Johnson charged by FA RD

[Dimmu]

1 hour ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

So the assumption is he was trying to bite Allen?

Sure not. He just enjoyed the taste of sweaty shirt during the game, nothing wrong being epicure.

[Tamworthram]

On 1 December 2018 at 12:24, Dappled Ram said:

I've always been of the belief that the aggressor is as guilty as the retaliator unless we are talking murder or permanent disability. For the aggressor to get off without any punishment is an anathema to me. I don't condone any aggression and for this reason I feel somewhat sorry for Johnson. I just hope that when he returns we ALL support him. He will have served his punishment and have had his photo and the incident reported in national papers. He is one of our players and regardless of what we think we should move on and d support him for the benefit of the club

It depends, to an extent, on whether the retaliation is proportionate to the provocation. If you give me a shove in the pub (you are therefore the aggressor) and I turn round and beat you up (not that I'm likely to or am capable) then the punishment for me should be more severe.

I'm not saying this is what actually happened but if the FA believe that Allen did initiate the tussle and BJ retaliated with an attempted bite (I assume they believe there was intent even though me may not have made contact and therefore Allen is reporting no bite) then the punishment for BJ should be more severe. 

[Spanish]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

It depends, to an extent, on whether the retaliation is proportionate to the provocation. If you give me a shove in the pub (you are therefore the aggressor) and I turn round and beat you up (not that I'm likely to or am capable) then the punishment for me should be more severe.

I'm not saying this is what actually happened but if the FA believe that Allen did initiate the tussle and BJ retaliated with an attempted bite (I assume they believe there was intent even though me may not have made contact and therefore Allen is reporting no bite) then the punishment for BJ should be more severe. 

yep see that, but t be fair the comparison should state you were attacked in a pub and put in an headlock and had no chance to defend yourself or even turn round though

[Tamworthram]

9 minutes ago, Spanish said:

yep see that, but t be fair the comparison should state you were attacked in a pub and put in an headlock and had no chance to defend yourself or even turn round though

That comparison doesn't work. If I was in a headlock, unable to defend myself or even turn round then I wouldn't be able to beat you up so, the scenario couldn't occur.

If you're suggesting that BJ was not able defend himself or even turn round then he wouldn't have been able to allegedly bite Allen. I would emphasise again that I'm not saying BJ is definitely guilty (although on the balance of probability I'd say he was) I'm just suggesting the FA's possible interpretation of events. 

[Tamworthram]

8 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

That comparison doesn't work. If I was in a headlock, unable to defend myself or even turn round then I wouldn't be able to beat you up so, the scenario couldn't occur.

If you're suggesting that BJ was not able defend himself or even turn round then he wouldn't have been able to allegedly bite Allen. I would emphasise again that I'm not saying BJ is definitely guilty (although on the balance of probability I'd say he was) I'm just suggesting the FA's possible interpretation of events. 

Besides which, I wasn't necessary trying to illustrate a direct comparison. I was just showing that sometimes the punishment for the retaliator can be worse than that for original aggressor even if the retaliation doesn't result in murder or permanent disability. 

[desirelines]

Biggest waste of money in our squad (IMO)