Forsyth

[Ravabeerbelly]

I think the fact that Forsyth / Derby have accepted the punishment is enough to suggest they knew appealing ‘frivolously’ would most likely result in an additional game being added. That in itself tells me they know what they know…

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Ravabeerbelly said:

I think the fact that Forsyth / Derby have accepted the punishment is enough to suggest they knew appealing ‘frivolously’ would most likely result in an additional game being added. That in itself tells me they know what they know…

Or it's pointless appealing, how could they prove otherwise on the decision.

[Spanish]

Just now, Ravabeerbelly said:

I think the fact that Forsyth / Derby have accepted the punishment is enough to suggest they knew appealing ‘frivolously’ would most likely result in an additional game being added. That in itself tells me they know what they know…

I think it was a red but I don't think acceptance of the charge is necessarily an acceptance of guilt.  Sometimes you have to balance out the risks and move on

[VulcanRam]

11 minutes ago, Spanish said:

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.

If that was the one in front of the dugouts I was the other side of the ground so couldn't see it. I've not seen it on any of the highlights either. I remember thinking at the time he couldn't have thought it was a foul by Jags as he let play go with a clear advantage to Derby with the ball being played towards the Boro box, so presume he'd reacted to something the Fourth Official had told him, as I don't remember the assistant flagging either. Or the fact the benches went up. 

Though my abiding memory from the game was that Andy Davies, the referee, put in a poor performance from start to finish. 

[Tyler Durden]

Again to balance out all of the subjective comments on here do the EFL publish a written report detailing the reasons behind their decisions to ban a player?

Then at least we'll have something concrete to debate rather than opinion again. 

[sage]

14 minutes ago, Ravabeerbelly said:

I think the fact that Forsyth / Derby have accepted the punishment is enough to suggest they knew appealing ‘frivolously’ would most likely result in an additional game being added. That in itself tells me they know what they know…

I don't think you can appeal these judgement, This is effectively an appeal on behalf of the FA.

[Mr. P]

Well it gives his old legs a few games rest. 

[Spanish]

14 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

If that was the one in front of the dugouts I was the other side of the ground so couldn't see it. I've not seen it on any of the highlights either. I remember thinking at the time he couldn't have thought it was a foul by Jags as he let play go with a clear advantage to Derby with the ball being played towards the Boro box, so presume he'd reacted to something the Fourth Official had told him, as I don't remember the assistant flagging either. Or the fact the benches went up. 

Though my abiding memory from the game was that Andy Davies, the referee, put in a poor performance from start to finish. 

I was in the East stand also, I think Colin jumped (well creaked) out the dugout to complain.  The whole game Davies appeared to be watching it with a 15 second delay.  Incidents would take place the game move on then he would call it back, all very bizarre

[Ram-Alf]

31 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.  

There's nothing POMPOUS in your post, It's an opinion, I said in the Derby/red dogs thread that it was a Red Card, It just shows how opinion can divide people, Was he off balance? could be, Did he do it on purpose? could have, You don't have to know the game to witness what was shown, Initially when live on TV, It was a coming together from a header...no big deal, But with replays whether in slo-motion or normal speed I can see why he was banned for 3 games, Those that deal with the viewing of the incident i'm sure are ex pros and maybe a ref thrown in for good measure...

I don't follow this "If you know Forsyth it's not in his nature", How many on here who post have done something out of character?

Officials missed it, Just like they missed all the big decisions, Was this out of character or were they just p*ss poor?

It certainly gave the powers that be another stick to beat us with

[Ravabeerbelly]

29 minutes ago, Spanish said:

I think it was a red but I don't think acceptance of the charge is necessarily an acceptance of guilt.  Sometimes you have to balance out the risks and move on

That was my point. If you appeal and the FA deem it frivolous- which on the evidence of the video it would see (or why else would they charge?) - you run the risk of an additional game. It is likely a case of take the 3 and move on.

[1of4]

This revenge being persued by the EFL is now becoming plain bullying. 

Are Derby innocent of all charges against them, I've no idea, am just a simple fan who as no influence on how football is governed.

But since the original charges that the EFL brought against us. Which was originally proved unfounded, a decision which seemed to upset a certain club chairman. The EFL at the behest of him and other club's chairmen, appear to be tying themselves in knots to find anyway they can to stop Derby fielding a competitive team.

 And it's not just the ELF that seems to have an axe to grind. The owners of Sky Sports probably weren't to happy with Morris when he helped lead a campaign that wanted more money for the rights to broadcast EFL games. So it's no surprise that Forsyth's stumble is deemed to be a deliberate stamping by Sky Sports employees. Their actions must have had some influence on the FA's view of the incident.

[Guest]

VAR would have said red card - Buchanan is better anyway

Edited September 2, 2021 by Monty

[Spanish]

7 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

This revenge being persued by the EFL is now becoming plain bullying. 

Are Derby innocent of all charges against them, I've no idea, am just a simple fan who as no influence on how football is governed.

But since the original charges that the EFL brought against us. Which was originally proved unfounded, a decision which seemed to upset a certain club chairman. The EFL at the behest of him and other club's chairmen, appear to be tying themselves in knots to find anyway they can to stop Derby fielding a competitive team.

 And it's not just the ELF that seems to have an axe to grind. The owners of Sky Sports probably weren't to happy with Morris when he helped lead a campaign that wanted more money for the rights to broadcast EFL games. So it's no surprise that Forsyth's stumble is deemed to be a deliberate stamping by Sky Sports employees. Their actions must have had some influence on the FA's view of the incident.

even from Derby fans there is some doubt over his innocence and I don't think this is an example of an agenda, it is what it is, a football incident

[Ram-Alf]

34 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Again to balance out all of the subjective comments on here do the EFL publish a written report detailing the reasons behind their decisions to ban a player?

Then at least we'll have something concrete to debate rather than opinion again. 

Yes, Report sent to DCFC and they release the information ?

[NottsRam77]

Can we have a retrospective penalty for the v deliberate pre meditated handball by worral please 

[Carnero]

It's a punishment handed out by the FA not by the EFL. No agenda this time I'm afraid.

I don't think he meant it but I can see why an outsider thinks he did.

[Bald Eagle's Barmy Army]

I don't give a crap anymore

[Duracell]

If you have to slow the camera down to work out intent, you are essentially implying that Forsyth's brain works quicker than any other human being on the planet.

Careless? Perhaps. But how can you look at that and say there was intent there? He doesn't even look, and would have to guess where the player has landed. Unless the suggestion is that Forsyth has been blindly stamping the pitch his entire career, and that finally, he got one.

[Gritstone Ram]

1 hour ago, Tyler Durden said:

Again to balance out all of the subjective comments on here do the EFL publish a written report detailing the reasons behind their decisions to ban a player?

Then at least we'll have something concrete to debate rather than opinion again. 

It’s the FA not EFL who have banned him. All in it together if you ask me.

[brady1993]

4 minutes ago, Duracell said:

If you have to slow the camera down to work out intent, you are essentially implying that Forsyth's brain works quicker than any other human being on the planet.

Careless? Perhaps. But how can you look at that and say there was intent there? He doesn't even look, and would have to guess where the player has landed. Unless the suggestion is that Forsyth has been blindly stamping the pitch his entire career, and that finally, he got one.

Also with that his momentum is carrying him forwards and he's clearly off balance. I just don't see how you can attribute intent to that because ultimately that's what the red would be for right ? Clear intent ?

It's not worth appealing mind purely because if they've decided retroactively that it was a red it's very unlikely they will be able to convinced otherwise.