Mike Williamson (now managing MK Dons)

[Dave]

Not sure whether or not to read anything into this appeal/plea. Admittedly I've only seen it a couple of times but to me it looks blatant. Perhaps the player and club are absolutely adamant it was an accident but could it also be a sign that they're not particularly confident in the replacements?

[Ronaldo]

Not sure whether or not to read anything into this appeal/plea. Admittedly I've only seen it a couple of times but to me it looks blatant. Perhaps the player and club are absolutely adamant it was an accident but could it also be a sign that they're not particularly confident in the replacements?

 

I think they're probably viewing the appeal as a no-lose situation. If he does get his ban extended to 4 games, Coloccini's back by then anyway and Campbell/Taylor will have a bit of fitness under their belts.

[Cronky]

Not sure whether or not to read anything into this appeal/plea. Admittedly I've only seen it a couple of times but to me it looks blatant. Perhaps the player and club are absolutely adamant it was an accident but could it also be a sign that they're not particularly confident in the replacements?

 

From what Hughton has said, their case is that it's a yellow card offence, not a red. The claim is that it was a body check, made in retaliation for something Elmander had done earlier. The clash of bodies was intentional, but not the clash of heads.

 

The only view I've seen is a long distance one. Along with the body check, there does look to be a slight movement of the head that was probably intentional, but not definitely. If there's no close up view of the incident, I don't think the evidence is clear enough.

[Ronaldo]

Not sure whether or not to read anything into this appeal/plea. Admittedly I've only seen it a couple of times but to me it looks blatant. Perhaps the player and club are absolutely adamant it was an accident but could it also be a sign that they're not particularly confident in the replacements?

 

From what Hughton has said, their case is that it's a yellow card offence, not a red. The claim is that it was a body check, made in retaliation for something Elmander had done earlier. The clash of bodies was intentional, but not the clash of heads.

 

The only view I've seen is a long distance one. Along with the body check, there does look to be a slight movement of the head that was probably intentional, but not definitely. If there's no close up view of the incident, I don't think the evidence is clear enough.

 

Yeah, that'll be exactly what they'll claim.

[Cronky]

Not sure whether or not to read anything into this appeal/plea. Admittedly I've only seen it a couple of times but to me it looks blatant. Perhaps the player and club are absolutely adamant it was an accident but could it also be a sign that they're not particularly confident in the replacements?

 

From what Hughton has said, their case is that it's a yellow card offence, not a red. The claim is that it was a body check, made in retaliation for something Elmander had done earlier. The clash of bodies was intentional, but not the clash of heads.

 

The only view I've seen is a long distance one. Along with the body check, there does look to be a slight movement of the head that was probably intentional, but not definitely. If there's no close up view of the incident, I don't think the evidence is clear enough.

 

Yeah, that'll be exactly what they'll claim.

 

Are you saying that's not what they'll claim, or that they'll be making themselves ridiculous by claiming that?

[Martin Lol]

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.

 

Wullie has got it right, the charge attracts a 3 match ban, the player can accept the ban or contest it. 

 

If he contests it and is found guilty, the FA may or may not make it a 4 match ban for a 'frivolous appeal'.

 

If the ban is increased to 4 matches, the player can appeal against the addition of the extra match ban.  If that appeal is unsuccessful, the ban could be further increased to 5 matches.  There is no right to appeal after that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

I'd be using video footage of the foul on Williamson by Bedtner and be saying that he was just attempting what another alleged top class referee from this league deemed to be a legal challenge, and clashed heads accidentally.

 

To be honest though, Elmander was about as believable as that stupid twat that's currently on the news with her feinting spurts, lying down 'knocked out' to get the ref's or media's attention.

[jdckelly]

confirmed 3 match ban

http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20101124/williamson-decision-upheld_2281670_2229327

[geordie_b]

how did they prove it was a deliberate headbutt yet couldnt prove that Huddlestone stamped on that player

[Kaizero]

Willo is an NUFC player whilst Huddlecunt is a Spurs player. That's how.

[jdckelly]

how did they prove it was a deliberate headbutt yet couldnt prove that Huddlestone stamped on that player

because the fa suck up to the "important clubs"

[Flip]

how did they prove it was a deliberate headbutt yet couldnt prove that Huddlestone stamped on that player

 

Because Willos was and because they favor bigger teams and national team players?

[Martin Lol]

Surprised it wasn't judged as a frivolous appeal tbh.

[quayside]

They have handed out bans to big club players before - didn't Rio get a 4 match ban (including 1 for a frivolous appeal) so I'm not sure the favouring big clubs argument has much to it. The Huddlestone decision is more likely to be down to incompetence tbh.

[Martin Lol]

They have handed out bans to big club players before - didn't Rio get a 4 match ban (including 1 for a frivolous appeal) so I'm not sure the favouring big clubs argument has much to it. The Huddlestone decision is more likely to be down to incompetence tbh.

 

Quite possibly.  Hudd still maintains that it was accidental but there's no reason he couldn't have been putting that defence to an FA disciplinary committee panel.

[Kimbo]

They don't miss a trick when it comes to us. I'm still wondering why Dempsey wasn't charged for elbowing Bosingwa.

[Dokko]

No point in lashing out with your hands, elbows or head, best way is to tackle someone and break their legs. This season has proven that, hopefully we'll learn from this.

 

 

[Flip]

Am I the only one who doesn't care that he's suspended?

 

He's worse than Campbell and Taylor. My only concern is that if one these two are nowhere near fit and Perch has to start. Then Ill be seriously worried.

[The Prophet]

Am I the only one who doesn't care that he's suspended?

 

He's worse than Campbell and Taylor. My only concern is that if one these two are nowhere near fit and Perch has to start. Then Ill be seriously worried.

 

http://www.dailyhaggis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/o_rly.jpg

 

[Flip]

Am I the only one who doesn't care that he's suspended?

 

He's worse than Campbell and Taylor. My only concern is that if one these two are nowhere near fit and Perch has to start. Then Ill be seriously worried.

 

http://www.dailyhaggis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/o_rly.jpg

 

 

Oh really.

[The Prophet]

Based on what? I'm curious.

[ChrisMcQuillan]

I reckon Kadar would be ahead of Perch in the order of things.

[Flip]

Based on what? I'm curious.

 

Based on the way they've played last time I've seen them.

 

Campbell has been good every time he has come on and Taylor was good last time he played.

 

Williamson on the other hand has been good but he gets lucky, and I've said this a long time and at the end he didn't get lucky and got what he deserved.

[STM]

In the most part Willamson and Coloccini have been impeccable since they were put together last year and a major part of our promotion.

 

This year i have yet to see either of them make a Bramble esq error, there have been a few minor slip-up's but nothing more than you would suspect from a mid-table side. They have also dealt with some good teams too.

 

The Bolton game was a poor team performance all round and i suspect the lack of defensive cover and inability to keep the ball had alot to do with the result, even if Colo and Williamson had poor individual games.

 

There are still huge question marks over whether Sol is fit enough to play in a premiership defence or whether Stevie Taylor is capable of stringing a few games (let alone decent ones) together. Therefore Coloccini and Williamson will be a huge miss. I reckon in three games time we will desperate for them to return.

[The Prophet]

Based on what? I'm curious.

 

Based on the way they've played last time I've seen them.

 

Campbell has been good every time he has come on and Taylor was good last time he played.

 

Williamson on the other hand has been good but he gets lucky, and I've said this a long time and at the end he didn't get lucky and got what he deserved.

 

Agree Campbell has looked good in the very limited amount of appearances he's made, its impossible judge if 'he gets lucky' as you claim Williamson does. People keep referring to his appearances for Arsenal last season but it's difficult to judge given he had much, much better midfield in front of him. As for Taylor it's difficult to know if he's matured while he's been injured but beforehand he was the same rash impulsive player we've had on the books for years. Don't get me wrong both have their qualities but it remains to be seen just how good they are at this present time.

 

As for Williamson I'm not sure how he gets lucky. He's very limited on the ball but to me he's solid if not unspectacular Premier League centre back.