Sykes 4 match ban

[GrahamC]

46 minutes ago, italian dave said:

True. But neither can you rake your studs down an opponents calf. Yet Cunningham gets no punishment at all for that, while Sykes gets a four game ban. That’s the issue for me. 

The Norwood challenge on Williams was incredibly even worse.

How on earth that wasn’t a retrospective red card I have absolutely no idea.

[luke_bristol]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

Not sure. I suspect most of us would not even notice, and if we did, wouldn’t care. The comments about Preston/Evans running through the thread seem to confirm that. 

I think most people seem aware that Evans copped a ban, it’s the fact that he was the only one that’s the issue. 

[cidercity1987]

4 games for that  Stroll me

How many for the guy rolling around like he'd been shot? Bailey got done for less

 

Ps it's ******* pathetic that the cynical fouls are OK and that one is a four game ban

[cidercity1987]

A deliberate kick out on a player with the ball attacking in a dangerous position, nowhere near the ball, is a YELLOW

A kick out on a player without the ball is a FOUR GAME BAN

What a nonsense!!

[Steve Watts]

10 hours ago, italian dave said:

True. But neither can you rake your studs down an opponents calf. Yet Cunningham gets no punishment at all for that, while Sykes gets a four game ban. That’s the issue for me. 

That's a flaw in the rules. Because the referee made a decision on Cunningham at the time the yellow can't be upgraded. Because he's missed the kick out by Sykes it can be dealt with retrospectively. 

A review of the laws of the game is what's needed. Until that happens though we just have to get on with the laws as they are. 

[Super]

9 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

4 games for that  Stroll me

How many for the guy rolling around like he'd been shot? Bailey got done for less

 

Ps it's ******* pathetic that the cynical fouls are OK and that one is a four game ban

One is violent conduct the other isn't. 

[Red Cloud]

Violent conduct without a doubt but can you imagine if the same treatment was dished out to Man Utd etc...!

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Steve Watts said:

That's a flaw in the rules. Because the referee made a decision on Cunningham at the time the yellow can't be upgraded. Because he's missed the kick out by Sykes it can be dealt with retrospectively. 

A review of the laws of the game is what's needed. Until that happens though we just have to get on with the laws as they are. 

He didn’t though. Cunningham didn’t get a yellow. (Nakhi Wells did, for reacting).

[cidered abroad]

I am surprised that so many of our City supporters are agreeing with the decision. The only reason that Sykes was in a position to make contact with the Swansea player is because he had been dumped on his back by the kick on his foot by the other Swansea defender with a so called "professional foul". In other words a cheats way of stopping a player en route to a one v one situation with their goalkeeper.

So why did the Swansea cheat not get a red card for that? 

I'm afraid that I don't believe that things even out over a season. We have suffered crap refs and Lino's, ignoring stonewall fouls against us, yet we get penalised for so many similar incidents. EG. That horrible little shit, Sharp, and his blatant push from an offside position, to get a winning goal. Whereas it should have been either offside or a foul with a free kick to us.

Many will now say that I am totally biased for Bristol City. That is untrue as I have always tried to see both sides of any discussion or event, and City have been dumped on too much in the last couple of years.

[italian dave]

10 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

A deliberate kick out on a player with the ball attacking in a dangerous position, nowhere near the ball, is a YELLOW

A kick out on a player without the ball is a FOUR GAME BAN

What a nonsense!!

Absolutely this. 

Deliberately upending an opponent who’s making a break seems to have become an accepted part of the game recently.

There’s always been a grey area where a defender makes a desperate, maybe rash, but genuine attempt to get the ball and misjudges it. 

But latterly, it seems to have become acceptable to make no attempt at all to get to the ball and to simply - and without any pretence otherwise - to trip or even to rugby tackle the attacking player.

It may not always be ‘dangerous’ (although when a player is going full speed, even a trip could be) but it should be up there with ‘serious foul play’ for me - it’s the embodiment of ‘anti-football’ and it ruins the game. And (as in the Sykes case) it’s incredibly frustrating for the attacking player and almost invites a reaction. 

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Absolutely this. 

Deliberately upending an opponent who’s making a break seems to have become an accepted part of the game recently.

There’s always been a grey area where a defender makes a desperate, maybe rash, but genuine attempt to get the ball and misjudges it. 

But latterly, it seems to have become acceptable to make no attempt at all to get to the ball and to simply - and without any pretence otherwise - to trip or even to rugby tackle the attacking player.

It may not always be ‘dangerous’ (although when a player is going full speed, even a trip could be) but it should be up there with ‘serious foul play’ for me - it’s the embodiment of ‘anti-football’ and it ruins the game. And (as in the Sykes case) it’s incredibly frustrating for the attacking player and almost invites a reaction. 

I’m sure @TBW will give a better explanation of the rules, but in basketball they’ve penalised the deliberate foul on transition (breakaway).  You get free-throws and possession back.  Player gets an “unsportsmanlike” foul, two of those and ejected from the game.

[robin_unreliant]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m sure @TBW will give a better explanation of the rules, but in basketball they’ve penalised the deliberate foul on transition (breakaway).  You get free-throws and possession back.  Player gets an “unsportsmanlike” foul, two of those and ejected from the game.

A sin bin would be a good move for football imo.

That kind of professional foul that has become acceptable could be say 15 mins off the field.

It probably isn't proportionate to make it a sending off and players will share it around so they only get one yellow. If the punishment was a temporary time down to ten men that may be enough disadvantage to stop it.

[Unan]

As has been said, Cunninghams studs down the ankle on Wells left him bleeding with obvious signs of what had happened, actual visible rake marks all down his shin.. obviously deliberate on rewatch.. so nothing?? The consistency is insane.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Marcus Aurelius

[Red_Alligator]

Put your feet up lad.

Oh, you already did...

[downendcity]

On 24/03/2023 at 16:46, forbespm said:

Imagine gerry gow playing in this era.

Swansea player made a meal out of that soft challenge 

He wouldn't make it past the pre-match warm up!

[ralphindevon]

I can’t believe people are still saying 4 games is ok.

It’s a ridiculous rule, not just in this case but any. Yes I agree he did wrong and deserves punishment but how anyone can think not being able to play for 4 games is fine is beyond me.

A one game ban for a trip like that is plenty sufficient - for any player, any team. 

[Major Isewater]

On 24/03/2023 at 18:52, Mr Popodopolous said:

where is the benchmark?

Hiding in a land far,far away where the FA never go. 
( anyone hear the Star Wars theme now ? )

[The Original OTIB]

This is glacial / poundland VAR. What are the time limitations? Can anyone appeal an old decision in a season? Large can of worms.

[Davefevs]

For info, it’s a 3 game ban for violent conduct plus an additional game for a second red card of the season.

[Super]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For info, it’s a 3 game ban for violent conduct plus an additional game for a second red card of the season.

Yet still some don't understand.

[cidered abroad]

23 hours ago, robin_unreliant said:

A sin bin would be a good move for football imo.

That kind of professional foul that has become acceptable could be say 15 mins off the field.

It probably isn't proportionate to make it a sending off and players will share it around so they only get one yellow. If the punishment was a temporary time down to ten men that may be enough disadvantage to stop it.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make all yellow cards to be 10/15 minutes in the Sin Bin.

[E.G.Red]

15 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make all yellow cards to be 10/15 minutes in the Sin Bin.

It's one thing we could take from Rugby. The other being the referee miked up so we all can hear the reason for the decision. 

[spudski]

49 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For info, it’s a 3 game ban for violent conduct plus an additional game for a second red card of the season.

Did the club appeal the judgement?

The footage was given to an  independent Regulatory Commission who viewed it, and deemed it ' violent conduct'. 

Sykes denies it. 

When you look at the footage he's still sliding on the floor when he sticks his leg out...he could argue that he was going for the ball and late in his action...rather than retaliating to a challenge. 

[TheReds]

26 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make all yellow cards to be 10/15 minutes in the Sin Bin.

As long as the clock got stopped and started for when the player is sin binned. We have ridiculous time wasting as it is now, imagine what will happen when you are down to 10 or even 9 men for 15 mins. Players will be falling over for nothing, physios will be on the pitch non stop.

As for Sykes he obviously does seem to have a short fuse so is an easy target (even more so now). What really pisses me off in this situation is the instigator simply gets away with it, if the cynical foul never occurred in the first place then we wouldn't be in this position. The rules need changing, but I am unsure how it could be done fairly.

[CiderJar]

https://twitter.com/_OakleySports/status/1639667942425067524?t=_KvCm0DinwiTA3VCKzCtLg&s=19

[Midred]

They don't seem to take "mitigating factors" into account like in rugby. Yes, retaliation is frowned upon but surely in these cases they must be able to see what leads up to the offence?

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

For info, it’s a 3 game ban for violent conduct plus an additional game for a second red card of the season.

 

1 hour ago, Super said:

Yet still some don't understand.

The bit I still don’t understand isn’t that. It’s how Cunningham gets away without a 4 game ban. Three for violent conduct. And an additional game for being the biggest a###hole in football. 

(OK, a three game ban then). 

[REDOXO]

On 24/03/2023 at 16:46, forbespm said:

Imagine gerry gow playing in this era.

Swansea player made a meal out of that soft challenge 

Gerry would have adapted because he was a class footballer. However players make meals out of things and Sykes gave him one off the ball. 
 

Evans assaulted Scott off the ball and got the same, which is more than annoying and the utter **** that is Cunningham got nothing. The inconsistency is palpable. 
 

We need to put it out a bit more in the tackle as weak teams get punished for petulance. Sykes needs to run his studs down him later, which Pearson will be telling him when he gets back. 
 

RETRIBUTION IS SERVED COLD! Being a twatty bitch like that gets him a four game ban and will continue to be the way. 

[Super]

4 hours ago, italian dave said:

 

The bit I still don’t understand isn’t that. It’s how Cunningham gets away without a 4 game ban. Three for violent conduct. And an additional game for being the biggest a###hole in football. 

(OK, a three game ban then). 

Yep cunningham was pretty lucky doesn't mean that Sykes wasn't the right decision though.

[italian dave]

4 minutes ago, Super said:

Yep cunningham was pretty lucky doesn't mean that Sykes wasn't the right decision though.

Yeah fair enough.

Another question then....watching that replay back, do you honestly feel that if the ref had seen it at the time Sykes would have got a red card? Given the circumstances, I'd have been amazed if the ref saw the whole sequence of events, and gave a yellow for the original trip and a red for the reaction.

Although its fair to say that refs never cease to amaze me!