[Football] Baily Wright (Bristol City) found guilty of Simulation

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I like this decision.

If the referees original red card was because, having looked at the player rolling around holding his face, he deemed he had been struck in the face, then it is right to overturn the red and send off Wright for deliberately attempting to get another player sent off.

The overturn of the red is a bit more contentious. Personally I think its a yellow card offence. Pushing goes on all the time. The fall made it look far worse

 

[CHAPPERS]

It's not just a shove, it's a running shove. I reckon I'd go down like a little bitch too if that bloke did it, he's massive.

 

[Yoda]

Of course it is simulation. The city player collapses and rolls on the floor clutching his face. A complete disgrace.

I'd like to see the FA do more to stop this kind of shit. Every team has at least one player who does it and a few more bans will soon put a stop to it.

Have to disagree on the collapse, looks more like a genuine fall from a push to me, and having watched another video, yes he starts by clutching his face (which is where I think they've got him) but each 90 degree roll has him holding it less and less. It's not like he's rolling like a pig in mud like you see some players doing.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I reckon that bloke should do the same to a member of the panel to see the correct reaction to a running shove. Only then can they really make a decision, anything else is guesswork.

 

[Chinman3000]

I like this decision.

If the referees original red card was because, having looked at the player rolling around holding his face, he deemed he had been struck in the face, then it is right to overturn the red and send off Wright for deliberately attempting to get another player sent off.

The overturn of the red is a bit more contentious. Personally I think its a yellow card offence. Pushing goes on all the time. The fall made it look far worse

So it was the ref that got it wrong? What law states that you have to 'hold where you're hit' when assaulted off the ball?

Who knows what he injured when he hit the ground.

Also is it a yellow to push someone in the chest but a red to push them in the face? What about the shoulders or the neck?

Team BCFC for me - ridiculous decision

 

[Yoda]

I reckon that bloke should do the same to a member of the panel to see the correct reaction to a running shove. Only then can they really make a decision, anything else is guesswork.

Well, if the former referee on the panel was Paul Alcock, he should already know.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

So it was the ref that got it wrong? What law states that you have to 'hold where you're hit' when assaulted off the ball?

Who knows what he injured when he hit the ground.

Team BCFC for me

Yes, The ref clearly got it wrong originally.

So when Rivaldo fell to the ground holding his face...when the ball hit him not in the face... you'd make the same argument?

And also, can we all just agree now, if you get hit in the face, you don't actually roll around holding it. It's completely illogical and is clearly only ever done for theatre

 

[Hotchilidog]

The player was pushed in the chest, he went down holding his face, pretty clear simulation designed to get an opponent sent off imo.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Also is it a yellow to push someone in the chest but a red to push them in the face? What about the shoulders or the neck?

Shoulders and chest are fine unless the force is excessive.

Pushing someone in the neck or face should be a red.

Hope that helps.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I reckon that bloke should do the same to a member of the panel to see the correct reaction to a running shove. .

I imagine they wouldn't feel the need to hold their collective faces and roll around for a while.

As that's stupid.

 

[Chinman3000]

Yes, The ref clearly got it wrong originally.

So when Rivaldo fell to the ground holding his face...when the ball hit him not in the face... you'd make the same argument?

And also, can we all just agree now, if you get hit in the face, you don't actually roll around holding it. It's completely illogical and is clearly only ever done for theatre

I just don't get the whole 'was it in the face though' argument. As I said it shouldn't matter what part of your body you choose to hold when you get injured.

There's enough officials in the game now to see what happened, and if none of them did see then the ref shouldn't be giving anything on the basis of what body part the player is holding (or cuts / scrapes that could have happened anytime - The Complete and Utter Shyster).

That way the provision of retrospective action will pick up anything missed.

 

[studio150]

I was under the impression that there was an FA directive a few seasons ago which made it clear that using hands to push an opponent would be a yellow but if the use of hands was above the neck it would be a red card.

On this basis the review of the incident is spot on. The red card is rescinded as the push was to the chest and not the face and therefore on the day should have been a yellow.
The Bristol city player falls to the ground but decides to hold his face. Assuming that the libesman or ref saw the coming together but were uncertain where the hands made contact then the holding of the face who influence them to conclude it was a red card offence.
The lengthy tirade on the Bristol City website is misguided as it does not address why their player was holding his face.
The FA have correctly applied their rules.

 

[Chinman3000]

Shoulders and chest are fine unless the force is excessive.

Pushing someone in the neck or face should be a red.

Hope that helps.

I'm assuming this is a joke.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I just don't get the whole 'was it in the face though' argument. As I said it shouldn't matter what part of your body you choose to hold when you get injured.

There's enough officials in the game now to see what happened, and if none of them did see then the ref shouldn't be giving anything on the basis of what body part the player is holding (or cuts / scrapes that could have happened anytime - The Complete and Utter Shyster).

That way the provision of retrospective action will pick up anything missed.

So, if a player walks past me and pushes me in the arm.....and I COLLAPSE to the ground holding my face and rolling around....that is seen as ok in your eyes?

The player subsequently gets sent of when all he did was push me in the arm?

 

[Munkfish]

I like this decision.

If the referees original red card was because, having looked at the player rolling around holding his face, he deemed he had been struck in the face, then it is right to overturn the red and send off Wright for deliberately attempting to get another player sent off.

The overturn of the red is a bit more contentious. Personally I think its a yellow card offence. Pushing goes on all the time. The fall made it look far worse

The referee shouldnt send a player off if neither he or his assistant have seen what has happened and can be clear that it was a red card decision.

 

[Chinman3000]

So, if a player walks past me and pushes me in the arm.....and I COLLAPSE to the ground holding my face and rolling around....that is seen as ok in your eyes?

The player subsequently gets sent of when all he did was push me in the arm?

Makes you look a right idiot, but yes, up to you what you hold, why does it matter?. If the officials are doing their job properly they have seen what actually happened and either dealt with it or told you to get up.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I'm assuming this is a joke.

Nope. Players push each other ALL THE TIME. Any time a bad tackle goes in they all crowd round and push each other.

If someone starts pushing another players face, then they are opening themselves up to the possibility of a red.

But if they are just pushing each other like normal, in the chest, there is not a chance the ref will think of sending them off. You'd have 5 or 6 reds per 'scuffle'

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Makes you look an idiot but up to you what you hold yes. If the officials are doing their job properly they have seen what actually happened and either dealt with it or told you to get up.

Seriously. The players take NO responsibility in this to act like NORMAL people? We are advocating them all falling over left right and centre holding their faces and then saying "well its down to the ref to work out which one is telling the truth".

Please.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

The referee shouldnt send a player off if neither he or his assistant have seen what has happened and can be clear that it was a red card decision.

From the angle of the ref in the Fulham game he may well have felt from his angle the push had been in the face, this can then be further emphasized by the Bristol player's antics. Refs take MANY factors into consideration when trying to make an informed decision.

Clearly, after the event, video footage from a different angle may have shown the ref his interpretation was wrong.


EDIT: I've watched it again. the ref is dealing with another issue about 30 yards away but is turned towards the event so he would have seen a clash and a player going down holding his face. I stand by me comment above.

 

[Chinman3000]

Seriously. The players take NO responsibility in this to act like NORMAL people? We are advocating them all falling over left right and centre holding their faces and then saying "well its down to the ref to work out which one is telling the truth".

Please.

How long to players keep doing this if they realise it gets them nothing? Makes them look stupid on TV and they get nothing more. Answer - they don't.