Forsyth

[DCFC27]

I do find this a bit boring, just go with the ref's on field decision unless VAR is in play. FWIW I can't make my mind up its not really we have seen from Fozzy in the past 8 years. 

[Ram-Alf]

11 hours ago, JfR said:

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.

I find retrospective punishment a rather double edged sword in a strange way, If Forsyth was sent off by the official...would we have gone onto claim a point?, With him staying on he was able to put Lawrence through and score.

The same goes for your post above of the "successful deception of a match official", If winning a penalty by this method and gaining 3 points, Only the player is punished while the team wins, Surely imo...deduct points and award them to the opposing team, But then again it will be down to others to find a player guilty of deception...all this "retrospective action" is fools gold, As not every action is dealt with by an action.

[ram59]

11 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

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!?

In a court of law, character references are used along with other evidence. The evidence in his defence was that he was not looking at where he was placing his foot, he was unbalanced at the time and wouldn't have had full control of where his feet were going and there was no lead up to the incident, there wasn't even any excessive force to make it a stamp rather than a tread. I will ask you, the FA or anyone to provide any evidence that this was a deliberate act and not a pure accident.

[Sparkle]

We are going to miss him in those games vs the aerial bombardment that’s going to be coming from Birmingham and WBA in particular, yep Buchanan is a fine prospect and decent in the air but these two opposing sides are thugs 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

30 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

We are going to miss him in those games vs the aerial bombardment that’s going to be coming from Birmingham and WBA in particular, yep Buchanan is a fine prospect and decent in the air but these two opposing sides are thugs 

Which is exactly why Wayne is desperately trying to get out team to be braver on the ball in the second halves. For some reason we seem to allow the opposition the ball and sit back off their defence and let them control the game. If we can carry out the style of play we see in the first half for both halves we are on to a winner. If we have the ball for the majority of the game, second half as well as first, the players will be far less anxious and consequently hurt far less.

Edited September 3, 2021 by The Scarlet Pimpernel

[NottsRam]

23 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

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...

Great point, looking back Mings' was as bad if not worse.

[DavesaRam]

I think the main problem is the incredibly consistent levels of inconsistency by the match officials which has been obvious for years. So on Saturday Fozzy could well have been given a red card there and then, and we wouldn't then have had that wonderful through ball to Tom. What is causing all the outrage were all the other instances of foul play which went totally unpunished. 

So in order, we had:

• the Forest right back kicking out at Louie Sibley as he ran back from our first attack. Not just a clip of the heel, a full blown swing where the Forest player's leg went out at 70 degrees. It was deliberate violent conduct. Red Card.
• Worrall fouling Louie Sibley as he was bout to be running through on goal. Deliberately preventing a clear goal-scoring opportunity. Red Card.
• Worrall deliberately handling the ball to prevent it going to one of two Derby players in the area. Preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity. Red Card and Penalty.
• Worrall elbowing Ravel Morrison on the back of his head. Violent conduct. Red Card.
• Worrall - a succession of fouls, wrestling downs and trips, several in the penalty area. At least two yellow cards. Red Card.
• All-in-wrestling on Curtis Davis in the penalty area. Penalty. Red or yellow card.

This is all in just one match. 

Then we go back just one week and we have Jagielka getting booked for a clear, successful tackle where he got the ball. Then we have Ikpeazu splitting Jag's face open with an elbow. Definite red card, but not even a free kick is given.

All of this from just two games, yet we are seeing these kind of instances and injustices all the time.

Incidentally a colleague of mine, a Tree, reckons that Joswiack studded one of their players on Saturday. Anyone else know about this?

Edited September 3, 2021 by DavesaRam

[MuespachRam]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

In a court of law, character references are used along with other evidence. The evidence in his defence was that he was not looking at where he was placing his foot, he was unbalanced at the time and wouldn't have had full control of where his feet were going and there was no lead up to the incident, there wasn't even any excessive force to make it a stamp rather than a tread. I will ask you, the FA or anyone to provide any evidence that this was a deliberate act and not a pure accident.

It was a red card, not a particularly harsh one, certainly not an obvious one, but It was a sending off.

there will be a lot of times this season where players (from our club and other clubs) get away with things that are far more “obvious” than that. It happens, It has been happening since the beginning of the game and is still happening with VAR etc etc. (Which is the last thing we need at this level)

it’s amazing the amount of outrage on here about It to be honest, especially as most of the match day threads are littered with people slagging off Fozzy for being rubbish…..!?

we will miss him, it’s not the end of the world, we aren’t going to go down, we aren’t going to go up….with or without him for these 3 games. 
 

pretty zen arent I…..? 

[brady1993]

37 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

It was a red card, not a particularly harsh one, certainly not an obvious one, but It was a sending off.

there will be a lot of times this season where players (from our club and other clubs) get away with things that are far more “obvious” than that. It happens, It has been happening since the beginning of the game and is still happening with VAR etc etc. (Which is the last thing we need at this level)

it’s amazing the amount of outrage on here about It to be honest, especially as most of the match day threads are littered with people slagging off Fozzy for being rubbish…..!?

we will miss him, it’s not the end of the world, we aren’t going to go down, we aren’t going to go up….with or without him for these 3 games. 
 

pretty zen arent I…..? 

I'm more bemused than outraged. To me it clearly looks un-intentional but I'll concede there are plenty of fans on here who adamantally disagree with that. So with that alone I can see why he's been hit by it. 

Fortunately it's one of the few positions we could stomach a minor hit to, what with Buchanan returning to fitness and Williams looking talented.

Edited September 3, 2021 by brady1993

[MuespachRam]

1 minute ago, brady1993 said:

I'm more bemused than outrage. To me it clearly looks un-intentional but I'll concede there are plenty of fans on here who adamantally disagree with that. So with that alone I can see why he's been hit by it. 

Fortunately it's one of the few positions we could stomach a minor hit to, what with Buchanan returning to fitness and Williams looking talented.

Exactly. 

[Rampage]

2 hours ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Which is exactly why Wayne is desperately trying to get out team to be braver on the ball in the second halves. For some reason we seem to allow the opposition the ball and sit back off their defence and let them control the game. If we can carry out the style of play we see in the first half for both halves we are on to a winner. If we have the ball for the majority of the game, second half as well as first, the players will be far less anxious and consequently hurt far less.

They usually bring on subs then start to control the game after half time.

[BriggRam]

1 hour ago, NottsRam said:

Great point, looking back Mings' was as bad if not worse.

The two I've just watched were horrendous, especially the one on Zlatan Ibrahimovic 

[MuespachRam]

1 hour ago, DavesaRam said:

I think the main problem is the incredibly consistent levels of inconsistency by the match officials which has been obvious for years. So on Saturday Fozzy could well have been given a red card there and then, and we wouldn't then have had that wonderful through ball to Tom. What is causing all the outrage were all the other instances of foul play which went totally unpunished. 

So in order, we had:

• the Forest right back kicking out at Louie Sibley as he ran back from our first attack. Not just a clip of the heel, a full blown swing where the Forest player's leg went out at 70 degrees. It was deliberate violent conduct. Red Card.
• Worrall fouling Louie Sibley as he was bout to be running through on goal. Deliberately preventing a clear goal-scoring opportunity. Red Card.
• Worrall deliberately handling the ball to prevent it going to one of two Derby players in the area. Preventing a clear goal scoring opportunity. Red Card and Penalty.
• Worrall elbowing Ravel Morrison on the back of his head. Violent conduct. Red Card.
• Worrall - a succession of fouls, wrestling downs and trips, several in the penalty area. At least two yellow cards. Red Card.
• All-in-wrestling on Curtis Davis in the penalty area. Penalty. Red or yellow card.

This is all in just one match. 

Then we go back just one week and we have Jagielka getting booked for a clear, successful tackle where he got the ball. Then we have Ikpeazu splitting Jag's face open with an elbow. Definite red card, but not even a free kick is given.

All of this from just two games, yet we are seeing these kind of instances and injustices all the time.

Incidentally a colleague of mine, a Tree, reckons that Joswiack studded one of their players on Saturday. Anyone else know about this?

Ha ha.  This post sums It all up…..

6 points raised as to why we were hard done by and decisions that didn’t go out way….and then, just in passing, oh, did Jozwiak stud one of their players…!? 
 

Most football fans just don’t “see” Anything that their own players ever do…

I bet if you asked a Forest fan he wouldn’t recall half of those “incidents” and certainly wouldn’t agree that they deserved a couple of red cards and 1 or 2penalties given against them….!

It was a sending off  he got away with It, It has caught up with him now  

 

[ram59]

1 hour ago, MuespachRam said:

It was a red card, not a particularly harsh one, certainly not an obvious one, but It was a sending off.

 

 

There you prove my point, 'certainly not an obvious one', VAR and after match punishments are only to be used when the ref has made a clear and obvious error.

I wouldn't have had too much of a problem, if in the heat of the moment, the ref had decided to punish Fozzy, but for somebody to decide days later after countless replays that he intentionally committed the foul, it's farcical. Again I ask, where is the evidence that it wasn't an accident?

[Tyler Durden]

4 hours ago, ram59 said:

In a court of law, character references are used along with other evidence. The evidence in his defence was that he was not looking at where he was placing his foot, he was unbalanced at the time and wouldn't have had full control of where his feet were going and there was no lead up to the incident, there wasn't even any excessive force to make it a stamp rather than a tread. I will ask you, the FA or anyone to provide any evidence that this was a deliberate act and not a pure accident.

In a court of law character references are normally used after the defendant has been found guilty to mitigate the following punishment which will be handed down to them.

In employment law the balance of probabilities can be used if it's a one person's word against anothers scenario so a person's previous good character then can be used to determine the outcome. 

[MuespachRam]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

There you prove my point, 'certainly not an obvious one', VAR and after match punishments are only to be used when the ref has made a clear and obvious error.

I wouldn't have had too much of a problem, if in the heat of the moment, the ref had decided to punish Fozzy, but for somebody to decide days later after countless replays that he intentionally committed the foul, it's farcical. Again I ask, where is the evidence that it wasn't an accident?

Where is the evidence that It wasn’t?

[DavesaRam]

5 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Ha ha.  This post sums It all up…..

6 points raised as to why we were hard done by and decisions that didn’t go out way….and then, just in passing, oh, did Jozwiak stud one of their players…!? 
 

Most football fans just don’t “see” Anything that their own players ever do…

I bet if you asked a Forest fan he wouldn’t recall half of those “incidents” and certainly wouldn’t agree that they deserved a couple of red cards and 1 or 2penalties given against them….!

It was a sending off  he got away with It, It has caught up with him now  

 

This wasn't supposed to be a "Aren't we hard done by/the EFL have got it in for us all ways up" post. I listed the poor decisions to maybe explain the amount of outrage at such a harsh punishment. In reality he was always going to get red carded retrospectively, whether the EFL are out to get us or not. And yes, we will see more offences against Derby than fans of other clubs will, but that is true of any club's supporters. I don't think Fozzy's stamp was deliberate, but it could easily have been, and is certainly easy to perceive that way. How many other retrospective red cards have there been, especially to players from other clubs? That would be an interesting perspective. But you have to admit that we haven't had the rub of the green with referee decisions of late. And I asked about the alleged Joswiack incident because I didn't see it, and it hasn't been mentioned by anyone else, either on here or on any other social media as far as I am aware, so I simply would like to know about it. IF it happened, then it does tend to prove your point about seeing what we want to see.

[ram59]

3 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Where is the evidence that It wasn’t?

You're missing the point, I've already listed the evidence that it wasn't. What the FA has done is to overturn the ref's original decision, but on what grounds was it clear and obviously wrong? You have already stated the it 'certainly wasn't an obvious one' and by that you are saying that there are insufficient grounds to overturn the decision.

[ram59]

4 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

In a court of law character references are normally used after the defendant has been found guilty to mitigate the following punishment which will be handed down to them.

In employment law the balance of probabilities can be used if it's a one person's word against anothers scenario so a person's previous good character then can be used to determine the outcome. 

I'm afraid that you are not correct there, character witness statements can be used to back up the defendants' statement, in this case Fozzy denying any deliberate act. Many times in court cases, the defence will highlight that the defendant is of good character and has no previous convictions if that is the case. All witnesses in court cases can have their character examined during the case, controversely so in the case of rape victims. Incidently, my late father, a company director and special constable at the time, gave a character reference for a close friend of mine, which his solicitor believed to be instrumental in my friend being found not guilty of a charge in a criminal case.

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, ram59 said:

I'm afraid that you are not correct there, character witness statements can be used to back up the defendants' statement, in this case Fozzy denying any deliberate act. Many times in court cases, the defence will highlight that the defendant is of good character and has no previous convictions if that is the case. All witnesses in court cases can have their character examined during the case, controversely so in the case of rape victims. Incidently, my late father, a company director and special constable at the time, gave a character reference for a close friend of mine, which his solicitor believed to be instrumental in my friend being found not guilty of a charge in a criminal case.

I did say normally......