Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Red Army 75

Dirty leeds / Patrick Bamford (Merged)

Recommended Posts

I think he misses the last league game plus the first leg of the play off final.

So available for 2nd leg and the Wembley final v Bristol City.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They only have one game left so he will miss the first leg of the players, likely their home leg vs 6th.

EDIT - @CodeRed optimistic. If we finish 6th we'll be playing Leeds I expect.

Edited by Alessandro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently he's been shit anyway and some Leeds fans had hoped he'd get banned for longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, it's only a charge at this stage and he has until tomorrow night to respond to the charge.

To my knowledge, no such window was available when Bailey Wright received his two-match ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Journalist said:

Interestingly, it's only a charge at this stage and he has until tomorrow night to respond to the charge.

To my knowledge, no such window was available when Bailey Wright received his two-match ban.

That's just so they can reverse the decision and pin it on Bailey.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CodeRed said:

I think he misses the last league game plus the first leg of the play off final.

So available for 2nd leg and the Wembley final v Bristol City. 

Bit of a stretch to imagine they'll lose to Ipswich to make that mathematically possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the authorities are going to punish a footballer, it has to hurt both the individual and his team. A two game ban at this stage of the season is meaningless.

Weakness by the EFL. Quelle surprise. Why don't they make it a three match ban and defer it for one week?

Edited by Rudolf Hucker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. Should be 3 games though as that was what he was trying to get for the fellow professional when he flung himself.... or maybe 6 games to make an example...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Two game ban doesn't hurt them though as he can play in play offs.  Interesting that they banned him so quickly as to allow him to play in play-offs....

I doubt that factor entered the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Hourihane who threw the punch . Video evidence for all to see but no ban . But diedhiou gets 6 game ban with no video evidence to see . Pisses me off 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

What about Hourihane who threw the punch . Video evidence for all to see but no ban . But diedhiou gets 6 game ban with no video evidence to see . Pisses me off 

But the EFL can't ban their Aston Villa darlings when they have the play offs still to come can they... 

It will be brushed under the carpet and conveniently forgotten

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 games is a joke.  It's blatant cheating and could have cost El Ghazi 4 games, although he can do one as well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Army 75 said:

What about Hourihane who threw the punch . Video evidence for all to see but no ban . But diedhiou gets 6 game ban with no video evidence to see . Pisses me off 

According to sky the efl have looked at it and decided that it's not violent conduct 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Highburnred said:

According to sky the efl have looked at it and decided that it's not violent conduct 

I think you mean because it was an Aston Vile player there is no possible way there was foul play.

A Vile play could behead someone with a machete and it might be a yellow card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what’s going to happen to the Ref Assistant who clearly didn’t see an infringement as there wasn’t one - without his input El Ghazi wouldn’t have been sent off.

If he had done his job properly and told the Ref Bamford had cheated then perhaps he would have been sent off and Villa would have had 11 men against 10 of Leeds. 

Weak weak weak!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TBW said:

Apparently he's been shit anyway and some Leeds fans had hoped he'd get banned for longer.

Tucked it away nicely against us though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drew Peacock said:

Meaningless ban.  Have him nice and fresh for the play offs.

Yup. Basically a couple of weeks paid leave for him. I'd love that if I was in his shoes. Then he'll be back fresh and ready for the playoffs.

Well done EFL - I think you've made an example of him! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

That's just so they can reverse the decision and pin it on Bailey.

Did you not see poor lickle Patrick wiping gob from his poor bruised face? Seem to remember Fam clearing his throat Saturday. Hell of a spit, mind but surely the EFL will take robust action & ban our CF for the start of next season, again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Journalist said:

Interestingly, it's only a charge at this stage and he has until tomorrow night to respond to the charge.

To my knowledge, no such window was available when Bailey Wright received his two-match ban.

IIRC Bailey didn’t even have to right to appeal. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leeds striker has been suspended due to his simulation in a recent Leeds fixture.

Bamford will miss Leeds last league game against Ipswich. He will also miss the first leg of the play off semi final.

Are the stars starting to align for City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he gets exactly the same ban for beigg brushed by a players forearm as Bailey got for being headbutted. 

Right... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 game ban and should've been more.

In the interests of balance, I assumed it'd be ban for Bamford, El Ghazi overturned and ban of some sort for Hourihane. 2 of those have happened but the 3rd- ref didn't see it.

D5lBvL4WsAAN-wC.jpg:large

Make your own mind up. Sure the contact looks very light but you raise your hands etc.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leeds' statement is laughable:

Club responds to Patrick Bamford two-match ban

Whilst Patrick Bamford did not deny the charge of successful deception of a match official following our Sky Bet Championship game against Aston Villa on Sunday, the club did request a hearing to contest the penalty imposed on the player.

The club felt that given the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the extraordinary act of sportsmanship which saw our head coach Marcelo Bielsa demand our team to allow Aston Villa to score an uncontested equaliser, we could have a sensible discussion around the sanction.

We acknowledge that the FA panel did not feel that to be reasonable and the club therefore joins Patrick in accepting the two-match ban.

Bamford will miss our final game of the 2018/19 campaign away to Ipswich Town as well as the first leg of our Play-Off semi-final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bissellredhead said:

Leeds' statement is laughable:

Club responds to Patrick Bamford two-match ban

Whilst Patrick Bamford did not deny the charge of successful deception of a match official following our Sky Bet Championship game against Aston Villa on Sunday, the club did request a hearing to contest the penalty imposed on the player.

The club felt that given the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the extraordinary act of sportsmanship which saw our head coach Marcelo Bielsa demand our team to allow Aston Villa to score an uncontested equaliser, we could have a sensible discussion around the sanction.

We acknowledge that the FA panel did not feel that to be reasonable and the club therefore joins Patrick in accepting the two-match ban.

Bamford will miss our final game of the 2018/19 campaign away to Ipswich Town as well as the first leg of our Play-Off semi-final.

Ridiculous. Like trying to reduce your sentence for murdering your neighbour because your Dad phoned for the ambulance.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Linesman should be done as well. Clearly motions to the Ref that he saw an elbow which he clearly didn't as there wasn't one. Once again poor performance from the officials which could be costly to a club.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the football league is corrupt any big club such as leeds or villa dont get the same treatment as lesser clubs im quite surprised they are not promoting four clubs to the prem this season

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bissellredhead said:

The club felt that given the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the extraordinary act of sportsmanship which saw our head coach Marcelo Bielsa demand our team to allow Aston Villa to score an uncontested equaliser, we could have a sensible discussion around the sanction.

🤢

They know exactly what they're doing, that statement is for their own fans, so they can develop their persecution complex still further and blame everything on the EFL, ignorant of the fact several other clubs have had this punishment well before them.

Of course it's a completely ridiculous and nauseating argument in the statement, but Leeds are an ITV4 version of Liverpool, i.e. low budget repeat of the same arrogance and victimhood (see: Leeds socks in the home end), desperate for special treatment.

A club that seems to be going out of its way to get more cringeworthy, the longer it spends in the Championship.

Edited by Olé
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

So why does he only get a 2 game ban? I'm sure BW got more than that and he wasn't even simulating.

Bailey got 2 games too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still find it hard to believe that the FA have deemed Hourihans actions non violent so no action to be taken. It was his bloody actions that started it all off. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they give these embarrassing, cheating shithouses the punishment it deserves then they’ll keep on doing it. Ridiculous statement from Leeds aswell, instead of condoning such cvntish behaviour they are basically saying ‘well we gave them a goal so, maybe they’ll  forget Bamford was shot by Steve The Sniper in the stand, cos we was nice to Villa’

Fvck Off

Edited by BCFC11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leeds really don't give a damn. Sensible discussion?

"The club felt that given the circumstances surrounding the incident, including the extraordinary act of sportsmanship which saw our head coach Marcelo Bielsa demand our team to allow Aston Villa to score an uncontested equaliser, we could have a sensible discussion around the sanction."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BCFC11 said:

Until they give these embarrassing, cheating shithouses the punishment it deserves then they’ll keep on doing it. Ridiculous statement from Leeds aswell, instead of condoning such cvntish behaviour they are basically saying ‘well we gave them a goal so, maybe they’ll  forget Bamford was shot by Steve The Sniper in the stand, cos we was nice to Villa’

Fvck Off

Out of interest what's your view on Hourihane raising hands in the first instance- got off Scot free!

Same Hourihane who cheated us at Villa Park- they should rename him T- for Teflon- Hourihane. 

Leeds PR-wise should've taken Bamford ban on the chin and made more of Hourihane IMO. The walk-in goal though half decent was irrelevant to the disciplinary.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again the football authorities have shown that they have no interest in tackling ‘simulation’, otherwise known as cheating. They need to make an example of someone from a ‘supposed’ big club so that they can be considered serious. Bamford should have received at least a 4 game ban which would have deprived Leeds of his services for the remainder of the season, including the play off final should they get there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

Once again the football authorities have shown that they have no interest in tackling ‘simulation’, otherwise known as cheating. They need to make an example of someone from a ‘supposed’ big club so that they can be considered serious. Bamford should have received at least a 4 game ban which would have deprived Leeds of his services for the remainder of the season, including the play off final should they get there. 

Problem being the precedent has been set for simulation, every player who has been charged same as Bamford received a 2 game ban. I agree it needs reviewing how long a player gets though for blatant cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, hodge said:

Problem being the precedent has been set for simulation, every player who has been charged same as Bamford received a 2 game ban. I agree it needs reviewing how long a player gets though for blatant cheating.

Wright’s was totally different to Bamford’s.  He was bull-dozed into unexpected.  No wonder he was knocked to ground.  Nobody will change my view that Wright was appallingly treated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Davefevs said:

Wright’s was totally different to Bamford’s.  He was bull-dozed into unexpected.  No wonder he was knocked to ground.  Nobody will change my view that Wright was appallingly treated.

Oh no doubt, just it was classified as the same in why he received the ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hodge said:

Oh no doubt, just it was classified as the same in why he received the ban

Yeah, was agreeing with you that the same punishment is so wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...