make this decision involving an initial violent push, instead of the hundreds that they could have used, for instance Phil Jones 'exaggerated' dive with pike and tuck depriving Chelsea of a goal and nothing will change and this will remain an injustice, because surely even you must agree that over the rest of this season when we all witness unpunished proper and calculated cheating especially in the prem, this will have to go down as an injustice?.

The problem is this case changes nothing unless the FA use it as their yardstick and that will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Hope, spirit, wording and especially panel doesn't cut it, only deeds will achieve that, the FA have chosen to make this decision involving an initial violent push, instead of the hundreds that they could have used, for instance Phil Jones 'exaggerated' dive with pike and tuck depriving Chelsea of a goal and nothing will change and this will remain an injustice, because surely even you must agree that over the rest of this season when we all witness unpunished proper and calculated cheating especially in the prem, this will have to go down as an injustice?.

The problem is this case changes nothing unless the FA use it as their yardstick and that will never happen.

Let's see what happens. If there are instances of similar (or probably worse) actions which go unpunished, I will be right up there with you letting the FA have it full barrel.

But I can only conclude by re-iterating the salient points in our case.

Does Kamara's action or punishment have any bearing on Bailey's punishment if he has committed an offence? NO.
Is the rule on simulation badly worded? YES.
Is the rule designed to cut out simulation? YES.
Has Bailey made a meal of it? YES.

Therefore have the FA made a decision which is in accordance with the spirit of the rule? YES.
Should fans therefore applaud the decision? IMO, YES.

Instead of sulking and trying to get off on a technicality, BCFC and Bailey should be bigger and take it on the chin...... which is what did not happen to Bailey at Fulham and is therefore why his reaction was a bit embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NickJ said:

Let's see what happens. If there are instances of similar (or probably worse) actions which go unpunished, I will be right up there with you letting the FA have it full barrel.

But I can only conclude by re-iterating the salient points in our case.

Does Kamara's action or punishment have any bearing on Bailey's punishment if he has committed an offence? NO.
Is the rule on simulation badly worded? YES.
Is the rule designed to cut out simulation? YES.
Has Bailey made a meal of it? YES.

Therefore have the FA made a decision which is in accordance with the spirit of the rule? YES.
Should fans therefore applaud the decision? IMO, YES.

Instead of sulking and trying to get off on a technicality, BCFC and Bailey should be bigger and take it on the chin...... which is what did not happen to Bailey at Fulham and is therefore why his reaction was a bit embarrassing.

Spirit no, interpretation yes and one that has not so far been actioned, especially where the major problem exists the premier league.

Applaud no, not until the FA start to use this case as it's yardstick and that will never happen, if you believe that it will you are very naive.

The sulking as you call it is because it was and will prove to be an injustice.

There has been worse since, there will be worse today in the 1st and 2nd division and there will be worse to come and most will go unpunished, this sadly is not a watershed moment, it was the wrong fight, they should have started in the premier league.

Like any of these especially the Kyle Walker sending off the simulation and exaggeration was staggering and Gary Cahill where it is doubtful that there was even any contact whatsoever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Said this before, I find it strange that it took from the start of the season until mid October for the first ban, Miller, that was closely followed by Wright. It will be interesting to see how many more follow in Nov, Dec. Did someone at the FA suddenly remember their new initiative?

On the subject of simulation could the Gas be brought to book for it? Is the Tent Stand a clear case of pretending to be a proper job? Then there's Santa's Grotto & more. The FA may need to convene several panels.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RidgeRed said:

Said this before, I find it strange that it took from the start of the season until mid October for the first ban, Miller, that was closely followed by Wright. It will be interesting to see how many more follow in Nov, Dec. Did someone at the FA suddenly remember their new initiative?

On the subject of simulation could the Gas be brought to book for it? Is the Tent Stand a clear case of pretending to be a proper job? Then there's Santa's Grotto & more. The FA may need to convene several panels.

 

 

Yep and neither of them premier league players, strange that the FA turning a blind eye to their flagship gravy train money making scheme, where the problem has been endemic for years now.

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...