Fammy’s ridiculously harsh punishment

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, jj77 said:

?

You've obviously been brought up well if you're asking this question.

TBF it is a horrible cowardly "crime", but I would rather be spat at and wipe it off and have a row with the culprit, than another player deliberately breaking my leg putting me out for the season, and maybe never coming back to be the player I was.

The evidence should be made public whatever it is, if it is just the word of another player (or 10) then let us know, if there is video then release it. The whole episode is perceived to be a massive cover up by the FA, when surely it cannot be. 

[Three Lions]

50 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Well, punching, gouging, headbutting, all of those I suppose.  Yet, it appears that the football authorities regard those as less offences, which I find odd.  I agree that spitting is pretty disgusting, but given the choice I'd rather be spat at than have my nose broken

Been punched on the pitch not much of a problem with that. Rather be butted than gobbed at. Its a bit freakish spitting at another player,

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Furious Custard said:

For anyone wondering why this is considered worse than a physical altercation or bad tackle or even broken bones , just look up what diseases can be spread via spitting. Some of them I would take a broken bone over. 

So a snapped shin bone is preference over someones spit that doesn't have to be in your face either? On the basis you may get a disease - what are the percentages of the diseases you can get?

[Furious Custard]

10 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So a snapped shin bone is preference over someones spit that doesn't have to be in your face either? On the basis you may get a disease - what are the percentages of the diseases you can get?

Well no of course generally you will be fine. Its a very very small risk but the consequences could be high, which could be partially why the FA are handing out lengthy bans for this offence.

Remember when uefa handed out a four month ban to Suarez for the Bite. No broken bones there. Another silly act that has no place in the game.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Furious Custard said:

Well no of course generally you will be fine. Its a very very small risk but the consequences could be high, which could be partially why the FA are handing out lengthy bans for this offence.

Remember when uefa handed out a four month ban to Suarez for the Bite. No broken bones there. Another silly act that has no place in the game.

The last part there is where this whole issue lies, EVERYONE in the World seen that bite and he gets 4 game ban. It seems the FA or our club won't show anyone anything yet Fammy gets 6 games. If they show the evidence everyone can just move on. 

What happens if we get a player banned next year for something else that isn't clear cut? There will be a meltdown on here, and everything will be a conspiracy against us.

The FA should publish whatever they have on every ban imo, the way they have handled this whole situation is a disgrace to club and fans.

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Well, punching, gouging, headbutting, all of those I suppose.  Yet, it appears that the football authorities regard those as less offences, which I find odd.  I agree that spitting is pretty disgusting, but given the choice I'd rather be spat at than have my nose broken

Spitting is as low as it gets, and contemptuous behaviour.

Any player who does it should expect to be kicked, head butted and punched themselves. Do it in Sunday league and entire teams will kick off. 

There is a Cultural element within this. If you spit at a player you might as well be dropping your shorts and running your arse over his face. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Or fining someone £50k for wearing the wrong brand of socks but only £16k for racism.

In short.

It seems wrong and morally it certainly is (for England's wrong socks, see Croatia's wrong water, Uruguay did similar v France, Sweden likewise for the wrong socks)- FIFA are clamping down on it, unauthorised branding.

Basically, as I'm sure we all know- companies who pay heftily for exclusivity at a World Cup- global audience share is great advertising- don't like that exclusivity being flouted or undermined. Just how it is atm unfortunately. We got a warning so can't complain too much about our fine.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Spitting is as low as it gets, and contemptuous behaviour.

Any player who does it should expect to be kicked, head butted and punched themselves. Do it in Sunday league and entire teams will kick off. 

There is a Cultural element within this. If you spit at a player you might as well be dropping your shorts and running your arse over his face. 

Do it in a professional game and that usually happens - funnily enough it didn't when Fammy done it though..... Hence why many want to know what evidence there is.

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Spitting is as low as it gets, and contemptuous behaviour.

Any player who does it should expect to be kicked, head butted and punched themselves. Do it in Sunday league and entire teams will kick off. 

There is a Cultural element within this. If you spit at a player you might as well be dropping your shorts and running your arse over his face. 

21 minutes ago, wood_red said:

The last part there is where this whole issue lies, EVERYONE in the World seen that bite and he gets 4 game ban. It seems the FA or our club won't show anyone anything yet Fammy gets 6 games. If they show the evidence everyone can just move on. 

What happens if we get a player banned next year for something else that isn't clear cut? There will be a meltdown on here, and everything will be a conspiracy against us.

The FA should publish whatever they have on every ban imo, the way they have handled this whole situation is a disgrace to club and fans.

Agree with you both- spitting at a player. I've never played the game but it's definitely disgusting, lowest of the low and should be a zero-tolerance approach to it.

Have a serious issue with this case though, because of the lack of transparency. Agree with @wood_red for sure- it's gotta be published, I don't understand why it's not possible. Justice seen to be done and all that.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Reminds me of the old limerick:

There was a young man from Darjeeling

Who got on a train bound for Ealing

The sign on the door

Said don't spit on the floor

So he lay down and spat on the ceiling

When I was a child it did say 'No Spitting' on Cardiff buses, but I think that was a remnant of TB.  Bristol buses said (downstairs) 'Smoking prohibited; dogs not allowed' and to this day I don't know the difference between 'prohibited' and 'not allowed'.

[A Horse With No Name]

10 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Reminds me of the old limerick:

There was a young man from Darjeeling

Who got on a train bound for Ealing

The sign on the door

Said don't spit on the floor

So he lay down and spat on the ceiling

When I was a child it did say 'No Spitting' on Cardiff buses, but I think that was a remnant of TB.  Bristol buses said (downstairs) 'Smoking prohibited; dogs not allowed' and to this day I don't know the difference between 'prohibited' and 'not allowed'.

Nor are big dogs allowed in swimming pools are they. Always a sign saying No Heavy Petting. 

[sephjnr]

15 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Sorry I don’t agree. Spitting is the most disgusting thing a person can do to another and it has no place on the sports field. 

Calvin "elbow smash" Andrew unavailable for comment.

[Sixtyseconds]

16 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

....... 6 game ban has been upheld. 

For spitting FFS - he is protesting his innocence but let’s assume he is guilty (the FA have) then what an utter utter disproportionate punishment for a non-contact offence.

To get it in perspective it’s on a par with breaking someone’s leg - badly!!!!!!

Rules around red cards and bans:
If a player is sent off for a professional foul (eg holding an opponent back when they’re through on goal) or a second bookable offence they will be handed a one-match ban.

In the World Cup 2018, a red card would result in a one game ban for the player.

Straight red cards for dissent will result in a two match ban, while dangerous tackles or violent conduct will result in a three-match ban which can be raised to four or more games in extreme cases.

Dumped on methinks.

Its not anger.

Its not a seconds studity injuring a opponent. 

Its the act.

Its meaning. 

The phlegm has to be rolled around the mouth.

It takes time.

It takes consideration.

Its statement … You are worthless and shit.

Do that to another expect the darkest rage and violence. 

 

 

[Ian M]

The weird thing for me is LJ said in an interview that they will be appealing as the evidence is weak with no video footage of the spit. That would suggest his 6 game ban is based on witness testimony, despite us videoing the entire pitch for performance analysis purposes.

Either LJ lied in the interview and video evidence does exist or the FA has ignored the video in preference of witnesses saying he did it. 

[RidgeRed]

27 minutes ago, Ian M said:

The weird thing for me is LJ said in an interview that they will be appealing as the evidence is weak with no video footage of the spit. That would suggest his 6 game ban is based on witness testimony, despite us videoing the entire pitch for performance analysis purposes.

Either LJ lied in the interview and video evidence does exist or the FA has ignored the video in preference of witnesses saying he did it. 

Are we pretty much agreed now that this was instigated by a Brum complaint, ie majority of their players on the field, plus some of the bench & staff, said they witnessed Fam spit at one of their players? If so, did any word of it appear on their fans' forum? Wondering if any OTIBer, someone clever enough (not me) to delve through their forum to find mention of it has had just such a delve. Can't believe rumour of a complaint by their club wouldn't have been there somewhere well before it got to the 6 match ban being handed down. 

[Northern Red]

The reason spitting is dealt with so harshly compared to a bad tackle that could break someone's leg is that the latter is considered as an occupational hazard of playing the game. It shouldn't happen but occasionally it does even when there's no intent or malice.

Spitting at an opponent isn't considered as an occupational hazard, in the same way that things like biting or racially abusing an opponent aren't. Hence the suspension is longer.

I find the whole situation with Fammy very odd, not least the amount of time taken to charge him in the first place (which additonally could have caused no end of issues if he'd scored goals that had got us into the playoffs and maybe promoted when by rights he should have been serving a ban). However the punishment he's received is consistent with other bans that have been handed out for the same offence.

[downendcity]

13 minutes ago, RidgeRed said:

Are we pretty much agreed now that this was instigated by a Brum complaint, ie majority of their players on the field, plus some of the bench & staff, said they witnessed Fam spit at one of their players? If so, did any word of it appear on their fans' forum? Wondering if any OTIBer, someone clever enough (not me) to delve through their forum to find mention of it has had just such a delve. Can't believe rumour of a complaint by their club wouldn't have been there somewhere well before it got to the 6 match ban being handed down. 

Found one fairly brief thread  at the time the ban was announced. Only a handful of posts, this being one of them:

No we're not signing him, but he's been banned for 6 games for spitting at a blues player; 

[www.bbc.co.uk] 

Any idea who it was at? Don't recall anything being said about it at the time

There was another similarly brief thread about our appeal including this comment:

"Banned and then playing for Bristol City is sufficient IMO" - pots calling kettles black I think!

They also thought we were out of order appealing - no mention of evidence. 

[Bs4Red]

18 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

....... 6 game ban has been upheld. 

For spitting FFS - he is protesting his innocence but let’s assume he is guilty (the FA have) then what an utter utter disproportionate punishment for a non-contact offence.

To get it in perspective it’s on a par with breaking someone’s leg - badly!!!!!!

Rules around red cards and bans:
If a player is sent off for a professional foul (eg holding an opponent back when they’re through on goal) or a second bookable offence they will be handed a one-match ban.

In the World Cup 2018, a red card would result in a one game ban for the player.

Straight red cards for dissent will result in a two match ban, while dangerous tackles or violent conduct will result in a three-match ban which can be raised to four or more games in extreme cases.

Dumped on methinks.

Spitting is disgusting and imo a 6 match ban isn’t enough. If he’s done it then he should pay the consequences. Only thing I’d say is the case doesn’t seem very clear 

[downendcity]

4 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Spitting is as low as it gets, and contemptuous behaviour.

Any player who does it should expect to be kicked, head butted and punched themselves. Do it in Sunday league and entire teams will kick off. 

There is a Cultural element within this. If you spit at a player you might as well be dropping your shorts and running your arse over his face. 

Limbo dancing is about as low as it gets, but that is just me being frivolous.  
 

I think we are all agreed that as objectionable actions on a football pitch go, spitting is right up there. I am sure many will remember the Voller/Rijkaard incident in the world cup, which was pretty repulsive, especially in slow motion action replay. I wonder what VAR would have made of that? I was never spat at during my playing days, but think I would have reacted more than angrily had it happened.

If Fammy did the deed, then I hope the club give him the strongest possible warning about his future actions on the pitch, as I would hate us to be a club that was seen to condone this type of action. In fairness I cannot believe any club would condone spitting at another player on the pitch, but I would also say that in this case, I don't think the fact that the club appealed the ban is in any way condoning his actions, but more that it does seem that the player has been charged on the flimsiest of evidence.

[AppyDAZE]

This whole thing stinks the place down.

If he's banned for 6 games (ie a lot of football) we as fans, should be told the FACTS.

Who did he spit at? Surely not difficult to answer When did it happen? Again... Who saw it? Brum players? Why did it take weeks to emerge?

The whole thing is just plain WEIRD

 

 

[Aaron-Bcfc]

9 hours ago, Furious Custard said:

For anyone wondering why this is considered worse than a physical altercation or bad tackle or even broken bones , just look up what diseases can be spread via spitting. Some of them I would take a broken bone over. 

I assume you've never kissed anyone then due to the heinous diseases that will be unleashed upon you. Diseases can be spread via hand contact as well, should players all wear sterile gloves when playing?

Spitting is vile yes but your argument there is just a tad silly.

[View from the Dolman]

2 hours ago, AppyDAZE said:

Who did he spit at? Surely not difficult to answer When did it happen?

The FA charge outlined the allegation...

INCIDENT OF MISCONDUCT
Famara Diedhiou, Player, Bristol City FC
Bristol City FC v Birmingham City FC
English Football League Championship
10 April 2018

Breach of FA Rule E1 (a) – It is alleged that in or around the 52nd minute of the fixture, contrary to FIFA Laws of the Game – Law 12, Mr Diedhiou spat at Mr. David Davis.

http://www.thefa.com/news/2018/may/08/fa-charges---april-2018

[Guest]

It is alleged that in or around the 52nd minute of the fixture, contrary to FIFA Laws of the Game – Law 12, Mr Diedhiou spat at Mr. David Davis.

Surely there is some sort of proof? If that is the case just allege that back about half the leagues players next season........

[BS4 on Tour...]

1 minute ago, wood_red said:

It is alleged that in or around the 52nd minute of the fixture, contrary to FIFA Laws of the Game – Law 12, Mr Diedhiou spat at Mr. David Davis.

Surely there is some sort of proof? If that is the case just allege that back about half the leagues players next season........

The ‘it is alleged’ wording is from the original charge back in April 2018, not from the ‘verdict’ - he was subsequently found guilty after the case was examined....

[Guest]

Ok, so where is the actual verdict?

[View from the Dolman]

27 minutes ago, wood_red said:

Ok, so where is the actual verdict?

That's not made it onto the FA's website.

[Lanterne Rouge]

17 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

That's not made it onto the FA's website.

And I doubt it ever will.

[Bar BS3]

On 16/07/2018 at 19:51, The Horse With No Name said:

Sorry I don’t agree. Spitting is the most disgusting thing a person can do to another and it has no place on the sports field. If it isn’t dealt with severely , before you know it , it will be a common occurance. Don’t want my club associated with spitting to be honest. 

I agree that deliberately spitting at someone on a football pitch is deplorable, but the most disgusting thing that one person can do to another...? You don’t want to be looking at half the DVD’s hidden under my bed..! 

[downendcity]

3 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I agree that deliberately spitting at someone on a football pitch is deplorable, but the most disgusting thing that one person can do to another...? You don’t want to be looking at half the DVD’s hidden under my bed..! 

DVD's of Rover's games? 

[Murraysrightplum]

On 16/07/2018 at 20:02, Mr Popodopolous said:

If he's bang to rights he's bang to rights- but the case and the context seems rather flimsy. Opaque too.

If it was opaque he must have really hocked it up. Throw the book at him