hakka Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 my point is that if our players could behave themselves we wouldnt have a problem. I don't think anyone is really going to dispute that, but fair enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 my point is that if our players could behave themselves we wouldnt have a problem. I don't think anyone is really going to dispute that, but fair enough. noted. this thread just has a distinct air of deflection going on. our players have been idiots, they get punished. talking about huddlestone and de jong's not gonna change it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Nobody is excusing our players, it would just be nice to see some fairness and consistency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Nobody is excusing our players, it would just be nice to see some fairness and consistency. yeah i know mate, i'm with you. i'm more pissed off with our players than i am with the F.A. though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The whole thing makes you want to kill someone tbh. Even if De Jong got banned it wouldn't affect Man City much - but it wouldn't get Ben Arfa back, and his loss is a huge blow to us . Its like when Cattermole did Habib Beye in the 08/09 season, it had a big impact on us and I can't even remember if Cattermole got a card and it made no difference to us if he did, the damage he'd caused to our squad was huge. Whereas after the "hideous offences" committed by our players neither Pedersen nor Elmander will even miss a match through injury as a result of the assaults on their person. Apologies - that's a rant and I know it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What he did was just as stupid as Barton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The whole thing makes you want to kill someone tbh. Even if De Jong got banned it wouldn't affect Man City much - but it wouldn't get Ben Arfa back, and his loss is a huge blow to us . Its like when Cattermole did Habib Beye in the 08/09 season, it had a big impact on us and I can't even remember if Cattermole got a card and it made no difference to us if he did, the damage he'd caused to our squad was huge. Whereas after the "hideous offences" committed by our players neither Pedersen nor Elmander will even miss a match through injury as a result of the assaults on their person. Apologies - that's a rant and I know it. the difference seems to be that all three of the offences by our players were out of the ordinary. a punch, an elbow in the face and a body check/head butt. the message from the F.A. is clearly that if you want to hurt someone, make it look like you're trying to tackle them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quayside Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 The whole thing makes you want to kill someone tbh. Even if De Jong got banned it wouldn't affect Man City much - but it wouldn't get Ben Arfa back, and his loss is a huge blow to us . Its like when Cattermole did Habib Beye in the 08/09 season, it had a big impact on us and I can't even remember if Cattermole got a card and it made no difference to us if he did, the damage he'd caused to our squad was huge. Whereas after the "hideous offences" committed by our players neither Pedersen nor Elmander will even miss a match through injury as a result of the assaults on their person. Apologies - that's a rant and I know it. the difference seems to be that all three of the offences by our players were out of the ordinary. a punch, an elbow in the face and a body check/head butt. the message from the F.A. is clearly that if you want to hurt someone, make it look like you're trying to tackle them. I'd love to see points deductions for blatantly dangerous tackles and decisions based retrospectively, regardless of whether the referee saw it or not. Obviously its not a feasible idea and the dispension of justice would be as flawed as it is now, but something that hits where it counts is needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Points deductions ... bit far if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Gazette also claiming he has agreed a contract extension btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritchie Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crumpy Gunt Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing. I thought at the time it happened that the ref had actually saw what had happened and he didn't give anything. It would be interesting to see how Webb was positioned and where he was looking at the moment it happened. I get the feeling this is Webb bailing himself out of the shit for not awarding a card/free kick. The linesman obviously saw nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing Is he denying it because he genuinely believes it or is it an opportunity to stagger the suspensions so that there will be one of the main CB's available for most of the coming matches? Still can't think that the FA will come up with anything other than a guilty verdict, the only question being would it be a 3 match ban or 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 My initial thought when it happened was that he wasn't doing it in any sort of violent manner. Admittedly though I had been drinking. The commentator wouldn't shut up about it though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Thankfully we've got the strength in depth defensively to cover the loss of Colo and Williamson and who knows, it could be a blessing in disguise. I'm sorry but this always strikes me as funny. NUFC have a manager and coaching staff who train the players day in and day out. They assess their fitness, ability and suitability for the tactics that they have chosen. Coaches, for the most part, assess the players objectively and with full consideration for putting out the best team on the day. Williamson IIRC has played every minute this season and therefore has earned that place. So the team runs in to a bad patch and people are calling for a scapegoat. This one is "not a premier league player", "Champo standard at best", "shouldn't ever get near the first team", blah blah f*cking blah. The best part is that if a so-called "favourite" is shite, people call for a "run of matches" to prove himself/get up to speed. What Williamson did was wrong. I watched the game again and specifically looked at the way Elmander wound him up right from the off. Williamson reacted to it when he shouldn't have; however, I defy anyone who has played CB more than a dozen times to hold their hand up and say they have not lashed out at a dirty centre forward. Hold your hand up so I can look you in the eye and call you a liar... If you don't like MW then fine, say so, but nattering on about others being better than him is nonsense. If they were better, they would be in the team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing Is he denying it because he genuinely believes it or is it an opportunity to stagger the suspensions so that there will be one of the main CB's available for most of the coming matches? Still can't think that the FA will come up with anything other than a guilty verdict, the only question being would it be a 3 match ban or 4. Why would it be 4? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing Is he denying it because he genuinely believes it or is it an opportunity to stagger the suspensions so that there will be one of the main CB's available for most of the coming matches? Still can't think that the FA will come up with anything other than a guilty verdict, the only question being would it be a 3 match ban or 4. Why would it be 4? if the fa deem it to be a "frivolous appeal" it can be increased to 4 though whats defined as frivolous only the fa know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing Is he denying it because he genuinely believes it or is it an opportunity to stagger the suspensions so that there will be one of the main CB's available for most of the coming matches? Still can't think that the FA will come up with anything other than a guilty verdict, the only question being would it be a 3 match ban or 4. Why would it be 4? if the fa deem it to be a "frivolous appeal" it can be increased to 4 though whats defined as frivolous only the fa know He hasn't appealed anything though. As is stands, there's nothing to appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag-ic Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What? He's only been charged as it stands, which he's denied. He hasn't actually been banned yet so there isn't anything to appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag-ic Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 No no, they've given him the ban. He is appealing the ban. therefore if frivolous, +1 game. That's my understanding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Mikey has denied any wrong doing Is he denying it because he genuinely believes it or is it an opportunity to stagger the suspensions so that there will be one of the main CB's available for most of the coming matches? Still can't think that the FA will come up with anything other than a guilty verdict, the only question being would it be a 3 match ban or 4. Why would it be 4? if the fa deem it to be a "frivolous appeal" it can be increased to 4 though whats defined as frivolous only the fa know He hasn't appealed anything though. As is stands, there's nothing to appeal. its the fa normal logic doesn't apply to them, but don't be surprised if they throw on an extra game or two for daring to question their judgement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag-ic Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Okay, I get it Ash. Still not so sure tho.... pleading not-guilty and then being found guilty is bound to have a heavier sentence than pleading guilty in the first instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What? He's only been charged as it stands, which he's denied. He hasn't actually been banned yet so there isn't anything to appeal. The charge is effectively the ban, which he can either accept or deny - which he has - running the possible risk of a 4 match ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What? He's only been charged as it stands, which he's denied. He hasn't actually been banned yet so there isn't anything to appeal. The charge is effectively the ban, which he can either accept or deny - which he has - running the possible risk of a 4 match ban. It doesn't work like that as far as I know. If they find him guilty tomorrow, he then has the option of appealing the ban handed out to him, which is when the ban can be extended. Link to post 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 in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now