Johnson charged by FA RD

[1977 Ram Raider]

What bunch of deluded, Derby hating clowns are on the fa panel anyway?

[Curtains]

Just now, Ambitious said:

How did he end up with his shirt in his mouth then? He's clearly gone to bite him at the very least. 

At the end of the day, if he gets banned we should be able to issue him with a big fine in order to claim some of those wages back. I'd rather have that than him be available for the next four games anyway. 

What are you getting at our player for .

Lampard clear thought he could do a job for Derby last night 

He is a Derby player. 

[Sith Happens]

Johnson certainly has discipline issues. A lot of his bookings are for verbals.

I don't want to see him banned but it don't look good and if it was another teams player we would be wanting action. 

In Johnsons defence Allen did have him round the neck and clearly something occured we didn't see because of the mark on Johnsons neck.

Wouldn't surprise me if Allen is trying to defuse it as has concerns he might get dragged into it too.

The ref did deal with it so cant see should be any further action unless the ref is stating he booked Johnson for verbals. 

[Curtains]

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/richard-keogh-etebo-red-card-2271501

[nottingram]

At least Sky have got what they were angling for then

[Sith Happens]

Can't believe we have so called fans seemingly pleased he may get a ban.

Just awful. 

[Curtains]

You are one of ours Bradley 

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

This is ridiculous as JA started it after a diabolical leg breaker challenge on RK.  

FA get your act together 

'He started it' is not a defence that should be used by anyone over 4 years old.

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

'He started it' is not a defence that should be used by anyone over 4 years old.

Very true.

[Alph]

Don't see how he can argue with it really. 

2 wrongs don't make a right. 

His mistake was getting in a silly scuffle. For a good shove in the back like that he should have calmly turned around, took a step back and smash Allen straight in the jaw. He'd have been rightly punished for it, been completely out of order but Joe Allen would never go around pretending he's Conor McGregor again. And that, in my opinion, is a worthwhile crime and a service to football. 

Bunch of softies.

[TuffLuff]

I think getting charged when you get pushed in the back and forced into a melee, where let’s face it I’m not sure he can even know what’s going on until he’s in a headlock, when you are upset at what could have been a career ending challenge for a team mate may be one of those most ‘Derby County’ things that has happened.

Thanks Sky

[Curtains]

6 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

'He started it' is not a defence that should be used by anyone over 4 years old.

Ha ha really .

You don’t believe in self defense then. 

[TuffLuff]

10 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

'He started it' is not a defence that should be used by anyone over 4 years old.

It’s not ‘he started it’ that’s the argument though, it’s someone getting blindsided in the heat of the moment. I’m not condoning biting, obviously but what do you do? Your mate could have a career ending injury, your 30 minutes into a heated game and someone pushes and tries to out you in a headlock from behind. Again I’m not condoning it but it’s easy to sit behind our computers and say he was daft.

[Rev]

The moment Sky showed a replay of him with a mouth full of shirt he was going to be charged.

Doesn't mean he did it mind(biting the player not the shirt), but the powers that be couldn't let it be seen to pass without action.

 

[Curtains]

Just now, reveldevil said:

The moment Sky showed a replay of him with a mouth full of shirt he was going to be charged.

Doesn't mean he did it mind(biting the player not the shirt), but the powers that be couldn't let it be seen to pass without action.

 

Bradley will take his ban. 

46 league games in a season. 

Not the end of the world. 

Come back better for it IMO 

[Rev]

1 minute ago, Curtains said:

Bradley will take his ban. 

46 league games in a season. 

Not the end of the world. 

Come back better for it IMO 

If he says he didn't bite Joe, and Joe has already said he didn't, then I don't see why any ban should be applied.

[Curtains]

Just now, reveldevil said:

If he says he didn't bite Joe, and Joe has already said he didn't, then I don't see why any ban should be applied.

IMO the tackle that preceded the bite was far worse and was almost GBH 

[TuffLuff]

Just now, reveldevil said:

If he says he didn't bite Joe, and Joe has already said he didn't, then I don't see why any ban should be applied.

Which is a really interesting point. If he says guilty, then it’s an admission and he will be labelled as a thug or whatever but will probably be banned for less games. If he fights it, will the FA want to look soft on an incident with includes biting and then potentially get more games? It’s pretty catch 22  for Johnson this...

[Rev]

7 minutes ago, Curtains said:

IMO the tackle that preceded the bite was far worse and was almost GBH 

Agreed, no natural tackle has that follow through, luckily one of the refs saw it for what is was, and RK hobbled away.

[Rev]

7 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

Which is a really interesting point. If he says guilty, then it’s an admission and he will be labelled as a thug or whatever but will probably be banned for less games. If he fights it, will the FA want to look soft on an incident with includes biting and then potentially get more games? It’s pretty catch 22  for Johnson this...

He should fight it.

Sometimes biting is an involuntary action, caused by pain or the need to exert yourself.

Who's to say Joe Allen didn't squeeze his balls say, which caused him to bite down involuntary?

As for Snake approaching the ref afterwards and asking him not to mention it in his report, nothing is more likely to see a ref mention it than that, as Snake well knows.