Jump to content
IGNORED

Bailey Wright - Suspended for 2 matches


View from the Dolman

Recommended Posts

29 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.

Deserves a retrospective 2 game ban ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue with all this is not that Bailey has been banned (though the inconsistency of approach is mind boggling from the FA), it's that Kamara has been entirely vindicated. If I did that to someone in the street it would be assault. If it happens on a football pitch, the person assaulted is at fault for holding the wrong part of their anatomy. Fine, punish BW for simulation. But also send a message to players that violent conduct isn't acceptable either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

My issue with all this is not that Bailey has been banned (though the inconsistency of approach is mind boggling from the FA), it's that Kamara has been entirely vindicated. If I did that to someone in the street it would be assault. If it happens on a football pitch, the person assaulted is at fault for holding the wrong part of their anatomy. Fine, punish BW for simulation. But also send a message to players that violent conduct isn't acceptable either

Entirely agree with this point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

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.

You don't seem to have replied to my previous comment, querying your assertion that the FA don't punish Premier League players because the PL is the FA's "gravy train" - but you are still using the phrase and repeating the implication.

DOES the FA get much cash from the PL direct? DOES it have a reason to be corrupt on this point as you imply? I'm no fan of the FA but you keep saying this without clarifying it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cowshed said:

A Bristol City player feigned injury to deceive the referee. No contention. No whataboutery. Well done the Fa.

Player in a match got his legs taken out, held his face.

Ban the *****, cheating faker right?

 

No, holding the face isn't in unnatural thing to do when pain is felt. 

Kamara pushed a player over WITH THE BALL OUT OF ******* PLAY this is NOT  a "normal contact challenge" and is a red card offence. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Leveller said:

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.

Looks to me that BW does put his left arm out to break the fall & lands on it. Ok, thereafter he holds his face. Is that an attempt to deceive or pain? Not a conclusive case for me & maybe not even one that meets balance of probabilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that you can conclusively prove from the grainy video is that Wright was assaulted. You cant really see where the hit was or tell the force of the hit or what if anything was actually injured. People do hold their face when they are in pain. Wright may well have cheated but conclusively saying that he has from the video evidence is pretty dicey IMO by the FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going off on a tangent , as I am want to do, the FA includes penalties as a reason for retrospective bans. IE, the player, (not necessarily a player for Man. City), goes down in the penalty area and subsequently scores a penalty which may or may not  win the match. If the other team appeal afterwards and that player is found by the FA (unlikely as it seems?) to have dived in the area with or without 'normal' contact, will he not only get a two match ban, but will that 'penalty goal' be chalked off? 

I appreciate that the premier league table could look somewhat different if some of the results were recalibrated but it might prevent a further decline in standards.

But we can all dream....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freeze the picture when Kamara strikes Bailey and you have a red card offence, there and then, clear and simple. Whatever happens after that contact cannot possibly affect that conclusion. Red card Kamara, you're off!!  Move the video on and draw whatever conclusions you wish from that point but the red card must stand, end of. The FA panel should look at it again and then resign en masse!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Midred said:

Going off on a tangent , as I am want to do, the FA includes penalties as a reason for retrospective bans. IE, the player, (not necessarily a player for Man. City), goes down in the penalty area and subsequently scores a penalty which may or may not  win the match. If the other team appeal afterwards and that player is found by the FA (unlikely as it seems?) to have dived in the area with or without 'normal' contact, will he not only get a two match ban, but will that 'penalty goal' be chalked off? 

I appreciate that the premier league table could look somewhat different if some of the results were recalibrated but it might prevent a further decline in standards.

But we can all dream....

You can bet your life that any retrospective ban will never involve such a contentious decision i.e. a penalty awarded as a result of simulation, because of the can of worms that would result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 13:46, 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.

If it was park football would you tell him to stop holding his face, get up and sort his act out and stop embarrassing the team? YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big C said:

The only thing that you can conclusively prove from the grainy video is that Wright was assaulted. You cant really see where the hit was or tell the force of the hit or what if anything was actually injured. People do hold their face when they are in pain. Wright may well have cheated but conclusively saying that he has from the video evidence is pretty dicey IMO by the FA.

Especially they are in no position to judge how a player reacts to pain. Not their brief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midred said:

Going off on a tangent , as I am want to do, the FA includes penalties as a reason for retrospective bans. IE, the player, (not necessarily a player for Man. City), goes down in the penalty area and subsequently scores a penalty which may or may not  win the match. If the other team appeal afterwards and that player is found by the FA (unlikely as it seems?) to have dived in the area with or without 'normal' contact, will he not only get a two match ban, but will that 'penalty goal' be chalked off? 

I appreciate that the premier league table could look somewhat different if some of the results were recalibrated but it might prevent a further decline in standards.

But we can all dream....

The Shaun Miller ban came as a result of a penalty given in a game that finished 3-3, Carlisle scored the penalty. However Miller fell over after contact occurred when he was off balance. He went down, didn't appeal and his first instinct was to play the ball and kicked it (while on the floor) to a teammate, penalty given. Retrospective 2 game ban for Miller for deceiving the referee when its clear as day there was no intention to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, hodge said:

The Shaun Miller ban came as a result of a penalty given in a game that finished 3-3, Carlisle scored the penalty. However Miller fell over after contact occurred when he was off balance. He went down, didn't appeal and his first instinct was to play the ball and kicked it (while on the floor) to a teammate, penalty given. Retrospective 2 game ban for Miller for deceiving the referee when its clear as day there was no intention to. 

Total nonsense the Miller case. Fail to see how they deemed it simulation. I'm sure the FA has woken up to their new initiative & decided they must find some cases. They'd have more credibility, if they want to punish simulation, if they looked at all cases of players trying to deceive & began handing out retrospective bans even when the ref has issued a yellow card, eg Maddison. Huge workload for them but if they're serious. I'd be 100% in favour of an honest initiative such as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So , it would seem that BW was banned because he's a centre back and should therefore be as hard as nails. I'm guessing that if was a meek and mild left winger he'd have been ok. What a crock of s@@@ !!! 

"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.

 

"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, a point not raised in submissions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

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.

a dive does not imply there was no contact. when I look at that video I see somebody who is exaggerating the effect of  a push with his dive. the way he went down is really theatrical. and that is what the pros who reviewed it thought. clutching his face the exaggeration of the dive the fall that exaggeration and does a push to the chest result in all that is the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trueredsupporte said:

a dive does not imply there was no contact. when I look at that video I see somebody who is exaggerating the effect of  a push with his dive. the way he went down is really theatrical. and that is what the pros who reviewed it thought. clutching his face the exaggeration of the dive the fall that exaggeration and does a push to the chest result in all that is the point. 

But surely you have to put this in context?  The fact is that almost EVERY footballer goes down like a sack of spuds with the minimum of contact, so what Bailey Wright did is pretty much par for the course.  As it happens, I believe there was significant contact (not limited to a push in the chest), certainly enough to bring him down, and that the referee's decision to send the player off was correct, based simply on the player's actions.  So the issue is the definition of simulation.  Either exaggerating contact is an offence or it isn't, and why on earth should a player only be penalised if it leads to a penalty or a player being sent off?  The whole thing is crazy.  How many times do we see what Bailey Wright did (or far worse) in the Championship?  A dozen times a week?  More?  I wouldn't be surprised.  How many times have players been suspended post hoc for simulation?  Twice.  Something is clearly wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midred said:

Ban us from the premier league? :whistle:

We don't need any outside help to manage this, we've managed perfectly well on our own for the last 25 years..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched the video again to refresh my memory, and I still firmly believe that BW makes a meal of it, and deserves what he got.  He’s down on the grass, rolling around like he’s just taken a punch, he got pushed, that’s it, get up and get on with it, unless it was a super push that too away his ability to use his legs?

Yeh the other guy should not have pushed him, and yeh he at least deserved a yellow for that, but BW is IMO out to make it look like he was seriously hurt.  Embarrassing.

Check out this ‘tackle’ from Vinnie Jones on Cantona, yeh different game in terms of punishment for that sort of challenge, but what’s great is Cantonas reaction, straight back up on his feet, showing that he can’t be intimidated, that’s the reaction you want.

These days players opt to fall to the floor if there is ‘contact’ and we the fans are now starting to repeat this mantra, ‘there was contact’ ‘he had the right to go down’, utter rubbish.

However, having said all of that, why BW has been singled out for doing this when loads of players do it week in week out is a strange one.  I spotted Djuric go down easy against Cardiff and the crowd got on his back which was good I think.

Anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Leveller said:

You don't seem to have replied to my previous comment, querying your assertion that the FA don't punish Premier League players because the PL is the FA's "gravy train" - but you are still using the phrase and repeating the implication.

DOES the FA get much cash from the PL direct? DOES it have a reason to be corrupt on this point as you imply? I'm no fan of the FA but you keep saying this without clarifying it.

 

 

Firstly you are aware that it is the FA premier league?, Although it does not run the day-to-day operations of the premier league, it has veto power over the appointment of the League Chairman and Chief Executive and over any changes to league rules.

Can you come up with a plausible explanation as to exactly why premier league players who are without doubt the worst offenders in cheating, simulation and exaggeration are still not being brought to book over this even after bringing in the legislation?, Kyle Walker's sending off earlier in the season being a classic example and similar in every way to the Wright incident, my contention is they are under severe pressure from the premier league not to rock the boat and to 'damage' the brand.

Basically IMHO it is being trialled in the lower leagues, probably in the hope that eventually premier league players will get the message at the expense of the plebs and so far 1 championship player and 1 2nd division player is worse than pathetic for a problem that blights virtually every game played and especially the premier league.

I hope that answers your question, I hope you will answer mine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is one of the problems the fact that there has been growing pressure on the authorities to take action against simulation?

As a result, when the FA decide they are going to do so, the issue then becomes that they need to be seen to take action so they have to look for situations in order to make an example of a player. In this case there are varying opinions as to whether BW deceived the referee, but what appears to not be in doubt is that Kamara "attacked" BW off the ball, but in the FA's falling over themselves in order to be seen to to "punish" the perceived deceiver, they have made a mockery of the whole process by exonerating the player who instigated the incident with his unprovoked attack.

 

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...