So a couple of weeks after getting a player sent off for being head butted we now have player banned for two games for getting pushed over. Some interesting new rules this season
At first view I was convinced it was the correct decision. Seeing it again, I think Wright is feigning injury
That’s the important word you THINK he is and he may well be but I can’t see how the FA can conclusively prove that he is from that footage to condemn him and it sets a dangerous precedent
'we now have a player banned for two games for getting pushed over' Or in reality we have a player, our club captain, banned for cheating. It has disrupted our preparation at the back, especially as Pisano is out as well. Warnock doesn't need gifts like this.
Where’s the evidence he has cheated? If he has then yes throw the book at him but I hope the FA and you have better evidence than I’ve seen to cast aspersions on Wright’s character by calling him a cheat
Just listening to talksport 2...... everyone's opinion on there including fellow proffessionals, "A diabolical & wrong decision" by the FA.....Blatantly pushed..
this is a new concept and the way to get something like this up and running is zero tolerance and doubt is placed on the side of "yes he did because he didn't need a prolonged session with a paramedic" I think because of the nature of the beasts the likely hood of this only happening when a player is sent off penalty or second yellow, in each of these events if the perpetrator, and only he knows, is simulating then they will stay down much longer and even leave the field! It wont bring any danger to their side as they have the time to be "treated" whilst the penalty is taken, and the free kick is taken with the other side down to 10 as well! for anyone on here to call a player a cheat without primary knowledge of the actual event, and knowing positively whether he was winded / injured /pushed is extremely poor. when I take my 2 weeks away, in the mountains of NW Scotland if I don't slip or fall over at least 3 times I feel very lucky .. on the last occasion a fairly light fall, slip on a relatively flat bit, cause unknown, on to my elbow up to my shoulder, kept me grounded for around a minute as I re established my posture..............
Apparently this is the first decision of its kind? If that is the case it seems very strange to pick that particular example as there have been many more blatant examples of feigning injury this season.
second a CARLISLE? player was first week it was introduced rules are feigning injury that leads to a second yellow, straight red or penalty eg of this yesterday was if pack had rolled around on the floor dived or made a meal of it then would be up for review there is no appeal.... bit like getting a NIP through the post for a traffic offence from a speed camera, except then you can appeal!
Why don't we just get rid of referees and have the game decided by the armchair pundits sitting in their easy chairs deciding what's right and what can be overturned. Absolutely going beyond acceptability and perhaps we will only know the points we get in the league from a panel meeting over coffee to see how worthy we are in the eyes of the footballing hierarchy. Bloody ridiculous moves being made by the people who run the sport and I will almost guarantee that if any review reverses the Bailey Wright then the usual backup card will be used and I suspect that may prove racial in nature. Sorry to say that I'm getting more disappointed to hear the nonsense that is being spouted by players and management as excuses for some reason or another that they feel will exonerate their actions or poor play. Bit of a rant on a freezing Sunday morning but I wish all these footballing people who supposedly have a better way to run the game would just shut up and let the things that have seen the game prosper just piss off and leave everything alone.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/discipline/written-reasons Having viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and in great detail and having considered the Player’s and the Club’s submissions, the Regulatory Commission agreed unanimously that the Charge was found proven. This case fundamentally turned on the fifth question; does the player exaggerate the effect of a normal contact challenge in order to deceive the referee? The Club submitted that “the Player fell to the ground with a bump and this jarred his neck and back causing pain in the seconds immediately after the incident occurred”. The Player himself stated that “as I fell my head tilted backward and when I hit the ground I jarred my back and neck. Immediately after falling I laid on the ground to get my breath back and had quite significant pain in my neck and back”. 18. These accounts do not correspond with the video evidence. Whilst there have been submissions examining ‘normal contact challenge’ and its literal interpretation and application it is not in dispute that Mr Wright goes to the ground following a foul challenge. The video shows Mr Kamara push Mr Wright in the chest and/or shoulder area. There is no mention in either the Club’s submissions or the Player’s statement that contact was made with his face. It is also not submitted at any point that Mr Wright held his face and/or chin as a natural reaction to the contact. In fact, Mr Wright stated that “when I hit the ground I jarred my back and neck”. Yet, he 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. 19. As to exaggeration, all submissions aver that Mr Wright was pushed on the chest and shoulder and fell jarring his back and neck. 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 submission Tony Agana and Ken Monkou reviewed the evidence both ex pros ...
They have just given themselves a whole boatload of work to do then of that is the case! Smacks of one rule for one to me.
I do not know, but in the case of the Bristol City player think the penalty should have been more severe. He feigned injury and cheated. A pathetic little push to the chest left this athlete on his back holding his face. No defence to it.
I'll tell you one thing, in a court of law, had the prosecution put forward that reasoning, the defence would have pissed all over it!!!! Still, this is the FA - and I think the initials sum it up!!!
Well, we will have to live with this and it doesn’t seem to have affected our form. All I do hope, is that this is applied consistently across all the leagues - especially the Prem - and internationals too, and hasn’t just been an example to damage little ole Brizzle City from eating at the big boys table.
You may have missed the big thing. British law is based upon actus and mens rea. It would not apply or be relevant. Under FA the player intended to deceive the referee by holding his face (not touched) - Cheating - No place for it here.
When people are injured they hold their face even though they may have not been touched there. I know I did it when I wrecked my knee. He may well have been cheating but from that grainy image there is no definite evidence that he was. The only evidence it shows was that he was definitely assaulted.
