Jubbs Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 If the FA want to ban him and they believe it's sufficient enough evidence, then an appeal wouldn't do anything other than extend his ban. Doesn't help when Sky were adamant of him doing it on purpose and focussing on that narrative. With the camera's picking it up, he cannot deny the stamp, whether it was on purpose or not. Appeal wouldn't be successful. We know Forsyth isn't the type to do that sort of stuff. He's had 1 red card in over 300 appearances. Where is the retrospective ban for Boro striker? Because it wasn't on Sky and focussed on by pundits, nothing was done. Shows the incompetency of the FA. Ramarena 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I think the thing most people are missing is that it doesn't have to be a deliberate act to constitute violent conduct. Just doing it, deliberate or accidental, is enough. You're telling me "attempting to use excessive force" doesn't mean deliberate? Carl Sagan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black ('n' White) Sheep Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 Do we get to 'retrospectively' take our 2 clear penalties that we should have been given then? Ridiculous! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 3 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I think the thing most people are missing is that it doesn't have to be a deliberate act to constitute violent conduct. Just doing it, deliberate or accidental, is enough. Clearly Forsyth's at fault for obeying the laws of gravity. Should've learned to levitate by now ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouiseDCFC23 Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 I think three match ban is harsh. I don't believe it to be deliberate, he was unbalanced. But in this day and age you also just can't do that. One match would of been enough though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: You're telling me "attempting to use excessive force" doesn't mean deliberate? Just re-read that rule... forget what I said above... How is regaining balance "excessive force". He's been charged with violent conduct because the people making the decision deemed it a deliberate stamp, not because it could have been an accident but still violent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipley Ram Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 It was accidental to me, he didn't look down stumbled and just trod on him. The slow motion replay looked awful, and with with the Sky commentator going on about stamping and how bad it was everyone saw it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said: You're telling me "attempting to use excessive force" doesn't mean deliberate? I'm telling you that under the laws of the game "when a player uses" does not mean it has to be deliberate act to hurt. We are taught as referees that a dangerous challenge does not have to be intended or a deliberate act to constitute serious foul play/violent conduct. Just the act of putting an opponent in danger through use of excessive force is enough. It's the same principle as the high foot/dangerous play when challenging for a ball. A player who's foot is deemed high isn't intending to injure his opponent's head, but that doesn't mean to say it's not a dangerous challenge and therefore punishable either by yellow or red depending on the force used. Ravabeerbelly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 No complaints from me, he tackled his tackle. Still don't get why Ming's never got got anything for stamping on people's faces though... NottsRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I'm telling you that under the laws of the game "when a player uses" does not mean it has to be deliberate act to hurt. We are taught as referees that a dangerous challenge does not have to be intended or a deliberate act to constitute serious foul play/violent conduct. Just the act of putting an opponent in danger through use of excessive force is enough. It's the same principle as the high foot/dangerous play when challenging for a ball. A player who's foot is deemed high isn't intending to injure his opponent's head, but that doesn't mean to say it's not a dangerous challenge and therefore punishable either by yellow or red depending on the force used. What has he done that is "dangerous" though? He's jumped up, and put his feet back on the floor afterwards. If you ban that we'll be playing crab football. Taribo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Git Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 7 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I'm telling you that under the laws of the game "when a player uses" does not mean it has to be deliberate act to hurt. We are taught as referees that a dangerous challenge does not have to be intended or a deliberate act to constitute serious foul play/violent conduct. Just the act of putting an opponent in danger through use of excessive force is enough. It's the same principle as the high foot/dangerous play when challenging for a ball. A player who's foot is deemed high isn't intending to injure his opponent's head, but that doesn't mean to say it's not a dangerous challenge and therefore punishable either by yellow or red depending on the force used. They both jumped for a ball, was it Fozzie's fault the other bloke fell and landed right underneath him? Very, very harsh IMO. Taribo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 He did play the ball.. Ramifications 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said: What has he done that is "dangerous" though? He's jumped up, and put his feet back on the floor afterwards. If you ban that we'll be playing crab football. I used to enjoy crab football. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just trying to provide some context around the decision-making process. I suppose they think his foot went down with excessive force into to Forest player. They might decide there was intent. I've looked at it again and again, and can see both sides. My initial reaction seeing it live was that it was a bit naughty and it doesn't surprise me this has happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 I think that's really harsh. I can see why in slow motion it looks bad, but it doesn't look intentional. Think fans would be a bit less angry if it wasn't for a pretty obvious penalty going unpunished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 32 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I'm telling you that under the laws of the game "when a player uses" does not mean it has to be deliberate act to hurt. We are taught as referees that a dangerous challenge does not have to be intended or a deliberate act to constitute serious foul play/violent conduct. Just the act of putting an opponent in danger through use of excessive force is enough. It's the same principle as the high foot/dangerous play when challenging for a ball. A player who's foot is deemed high isn't intending to injure his opponent's head, but that doesn't mean to say it's not a dangerous challenge and therefore punishable either by yellow or red depending on the force used. were you the guy that said you were a ref- ask me anything of football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rammy03 Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 I'm hardly surprised but it clearly wasn't deliberate. Forsyth is just not that player. He didn't gain any advantage by doing it, he just stumbled back. These things happen. Really harsh punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VulcanRam Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Spanish said: were you the guy that said you were a ref- ask me anything of football? Nope, not I. I don't think I've even mentioned it on here as I think it always comes across as a bit pompous. But in this situation I did because I hoped it might bring some context about why or how the decision was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 (edited) 37 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I'm telling you that under the laws of the game "when a player uses" does not mean it has to be deliberate act to hurt. We are taught as referees that a dangerous challenge does not have to be intended or a deliberate act to constitute serious foul play/violent conduct. Just the act of putting an opponent in danger through use of excessive force is enough. It's the same principle as the high foot/dangerous play when challenging for a ball. A player who's foot is deemed high isn't intending to injure his opponent's head, but that doesn't mean to say it's not a dangerous challenge and therefore punishable either by yellow or red depending on the force used. I can see why the verdict was reached. I just don't agree with the conclusion as i can't see the excessive force coming into it when it's a stumble. The panel making the decision must have concluded it was deliberate. Another case of guilty until proven innocent. Edited September 2, 2021 by Ghost of Clough Carl Sagan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingpin Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 21 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: I used to enjoy crab football. Takes me back a bit….? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted September 2, 2021 Share Posted September 2, 2021 2 minutes ago, VulcanRam said: Nope, not I. I don't think I've even mentioned it on here as I think it always comes across as a bit pompous. But in this situation I did because I hoped it might bring some context about why or how the decision was made. no edge to my question honestly I went to the Middlebro game, I don't get many chances but I happened to be in Derby. The Jags incident where he was booked for full bloodied clearance left me wondering about modern football. Such incidents seem to punish the winner of the tackle when both players had put themselves in a situation where impact was inevitable. Not sure what a defender is supposed to do, back off and let the attacker win the ball? Having deemed that to be a foul which could only be seen as a dangerous tackle why was he booked and not sent off? The attacker applied equal force, why wasn't he booked or sent off. At my age I don't automatically see such incidents as an offence. I wonder if you would share your view if you saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now