rynny Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 Bristol City's Bailey Wright is the second player this season to receive a ban for simulation this season. He was ran into, and pushed, by Fulham's Kamara. He went down holding his face when the contact was with his chest. Bristol are complaining about it and seeking legal advice. For me it is the correct decision, there was no contact with Wright's face, he knew what he was doing, and that was trying to get Kamara sent off by feigning contact with his face. And I find Bristol City's stance appalling. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41862125 Quote City chief executive Mark Ashton said: "On receiving the written reasoning, we will be consulting our legal team. We will be without Bailey for Saturday's Severnside derby with Cardiff, which is a clear injustice against Bailey, the team, the club and its loyal supporters. "This is a clear case in which there has been genuine contact between two players, which has caused Bailey to fall to the ground involuntarily and he has made no attempt to deceive the referee whatsoever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 54 minutes ago, rynny said: Bristol City's Bailey Wright is the second player this season to receive a ban for simulation this season. He was ran into, and pushed, by Fulham's Kamara. He went down holding his face when the contact was with his chest. Bristol are complaining about it and seeking legal advice. For me it is the correct decision, there was no contact with Wright's face, he knew what he was doing, and that was trying to get Kamara sent off by feigning contact with his face. And I find Bristol City's stance appalling. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41862125 Ok he shouldnt have held his face, but not one part of me can understand why they have recinded his red card, he has still gone over and raised his hands in a deliberate act by the look of it. Red Card offence surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Paul71 said: Ok he shouldnt have held his face, but not one part of me can understand why they have recinded his red card, he has still gone over and raised his hands in a deliberate act by the look of it. Red Card offence surely. How many times would we see a red card every game though if a push like that was deemed a red card offence? It wasn't a big push. Yellow card, at most, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 26 minutes ago, rynny said: How many times would we see a red card every game though if a push like that was deemed a red card offence? It wasn't a big push. Yellow card, at most, imo. I get that, both Big Tom and the Wednesday keeper were doing all that the other week, but for me its a red card as it appears to have been pre meditated, he just goes over to him and pushes him in the chest, it doesnt appear to be in the heat of the moment it looks planned so yes its a red card in my eyes. Im not saying the guy was right to go down holding his face and this is what has probably led to the red card being recinded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsFromTheMiddle Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 Hopefully will go some way to eradicating it. Unsworth stating "It's a dangerous precedent that could be set if decisions are given against you which are debatable." Has he actually watched it back?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 You know you’re doing badly when you have to cheat to draw with Palace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.