http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25408242 Justice. My post (#13) was a WUM BTW (too subtle even with "England international", "affectionate" and "culture"?) but it was interesting how many people thought it could have been a genuine FA response Let's hope they follow through.
good wum astro have a feeling there will be some truth in what you posted though sadly. "For an FA charge to follow, all three panel members must agree it is a sending-off offence. In this instance the panel was unanimous." seems an odd one that, why is it not a majority vote type thing, could be some dodgy decisions that come out if one disagrees, (paid off by someone?)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25408242 He will contest the ban on the grounds that as a senor England international the rules shouldn't apply to him, citing Rooney's multiple unpunished assaults as precedence.
http://www.theguardian.com/football...tch-ban-middle-finger-arsenal-manchester-city Tom Ince is not an England international so how can Wilshire receive the same punishment for the exact same offence FFS, Arsenal claim.
It turns out to be partially true, with Arsenal playing the "emotion" card; This is probably just a cynical attempt to slow the process down so he doesn't miss the Chelsea game. So much for Wenger saying he would accept it if the FA chose to ban him.
I do have a problem though with FA's attitude over players 'contesting' the length of bans, especially as they sent Goulding over to FIFA to beg for leniency over the Rooney ban before the Euros (if only they hadn't!). Supposedly, it played a part in how the FA invented a figure for the Suarez ten-match ban for biting, simply because Luis - rightly- asked the question why biting (in this case a comedy bite that didn't even leave a red mark) is considered worse than punch in the face, or over three times worse than an uncontrolled lunge that nearly ended the career of one of his Arsenal team mates. Inevitably, you're left with the conclusion that the length of FA bans depends upon appeasing the Mail, various single-issue pressure groups and the Prime Minister. Not so much governance as media-relations management.
What I don't understand is why he appealed it. He must have, like us, saw the tape, Wenger stated that if he did it they'd accept the ban, why would Wiltshire be idiotic enough to double it? Footballers can be very dim....
