Forsyth

[duncanjwitham]

6 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Also with that his momentum is carrying him forwards and he's clearly off balance.

Plus, you can clearly see how his momentum is carrying him over the 2 steps he takes after the 'stamp'. It's not a clear "stick his leg out to do some damage", it's just one of 4 steps in a perfectly natural motion, given what's happening to his body.

[BriggRam]

I don't believe it was intentional from fozzy....but I'm not surprised the EFL have stamped down on it

[May Contain Nuts]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

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

My favourite was when their player tried to take out Roos, got put on the floor and stayed there. No instruction from the officials and everyone was there for what seemed an age (probably only 5-10 seconds) with the ball in Roos' possession and their rolling around as if he'd been fouled.

Roos tries to get play moving again and no sooner has the released the ball the ref blows his whistle, stops play and reaches for his pocket whilst walking towards Roos as if he was going to book him. He didn't book him, but did seem to have words with him. Presumably for timewasting? Just complete incompetence, had no control over the game.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Coconut's Beard

[Anon]

4 hours ago, mike93rh said:

How blinkered are our fans that people are even questioning it. He's stamped on the man's c**k, it's a blatant red! ?

Incidentally it's also the best thing he's ever done in a Derby shirt. 

Objection!

Forest players don't have cocks.

[VulcanRam]

2 hours ago, Spanish said:

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

To be fair, we're told to see if we can let the game flow and if there's an advantage to be played, play it, rather than always whistle immediately, which leads to a stop-start game and gets players' backs up. Problem is, and it's a fine line, he often left it a little too late to bring play back. Though this doesn't apply to the Jagielka incident, as he gave a foul to Boro and so couldn't have been waiting for an advantage as Derby had the ball towards their penalty area!! I think he just had a bad day. It happens. 

Edited September 2, 2021 by VulcanRam

[VulcanRam]

Just now, VulcanRam said:

To be fair, we're told to see if we can let the game flow and if there's an advantage to be played, play it, rather than always whistle immediately, which leads to a stop start game and gets players' backs up. Problem is, and it's a fine line, he often left it a little too late to bring play back. Though this doesn't apply to the Jagielka incident, as he gave a foul to Boro and so couldn't have been waiting for an advantage as Derby had the ball towards their penalty area!! I think he just had a bad day. It happens. 

 

[VulcanRam]

Sorry, something annoying me about this thread and the conspiracies: this was an FA charge and ban, nothing to do with the EFL, so enough with the "another effort by the EFL to kill us" stuff!

[AndyinLiverpool]

5 minutes ago, VulcanRam said:

Sorry, something annoying me about this thread and the conspiracies: this was an FA charge and ban, nothing to do with the EFL, so enough with the "another effort by the EFL to kill us" stuff!

Well said

[Grumpy Git]

This would have been worthy of a three match ban;

Not sure it was deliberate though? ?

Edited September 2, 2021 by Grumpy Git

[BodminRam]

Why does it seem the world is out to get us, getting fed up with it all now, just want it over, in anyway, next they will be banning our fans for clapping or singing too loud, sad, very sad

[Ellafella]

We know Craig’s character and he is an honest and fair footballer. Not a deliberate act; unfair punishment in my book. And as others have pointed out, what about the penalty decisions: the handball by the Florist defender described as “clever” by the Snotts Evening post. 

[Gringo]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

Objection!

Forest players don't have cocks.

Incorrect it is between their ears

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

9 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

We know Craig’s character and he is an honest and fair footballer. Not a deliberate act; unfair punishment in my book. And as others have pointed out, what about the penalty decisions: the handball by the Florist defender described as “clever” by the Snotts Evening post. 

Has that Middlesbrough player had his 3 game ban yet for playing rollerball with Jagielkas head . Thought not

[Leicester Ram]

6 hours ago, Donnyram said:

That's down to Sky pundits nailing him

The amount of poo that gets missed in this league if the sky cameras aren’t there is mental.

The incident is 50/50 but it’s in Sky’s interest for there to be drama, so it’s played up.

Also, if you’ve ever seen Craig Forsyth move, you’ll know he’s just gangly and clumsy.

[nottingram]

I have no real issue with Forsyth being suspended but I struggle with the inconsistency of it all. From what I can tell there’s been two counts of retrospective action so far this season, Bong and Forsyth. Both games on Sky. In that case are we now allowing Sky pundits to influence decisions as it seems a coincidence otherwise when there have so far been 60 EFL games. Indeed we have seen Ikpeazu do something far more dangerous in one of our own non televised games with no apparent punishment.

So I don’t think there’s a conspiracy but if you are going to punish players retrospectively you have to be prepared to pore through the footage of each and every game that is played, not just the ones where David Prutton has decided it’s a red for you. 

[I know nuffin]

What Sky say goes. Remember Johnson's biting offence. Sky called it biting. Johnson said he did not. His so called victim said he had not bit him. FA found Johnson guilty. Say no more Fozzie had to accept it.

[MuespachRam]

47 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

We know Craig’s character and he is an honest and fair footballer. Not a deliberate act; unfair punishment in my book. And as others have pointed out, what about the penalty decisions: the handball by the Florist defender described as “clever” by the Snotts Evening post. 

Unfortunately the "character" is totally irrelevant, you cant bring that variable into it at all.

Honestly, I think it was probably a sending off, the ref missed it, so the retrospective ban is applied....put it like this, everyone and I mean everyone would have been crying about it if a Forest player had done it and got away with it.... (see everyone crying about the boro player)

Its just one of those things, it happens, no pathetic conspiracy, it just happens.

[nottingram]

46 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Unfortunately the "character" is totally irrelevant, you cant bring that variable into it at all.

Honestly, I think it was probably a sending off, the ref missed it, so the retrospective ban is applied....put it like this, everyone and I mean everyone would have been crying about it if a Forest player had done it and got away with it.... (see everyone crying about the boro player)

Its just one of those things, it happens, no pathetic conspiracy, it just happens.

The point is, why has Forsyth got a ban when the Boro player didn’t? No problem if both do, no problem if neither does. 

[ram59]

49 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Unfortunately the "character" is totally irrelevant, you cant bring that variable into it at all.

Honestly, I think it was probably a sending off, the ref missed it, so the retrospective ban is applied....put it like this, everyone and I mean everyone would have been crying about it if a Forest player had done it and got away with it.... (see everyone crying about the boro player)

Its just one of those things, it happens, no pathetic conspiracy, it just happens.

But is character irrelevant when looking at an incident in detail days after the game? To come to a decision like this, they must show that there was intent and that it was not simply an accident. What proof has come to light, to show this? Surely, if Fozzy was deliberately treading on the player, he would have aimed at a bigger target, like his thigh, not in between his legs.

[JfR]

12 minutes ago, nottingram said:

The point is, why has Forsyth got a ban when the Boro player didn’t? No problem if both do, no problem if neither does. 

It's the inconsistency even in televised fixtures that annoys me. I remember a couple of seasons back when we played West Brom at home, a game that was shown on Sky, and Matheus Pereira pulled the most blatant dive to win a penalty near the end of that game.

When I saw the replay after the fixture, I thought it would only be a matter of time before he was hit with something, but no retrospective punishment ever came his way. It particularly annoyed me, as just a few months prior, when we played West Brom last game of the previous season in another televised fixture, Sky kicked up such a fuss about Lawrence "diving" in that game that the FA reviewed it and commented to say they would not be taking action over it, as there was clear contact in the foul. Yet an actual, clear incident of simulation was allowed to go unpunished and uncommented upon.

There seems to be a very unclear method by which the FA decides what to look at and what not to look at when it comes to retrospective incidents, that would give the impression that they just pick and choose as they feel.