Forsyth

[BriggRam]

2 hours 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!

Thanks for clearing that up

[JfR]

Also, does anyone else remember Cafu having a couple of nasty kicks out at Waghorn in this same fixture last season? Presumably he got punished retrospectively for violent conduct, right?

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

1 minute ago, JfR said:

Also, does anyone else remember Cafu having a couple of nasty kicks out at Waghorn in this same fixture last season? Presumably he got punished retrospectively for violent conduct, right?

I remember Clarke being put out of action for 5 weeks following a Yates rugby tackle.  Any retrospective ban .

[Crewton]

The real joke is that, if the ref had booked him at the time, he couldn't have been retrospectively red carded, just like Yates' studs up challenge on Clarke. The rule that doesn't allow an on field punishment to be upgraded is ludicrous. 

[Rampage]

I think that Foz got the very least penalty that I would have given him. We have to protect standards in the game. Not really a great issue whether it was actually deliberate. More important that a realistic penalty was laid out because of how it looked imo.

[nottingram]

17 minutes ago, JfR said:

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.

As I remember it, those very normal fans at Elland Road were kicking up a stink about the Lawrence “dive” as he’d have been banned for the semis if he’d been found to have dived

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

1 hour 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.

Agree but the foul by that twit Yates on Clarke at the council tip 2 seasons ago went unpunished. Yet the EFL see fit to compound our player issues this time around. 

[DRBee]

15 minutes ago, Rampage said:

I think that Foz got the very least penalty that I would have given him. We have to protect standards in the game. Not really a great issue whether it was actually deliberate. More important that a realistic penalty was laid out because of how it looked imo.

What on earth  does 'protecting standards" mean? Unless it was intentional nothing is being protected. Not surprised about the ban because it looks horrible but look how deliberate and careful Fossie was with the subsequent movement of both of his legs+feet. Given his body position prior to the 'stamp', avoiding the player in the ground would have  been difficult in any case. Hard to tell intent here if there was any. Fossie has not been given the benefit of any doubt, but we often see dangerous play like this penalised. 

[G-Ram]

Can we have a retrospective penalty for the handball 

[sage]

1 hour ago, Rampage said:

I think that Foz got the very least penalty that I would have given him. We have to protect standards in the game. Not really a great issue whether it was actually deliberate. More important that a realistic penalty was laid out because of how it looked imo.

Why not?

[tinman]

53 minutes ago, Ted McMinn Football Genius said:

Agree but the foul by that twit Yates on Clarke at the council tip 2 seasons ago went unpunished. Yet the EFL see fit to compound our player issues this time around. 

It’s the FA, not the EFL

[Van der MoodHoover]

8 hours ago, Spanish said:

I think stamping on the general area was accurate enough now you expect him to twist on  the end?  Expectations of some fans are impossible to meet?

Was the most obvious example of an accidental stumble you could ever see...the footage is clear. ?

 

[Rampage]

59 minutes ago, DRBee said:

What on earth  does 'protecting standards" mean? Unless it was intentional nothing is being protected. Not surprised about the ban because it looks horrible but look how deliberate and careful Fossie was with the subsequent movement of both of his legs+feet. Given his body position prior to the 'stamp', avoiding the player in the ground would have  been difficult in any case. Hard to tell intent here if there was any. Fossie has not been given the benefit of any doubt, but we often see dangerous play like this penalised. 

I have no idea whether it was deliberate. I do not think it was but I think that I would have given at least three games because of how it looked. By standards, I mean it could not be let go because of how it looked. I have never seen one that 'looked' like that in my life. Many players have got away with intentional fouls and vice versa. As we will never be certain about most of these incidents they will generally be judged on how they looked at the time and decided by people who are paid to make these decisions. Foz's career record makes it seem as certain as can be that it was not deliberate. I do not think that it was deliberate.

 

25 minutes ago, sage said:

Why not?

Referees and panels look at the video and judge by what they see. It will always bring up anomalies and they are not able to say that something was deliberate. Foz does not do deliberate things like that and his whole career supports that. What the judges saw made them think it was a three game penalty punishment. I have seen 'certain' fouls where it turned out that there was no contact at all. The first camera angle convinced me that it was a foul. Other angles proved otherwise. I have been wrong about countless penalty decisions. I do not believe that Foz did whatever we saw deliberately. It does look very bad from the camera views which is all there was to go on.

[i-Ram]

If it had been a VAR incident he would have been off, and we would have played, what, 80 minutes with 10 men. No problem with the retrospective punishment. Buchanan make the position your own. You have 3 games to prove your value.

[Gritstone Ram]

2 hours ago, JfR said:

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.

However the ref saw it and made a decision. Where as this video evidence is where the ref didn’t see the incident.

Right or wrong it’s the refs decision that isn’t over turned unless it’s a straight red or if he didn’t see the incident. If he saw it and it was overturned where would it stop?

Edited September 2, 2021 by Gritstone Ram

[JfR]

8 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said:

However the ref saw it and made a decision. Where as this video evidence is where the ref didn’t see the incident.

Right or wrong it’s the refs decision that isn’t over turned unless it’s a straight red or if he didn’t see the incident. If he saw it and it was overturned where would it stop?

There is a similar process wherein a player can be suspended for "successful deception of a match official" i.e., they dived and profited from it, either by getting a player sent off or by winning a penalty. Probably should have clarified that.

[Foreveram]

21 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

If it had been a VAR incident he would have been off, and we would have played, what, 80 minutes with 10 men. No problem with the retrospective punishment. Buchanan make the position your own. You have 3 games to prove your value.

We do have a precedent for beating them with 10 men

[i-Ram]

9 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

We do have a precedent for beating them with 10 men

[MuespachRam]

3 hours ago, ram59 said:

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.

Yep. It is today and utterly irrelevant. 

How many times do you hear the neighbours say “he was such a quiet man” after they find out that their neighbour has killed 20 kids!?

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

2 hours ago, tinman said:

It’s the FA, not the EFL

Ok