Leveller Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 44 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: 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. I don’t understand this - what is the FA’s flagship gravy train money making scheme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Leveller said: And in your parking analogy I’d be annoyed, but wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in any appeal! All very well, but the problem is the parking warden keeps moving the zones, times, fees and penalties and only sporadically giving out fines at random. Reason for confusion, debate and appeal, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Just now, Leveller said: I don’t understand this - what is the FA’s flagship gravy train money making scheme? it's called the premier league, i'm sure that you've heard of it, the most prolific serial bunch when it comes to simulation/cheating and so far have for some reason escaped any charges and I wonder why?, perhaps because rather than upset ones mega paymasters crack the nut with thems below stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Darkwood Red Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 Last moments of the Wales v Australia rugby union match Davies goes down after damaging his ankle. Held his head and face the whole time. Surely he'll be banned for the rest of the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted November 11, 2017 Report Share Posted November 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: it's called the premier league, i'm sure that you've heard of it, the most prolific serial bunch when it comes to simulation/cheating and so far have for some reason escaped any charges and I wonder why?, perhaps because rather than upset ones mega paymasters crack the nut with thems below stairs. Really? I was under the impression that the FA gets most of its revenues from broadcasting rights for internationals and the FA Cup. The Premier League makes "solidarity" payments but those, I thought, went directly to the EFL clubs. How exactly does the FA get revenue from the Premier League that would influence its decisions? You may be right of course, but I didnt think it worked like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcmeerkat Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 Has any one read this yet http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/bristol-citys-disgraceful-response-bailey-13885516 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_clevedon Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 4 hours ago, bcfcmeerkat said: Has any one read this yet http://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/bristol-citys-disgraceful-response-bailey-13885516 Yes, and I've posted in their comments section. Regardless of our own debate on this forum about the rights & wrongs of this case, it's a bit ironic for a website supporting Reading to be criticising bcfc's response given their own team's form when it comes to diving! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 Be very interested to see what happens to Marcus Maddison of Peterborough. Unbelievable bit of simulation. If BW got 2 games he should get 10 games. Fair play to the ref for noticing he didn’t get butted . So does that mean there will be no action taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said: Be very interested to see what happens to Marcus Maddison of Peterborough. Unbelievable bit of simulation. If BW got 2 games he should get 10 games. Fair play to the ref for noticing he didn’t get butted . So does that mean there will be no action taken I don`t think it will because it didn`t result in a sending off for Trotter. The ref got it bang on there IMO by booking both of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said: I don`t think it will because it didn`t result in a sending off for Trotter. The ref got it bang on there IMO by booking both of them. Ye agree ref got it right. But Maddison definitely tried to get a player sent off . The FA seemed to have created a very grey area . I hope he gets further punishment. Embarrassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said: Ye agree ref got it right. But Maddison definitely tried to get a player sent off . The FA seemed to have created a very grey area . I hope he gets further punishment. Embarrassing There isnt a grey area. The retrospective bans can only happen if the diving resulted in a sending off or penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said: There isnt a grey area. The retrospective bans can only happen if the diving resulted in a sending off or penalty. You don’t think it’s a grey area . One gets a forearm goes down 2 match ban . One pretends he gets HEADBUTTED goes down only gets a yellow card. And no more punishment. Pretty grey to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppyDAZE Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said: You don’t think it’s a grey area . One gets a forearm goes down 2 match ban . One pretends he gets HEADBUTTED goes down only gets a yellow card. And no more punishment. Pretty grey to me Today's thing just shows how utterly ridiculous the whole suspension of Bailey is. FA should hang their heads in shame. Total no-idea ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted November 12, 2017 Report Share Posted November 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said: You don’t think it’s a grey area . One gets a forearm goes down 2 match ban . One pretends he gets HEADBUTTED goes down only gets a yellow card. And no more punishment. Pretty grey to me Did the one who pretended to be headbutted get his team a penalty or opponent sent off? No, so no ban can be given. There isnt a grey area, there is a badly written rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 20 hours ago, AppyDAZE said: Today's thing just shows how utterly ridiculous the whole suspension of Bailey is. FA should hang their heads in shame. Total no-idea ers. Tony Agana and Kenneth Monkou reviewed the case. Seasoned ex pros. They would know what's what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AppyDAZE Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 43 minutes ago, Cowshed said: Tony Agana and Kenneth Monkou reviewed the case. Seasoned ex pros. They would know what's what. Clearly didn't this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said: Clearly didn't this time. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasons Its possible to look the detail up. Sections 17, 18, 19 are the most telling. His face was not touched but ... Having viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and in great detail and having considered the Player’s and the Club’s submissions, the Regulatory Commission agreed unanimously that the Charge was found proven. This case fundamentally turned on the fifth question; does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee? The Club submitted that “the Player fell to the ground with a bump and this jarred his neck and back causing pain in the seconds immediately after the incident occurred”. The Player himself stated that “as I fell my head tilted backward and when I hit the ground I jarred my back and neck. Immediately after falling I laid on the ground to get my breath back and had quite significant pain in my neck and back”. 18. These accounts do not correspond with the video evidence. Whilst there have been submissions examining ‘normal contact challenge’ and its literal interpretation and application it is not in dispute that Mr Wright goes to the ground following a foul challenge. The video shows Mr Kamara push Mr Wright in the chest and/or shoulder area. There is no mention in either the Club’s submissions or the Player’s statement that contact was made with his face. It is also not submitted at any point that Mr Wright held his face and/or chin as a natural reaction to the contact. In fact, Mr Wright stated that “when I hit the ground I jarred my back and neck”. Yet, he 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. 19. As to exaggeration, all submissions aver that Mr Wright was pushed on the chest and shoulder and fell jarring his back and neck. 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, a point not raised in submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busterrimes Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 33 minutes ago, Cowshed said: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasons Its possible to look the detail up. Sections 17, 18, 19 are the most telling. His face was not touched but ... Having viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and in great detail and having considered the Player’s and the Club’s submissions, the Regulatory Commission agreed unanimously that the Charge was found proven. This case fundamentally turned on the fifth question; does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee? The Club submitted that “the Player fell to the ground with a bump and this jarred his neck and back causing pain in the seconds immediately after the incident occurred”. The Player himself stated that “as I fell my head tilted backward and when I hit the ground I jarred my back and neck. Immediately after falling I laid on the ground to get my breath back and had quite significant pain in my neck and back”. 18. These accounts do not correspond with the video evidence. Whilst there have been submissions examining ‘normal contact challenge’ and its literal interpretation and application it is not in dispute that Mr Wright goes to the ground following a foul challenge. The video shows Mr Kamara push Mr Wright in the chest and/or shoulder area. There is no mention in either the Club’s submissions or the Player’s statement that contact was made with his face. It is also not submitted at any point that Mr Wright held his face and/or chin as a natural reaction to the contact. In fact, Mr Wright stated that “when I hit the ground I jarred my back and neck”. Yet, he 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. 19. As to exaggeration, all submissions aver that Mr Wright was pushed on the chest and shoulder and fell jarring his back and neck. 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, a point not raised in submission. The bit in bold is the contentious one. It cannot be a normal contact challenge if the ball is not in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 On 11/11/2017 at 13:05, 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 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. No. It's more like being reported for illegally parking on a street where drunk drivers are whizzing though at 40 mph on the wrong side of the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedKatieScarlett Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 To me the issue is about being shoved! If someone shoved me hard enough to push me over ( on or off the ball - although God forbid I was actually PLAYING rather than watching!..), then I would feel justified in falling/ holding in any way I chose- ie: if I thought my face might be at risk from the fall or anything else ( once I’d been shoved once, how could I know what might possibly happen next...) I might hold that part of my body, or at the very least aim to protect it as I fell. Clunking tackles in the course of play are part of the game - witness Bradley Orr against Hull...- but an off the ball, unexpected/ unanticipated “ shove” ( assault???), means you’re not playing and prepared for it. To me the issue is - no shove, no simulation ( or not!!), Bailey couldn’t even be accused of simulation were he not to have been shoved over, off the ball, in the first place! Grrrrrr!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted November 13, 2017 Report Share Posted November 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, RedKatieScarlett said: To me the issue is about being shoved! If someone shoved me hard enough to push me over ( on or off the ball - although God forbid I was actually PLAYING rather than watching!..), then I would feel justified in falling/ holding in any way I chose- ie: if I thought my face might be at risk from the fall or anything else ( once I’d been shoved once, how could I know what might possibly happen next...) I might hold that part of my body, or at the very least aim to protect it as I fell. Clunking tackles in the course of play are part of the game - witness Bradley Orr against Hull...- but an off the ball, unexpected/ unanticipated “ shove” ( assault???), means you’re not playing and prepared for it. To me the issue is - no shove, no simulation ( or not!!), Bailey couldn’t even be accused of simulation were he not to have been shoved over, off the ball, in the first place! Grrrrrr!!! Well if someone pushes you in the chest and you fall backwards, I think the normal instinctive reaction is to put your hands down behind you to break your fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 16 hours ago, Busterrimes said: The bit in bold is the contentious one. It cannot be a normal contact challenge if the ball is not in play. A Bristol City player feigned injury to deceive the referee. No contention. No whataboutery. Well done the Fa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 37 minutes ago, Cowshed said: A Bristol City player feigned injury to deceive the referee. No contention. No whataboutery. Well done the Fa. A Man City/Man U/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs player never feigned injury to deceive the referee. Well done the FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 40 minutes ago, Cowshed said: A Bristol City player feigned injury to deceive the referee. No contention. No whataboutery. Well done the Fa. It feels like you’re deliberately missing the point at this stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dolman Pragmatist Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 On 11/11/2017 at 13:16, Leveller said: No, I don’t think many will agree with you on that one. Well I certainly will. The referee has to act on the basis of what they see, or what their colleagues see. I cannot see that the reaction of the victim of an offence is in any way relevant. If a referee is swayed by the degree to which a player writhes in agony, then more fool them! Referees shoudl be trained to ignore such behaviour, and act on what they have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said: Well I certainly will. The referee has to act on the basis of what they see, or what their colleagues see. I cannot see that the reaction of the victim of an offence is in any way relevant. If a referee is swayed by the degree to which a player writhes in agony, then more fool them! Referees shoudl be trained to ignore such behaviour, and act on what they have seen. So if the reaction of the victim is irrelevant, what exactly is the point of having any rules about simulation?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 1 minute ago, downendcity said: A Man City/Man U/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool/Spurs player never feigned injury to deceive the referee. Well done the FA. You could add Bristol Rovers, Bristol Manor Farm ... That is not the point. Do you condone a Bristol City player feigning a injury to deceive the referee? Its a closed question. My answer is a unequivocal no. Its not ok at all. I'm find it disappointing that a Bristol City player behaves like a fanny, and there are plenty of those being shit role models to kids in the EPL ... Rather a stance of no not here than whatabout yada yada yada. Basic values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 35 minutes ago, Cowshed said: You could add Bristol Rovers, Bristol Manor Farm ... That is not the point. Do you condone a Bristol City player feigning a injury to deceive the referee? Its a closed question. My answer is a unequivocal no. Its not ok at all. I'm find it disappointing that a Bristol City player behaves like a fanny, and there are plenty of those being shit role models to kids in the EPL ... Rather a stance of no not here than whatabout yada yada yada. Basic values. Not disagreeing , although from the videos Ive seen it is very difficult to determine that BW was not struck in or around the head. What is unequivocal is that 2 players have been retrospectively charged by the FA and both play for football league clubs. Is there no simulation going on in the premier league? Will we ever see similar retrospective action against a premier league player and especially one from one of the "top" teams? I hope so, but am not holding my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooRya Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 I think the relevant question is, WHY did the referee send him off? If it was because he pushed Bailey to the floor, then Bailey's reaction is irrelevant. If he sent him off because he "believed" that Bailey was struck in the face, then that is more contentious. Either way, surely the referee, or his assistants, have to actually SEE an incident before making a decision to dismiss a player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leveller Posted November 14, 2017 Report Share Posted November 14, 2017 56 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said: It feels like you’re deliberately missing the point at this stage Is that an ironic comment? If so, I’ve been whooshed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.