Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Is that an ironic comment? If so, I’ve been whooshed!

 

No....unless I misread it Cowshed seems to be applauding the FAs decision to ban BW  - and I can’t work out why

When I compare BW’s ‘offence’ to things I see day in, day out, in every single game I watch, the decision seems utterly bizarre. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
25 minutes ago, ooRya said:

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? 

Wasn't it reported that the ref missed the incident, but the linesman on the opposite side of play radioed what he "thought he saw"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

No....unless I misread it Cowshed seems to be applauding the FAs decision to ban BW  - and I can’t work out why

When I compare BW’s ‘offence’ to things I see day in, day out, in every single game I watch, the decision seems utterly bizarre. 

Because he deceived an official. He was pushed in the chest and went down and held his face. His face. BCFC could not explain why. I don't see that EVERY game. Even it was an occasional this makes the behaviour of the Bristol City player no more acceptable to myself.

Its a spirit I do not want to see in BCFC's game. Unless you condone a Bristol City player feigning a injury to deceive the referee?

Well done the FA. I hope this will ensure other BCFC players do not attempt similar. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, phantom said:

Wasn't it reported that the ref missed the incident, but the linesman on the opposite side of play radioed what he "thought he saw"

The ref was dealing with another incident that the play had stopped for, he was booking Flint and awarding a fk to Fulham. Wright got pushed whilst this was going on. I was watching Flint and only saw Wright falling to the floor. The Fulham player, who had been niggling any of our players all match and had previously sent Joe over the hoardings, was the nearest one to Wright. I remember thinking 'how many more times ref'. Joe had ran over to the linesman who had a better view and persuaded him to speak to the ref who then sent off the Fulham player. No one, even the Fulham fans who I spoke to afterwards was surprised by the decision at the time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
13 minutes ago, RedM said:

The Fulham player, who had been niggling any of our players all match and had previously sent Joe over the hoardings, was the nearest one to Wright. 

We certainly "did a job" on the Fulham guy, there was lots of times our boys were nibbling at him - clearly targeted to react and got the desired result on the night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

So if the reaction of the victim is irrelevant, what exactly is the point of having any rules about simulation??

Now that is something that I can agree with.

What is the point when premiership pussies commit this sin in virtually every single game and it goes totally unpunished?.

Really what is the point?.

If this heralded a new era for the FA punishing simulation, I suspect everybody who has contributed to this thread would fully support this ban, but it hasn't and it never will, the irony is Wright was on the end of a violent push and yet we see especially premiership players go down theatrically and roll around in feigned pain without no contact whatsoever and those offences have and will still go unpunished.

So far 1 2nd division player and 1 championship player and the gravy train premiership a big fat zero.

Come back and big this crusade up when it becomes fair and even handed, until then the highlighted portion in your post is spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Because he deceived an official. He was pushed in the chest and went down and held his face. His face. BCFC could not explain why. I don't see that EVERY game. Even it was an occasional this makes the behaviour of the Bristol City player no more acceptable to myself.

Its a spirit I do not want to see in BCFC's game. Unless you condone a Bristol City player feigning a injury to deceive the referee?

Well done the FA. I hope this will ensure other BCFC players do not attempt similar. 

 

 

My gripe stems from the fact that considerably more blatant cheating goes completely unpunished week in week out. I don’t believe that you are in a position to categorically say that Bailey cheated or acted to deceive.

Whereas I can give you several examples from just one weekend of football where clear and obvious intent to deceive (ie pretending to have been head butted in an attempt to get an opponent sent off, pretending to have been fouled when the replay shows no contact was made....)

You can’t apply a rule selectively on a seemingly completely random basis. That’s my gripe and that’s what a lot of City fans are up in arms about. 

Moreover the panel have essentially bizarrely deemed the Fulham player’s actions a ‘normal challenge’ despite being a premeditated act of violence, occurring when the ball isn’t in play. The player actually goes out of his way to commit the offence, off the ball, yet they’ve deemed it a ‘normal’ challenge?! 

I don’t condone cheating in any form, but the findings and handling of this particular incident are deeply flawed, with no right of appeal or further discourse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

My gripe stems from the fact that considerably more blatant cheating goes completely unpunished week in week out. I don’t believe that you are in a position to categorically say that Bailey cheated or acted to deceive.

Whereas I can give you several examples from just one weekend of football where clear and obvious intent to deceive (ie pretending to have been head butted in an attempt to get an opponent sent off, pretending to have been fouled when the replay shows no contact was made....)

You can’t apply a rule selectively on a seemingly completely random basis. That’s my gripe and that’s what a lot of City fans are up in arms about. 

Moreover the panel have essentially bizarrely deemed the Fulham player’s actions a ‘normal challenge’ despite being a premeditated act of violence, occurring when the ball isn’t in play. The player actually goes out of his way to commit the offence, off the ball, yet they’ve deemed it a ‘normal’ challenge?! 

I don’t condone cheating in any form, but the findings and handling of this particular incident are deeply flawed, with no right of appeal or further discourse. 

Last one on it ... I have an element of I don't care what goes on anywhere else. Its one club and their values and standards and one incident that interested me, which is why I looked on the link on the FA site at one club and that one incident.

I don’t condone cheating in any form, but the findings and handling of this particular incident are deeply flawed ... No they are not. In this case of one club, one incident, one player, its about the spirit of the game. 

Did the player attempt to deceive the official? That is it.

The case was reviewed not by dullards, no nothings, clueless gin soaked duffers with hair protruding out of ears and nostrils but by seasoned respected ex professional football players ... Ex professional football players reviewed the behaviour of a Bristol City player.

That is very much as it should be.

That is best practice.

The ex professional football players did not believe BCFC that their player did not attempt to deceive an official.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Last one on it ... I have an element of I don't care what goes on anywhere else. Its one club and their values and standards and one incident that interested me, which is why I looked on the link on the FA site at one club and that one incident.

I don’t condone cheating in any form, but the findings and handling of this particular incident are deeply flawed ... No they are not. In this case of one club, one incident, one player its about the spirit of the game. 

Did the player attempt to deceive the official? That is it.

The case was reviewed not by dullards, no nothings, clueless gin soaked duffers with hair protruding out of ears and nostrils but by seasoned respected ex professional football players ... Ex professional football players reviewed the behaviour of a Bristol City player.

That is very much as it should be.

That is best practice.

The ex professional football players did not believe BCFC that their player did not attempt to deceive an official.

 

 

So the next time we are sinned against and it costs us a game or an unwarranted suspension, you will be happy?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So the next time we are sinned against and it costs us a game or an unwarranted suspension, you will be happy?.

I did say last one on it.

I do not remember the last time a player feigned injury by holding his face when pushed in the chest in an effort to deceive an official, and it cost BCFC the game / resulted in an unwarranted suspension. I may have forgotten these incidents. 

Would I be happy, sad, meh ... I would choose meh but stick to would I condone a Bristol City player in future feigning a injury to deceive the referee because somebody else does it yada? No.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Last one on it ... I have an element of I don't care what goes on anywhere else. Its one club and their values and standards and one incident that interested me, which is why I looked on the link on the FA site at one club and that one incident.

I don’t condone cheating in any form, but the findings and handling of this particular incident are deeply flawed ... No they are not. In this case of one club, one incident, one player, its about the spirit of the game. 

Did the player attempt to deceive the official? That is it.

The case was reviewed not by dullards, no nothings, clueless gin soaked duffers with hair protruding out of ears and nostrils but by seasoned respected ex professional football players ... Ex professional football players reviewed the behaviour of a Bristol City player.

That is very much as it should be.

That is best practice.

The ex professional football players did not believe BCFC that their player did not attempt to deceive an official.

 

 

So you agree with the panel’s findings that a premeditated act of violence, whilst the ball isn’t even in play, constiutes a ‘normal contact challenge’ ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI here is one of the most blatant acts of simulation you will ever see, which, according to these laws which you are defending, cannot be met with any further punishment. 

Thoughts? 

In Case A - you have a player who has a foul committed on him, whilst the ball is not even in play, getting banned for two games. 

In Case B - you have a player commiting a heinous act of cheating and he is free to continue to do so. 

Can you explain how that makes any sense because I’m buggered if I can see the logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, phantom said:

We certainly "did a job" on the Fulham guy, there was lots of times our boys were nibbling at him - clearly targeted to react and got the desired result on the night

No doubt. But he was clearly stupid enough to take the law into his own hands and have a go when the ball was out of play, yet he goes unpunished!  I think I read after he was responsible for the most assists this season, so making life difficult for him was a priority it seems. That said they played much better without him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

FYI here is one of the most blatant acts of simulation you will ever see, which, according to these laws which you are defending, can be met with no further punishment. 

Thoughts? 

 

I saw this on the tv at the time. Yes, if you are going to do that at least make it convincing. Shocking what goes unpunished. I hate diving and simulation but the FA have got to be really sure they get it right and can only act after a penalty or red card. They should instruct the Refs to be stronger but players have got quite crafty now that it just easier for them to turn a blind eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

So the next time we are sinned against and it costs us a game or an unwarranted suspension, you will be happy?.

Hardly unwarranted. Right decision but based on horifically flawed wording from the FA. Wright got what he deserved, yes others don’t but that’s no excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, RedM said:

I saw this on the tv at the time. Yes, if you are going to do that at least make it convincing. Shocking what goes unpunished. I hate diving and simulation but the FA have got to be really sure they get it right and can only act after a penalty or red card. They should instruct the Refs to be stronger but players have got quite crafty now that it just easier for them to turn a blind eye.

Indeed. 

I would have no real gripe with Bailey’s ban  if the laws and mechanisms were in place to deal with acts like this in the video I’ve presented, but they’re not. 

I’d love anyone to come up with a convincing argument as to why Wright deserves to be banned but Madison doesn’t. 

If no one can do so, then the case rests that the system is deeply flawed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

The decision to punish Bailey is fair having seen the footage - no need to hold the face.

The real issue, which I think has been highlighted time and time again on here, is how this can only be used if it was a red card/penalty etc. And that there lad had his red taken away.

Boy went Widow twanky.

No need for it.

We want Gows.

Guilty.

Its the start.

But what comes next.

I would like the FA to go in hard on thermal gloves being worn in August.

When Robbored pushes that :facepalm:

Will it be called a Bailey Wright? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Leveller said:

So if the reaction of the victim is irrelevant, what exactly is the point of having any rules about simulation??

The reaction (whether exagerated or not) following a foul, is irrelevant with regards judging the level of punishment required to deal with the foul.

Simulation is acting in a way that tricks the official into thinking a foul has taken place, when it hasn't.

In this case I don't think it's clear that BW has exagerated, but lets say he did and it was obvious. History will tell us that a yellow as a maximum would be expected. As per the above, the exagerated reaction shouldn't effect the punishement to the aggressor. It was off the ball, play had stopped and he went for him. Can only be a red in my eyes.

I think it all seems quite straightforward.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Turnip said:

The reaction (whether exagerated or not) following a foul, is irrelevant with regards judging the level of punishment required to deal with the foul.

Simulation is acting in a way that tricks the official into thinking a foul has taken place, when it hasn't.

In this case I don't think it's clear that BW has exagerated, but lets say he did and it was obvious. History will tell us that a yellow as a maximum would be expected. As per the above, the exagerated reaction shouldn't effect the punishement to the aggressor. It was off the ball, play had stopped and he went for him. Can only be a red in my eyes.

I think it all seems quite straightforward.

 

 

 

 

But we are not primarily discussing the punishment of the Fulham player (who I agree should have been sent off) but the ban for simulation. The reaction - in my view - was exaggerated and designed to mislead, so constituted simulation, even though there was an offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leveller said:

But we are not primarily discussing the punishment of the Fulham player (who I agree should have been sent off) but the ban for simulation. The reaction - in my view - was exaggerated and designed to mislead, so constituted simulation, even though there was an offence.

But Bailey was banned for simulation LEADING TO A PLAYER BEING SENT OFF.

You have agreed that the Fulham player should have been sent off anyway...so therein lies the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ooRya said:

But Bailey was banned for simulation LEADING TO A PLAYER BEING SENT OFF.

You have agreed that the Fulham player should have been sent off anyway...so therein lies the problem.

Fair enough, so it rests on whether the ref/panel thought the push deserved a red card - and it appears they didn’t. The ref/Lino presumably did when they thought a blow to the face was involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ooRya said:

But Bailey was banned for simulation LEADING TO A PLAYER BEING SENT OFF.

You have agreed that the Fulham player should have been sent off anyway...so therein lies the problem.

That’s what’s really grinding my gears - the incident itself was worthy of a red card regardless of the reaction of Bailey Wright. 

Wright could have stood there doing somersaults in the aftermath and the Fulham player still should have been sent off. 

He’s committed a pre meditated, violent challenge - having gone out of his way to commit it - when the ball isn’t even in play. In the street his actions would be assault, so quite how a panel of ‘experts’ can deem it a normal challenge is absolutely beyond me. 

I cannot see how anyone can determine that the Fulham players actions don’t constitute violent conduct, let alone a unanimous panel of supposed experts. Bizarre. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Leveller said:

Fair enough, so it rests on whether the ref/panel thought the push deserved a red card - and it appears they didn’t.

This is where it gets a bit murky.

I believe I'm right in saying that the panel didn't/wasn't asked to make the decision as to whether it was a sending off offence, but rather were asked to make a decision as to simulation AFTER a completely different panel had overturned the sending off decision.

Presumably, if the Fulham players appeal against his red card had been dismissed, the second panel meeting wouldn't even have happened.

Seems to me that the Simulation panel's decision had already been made for them, and they were just being asked to ratify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Because he deceived an official. He was pushed in the chest and went down and held his face. His face. BCFC could not explain why. I don't see that EVERY game. Even it was an occasional this makes the behaviour of the Bristol City player no more acceptable to myself.

Its a spirit I do not want to see in BCFC's game. Unless you condone a Bristol City player feigning a injury to deceive the referee?

Well done the FA. I hope this will ensure other BCFC players do not attempt similar. 

 

 

I remember Aaron Ramsey basically snapping his leg, and guess what? He didn't go down holding his leg, hands were on his face :facepalm:  strange that seeing as contact was nowhere near his face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ooRya said:

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? 

The ref saw nothing, it was the linesman that seen it and brought it to the Refs attention. Disappointing that a City player "took a dive"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BCFC11 said:

I remember Aaron Ramsey basically snapping his leg, and guess what? He didn't go down holding his leg, hands were on his face :facepalm:  strange that seeing as contact was nowhere near his face.

You are comparing a push to a broken leg. The decision to punish Bailey Wright is fair on the footage as he was holding his face due to a push to the chest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, frenchred said:

The ref saw nothing, it was the linesman that seen it and brought it to the Refs attention. Disappointing that a City player "took a dive"

I don't see how you can conclude that this was a dive.  A dive implies no contact. There was clear contact, enough in my opinion to knock a player down.  What part of his anatomy he then chooses to clutch is neither here nor there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Trueredsupporte said:

You are comparing a push to a broken leg. The decision to punish Bailey Wright is fair on the footage as he was holding his face due to a push to the chest.

 

 

Who also said he's jarred his neck/back, not comparing it at all, both were injured and both went down holding their faces, just like most players when injured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ooRya said:

This is where it gets a bit murky.

I believe I'm right in saying that the panel didn't/wasn't asked to make the decision as to whether it was a sending off offence, but rather were asked to make a decision as to simulation AFTER a completely different panel had overturned the sending off decision.

Presumably, if the Fulham players appeal against his red card had been dismissed, the second panel meeting wouldn't even have happened.

Seems to me that the Simulation panel's decision had already been made for them, and they were just being asked to ratify it.

Yes, occurred to me, reading the FA decision, that the red card was overturned first & that decision was amongst the info considered by the panel re BW's actions. The overturn was possibly decided by a Regulatory officer? There is a name quoted. Have read the decision several times & think I've got it right. So, I agree with ooRya. Doesn't seem a very transparent process.

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...