Mike Williamson (now unemployed)

[Colocho]

What he did was just as stupid as Barton.

[Dr Venkman]

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.

[quayside]

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.

[Colocho]

Points deductions ... bit far if you ask me.

[Dave]

Gazette also claiming he has agreed a contract extension btw.

[Ritchie]

Mikey has denied any wrong doing.

[Crumpy Gunt]

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.

[Martin Lol]

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.

[cubaricho]

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.

[Canuck]

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.

[Ash]

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?

[jdckelly]

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

[Ash]

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.

[Mag-ic]

What?

[Ash]

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.

[Mag-ic]

No no, they've given him the ban. He is appealing the ban. therefore if frivolous, +1 game.

 

That's my understanding.

[jdckelly]

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

[Mag-ic]

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.

[Wullie]

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.

[Ash]

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.

[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?