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

[Guy Fawkes]

Fulham manager Slavisa Jokanovic afterthe match: “I understand the linesman interpreted that Aboubakar kicked the player in the face. When I checked [the replay], Aboubakar pushed him in the chest, the kind of challenge that happens many times in the Championship. On the other hand he made a mistake and gave the referee the chance to show him a red card. We are going to appeal. It was a crucial moment." So Wright managed to convince the linesman that he'd been kicked in the head.

Did he really convince the linesman?
- Or did the linesman guess (wrongly) about what happened?

If the impact on the ground caused an injury (neck / back as described) what do they expect him to do? run around ? Run over to the officials? what?

I've seen several games this season where the officials have given a decision based entirely on the reactions afterwards and not from actually seeing it clearly themselves and it looks like the line guessed based upon reaction. (the Bristol player didn't do anything to suggest a kick to the linesman, like gesture as to what has happened)

It's a joke decision imo, and if it had been 2 players from a 'big' club, I seriously doubt that the injured player would get this retrospective ban imo

 

[Yoda]

No I didn't miss that bit.
Yes the Bristol City player may have fallen in such a way to hurt his neck and back. However if yhat us the case why is it that his first reaction when he lands is to move his hands to his face.
The club's point about not approaching the ref or complaining about the Fulham us a red herring. The City player stays on the ground holding his face. The FA have viewed this as simulation as they believe he was not hit in the face and by staying day the FA believe it was a vlear attempt to indicate to the ifficials that he was struck in the face.
City have only posted one camera angle maybe the FA has more which indicates more clearly the actions of the City player.

Were you on the panel then? City have already said no explanation has been given as to what Baily Wright is meant to have done out of the FA's five point rule on banning players for decet. We're all going on guess work here remember.

 

[The Large One]

He is pushed, yes. In the face, no. The Bristol City player was trying to con the ref he'd been pushed in the face.

Should be a yellow card for the excessive force in the shove for one player AND a yellow card for simulation for the other player - the two actions aren't mutually exclusive. The only reason they're looking at it is because it was a second yellow card. If it was a first yellow - no retrospective action.

 

[Woodchip]

I still feel that football could take a lesson from rugby and bring in something similar to putting things on report. It's basically the ref saying "Something's not right about this, I didn't see all of the incident.I need someone with video evidence to decide for me"

 

[Yoda]

He is pushed, yes. In the face, no. The Bristol City player was trying to con the ref he'd been pushed in the face.

Should be a yellow card for the excessive force in the shove for one player AND a yellow card for simulation for the other player - the two actions aren't mutually exclusive. The only reason they're looking at it is because it was a second yellow card. If it was a first yellow - no retrospective action.

You contradicted yourself there Al. Yellow card for the push but only looked at as it was his second yellow. Shouldn't have mattered then as he would've been off anyway.

 

[Superphil]

He should have gone down holding his chest, he didn’t, he cheated and tried to make the referee believe he had been hit in the face, deserves more than just a 2 game ban IMO. That said, so does every player who makes any kind of attempt to get another player penalised by cheating.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

He should have gone down holding his chest, he didn’t, he cheated and tried to make the referee believe he had been hit in the face, deserves more than just a 2 game ban IMO. That said, so does every player who makes any kind of attempt to get another player penalised by cheating.

He wasn't holding anything as he fell to the ground, 1 arm is below him trying to break his fall and the other is away from his body, across his chest.

He is motionless on the ground and from that angle it could be his face he holds, but equally (as seen when he rolls onto his back) it was his neck with one hand and the top of his head with the other

The angle can be very deceptive, as we have seen in the past with things like if a ball crosses the line or not

Also if hurt, some people don't like to be seen in pain and do cover their face (hide tears, etc)

 

[Weststander]

And that I exactly the point that those criticising the decision are missing. Wright wasn't pretending to be fouled - he was fouled. What he was doing, apparently (and I haven't seen footage of the incident, so I'm relying on information gained from this thread) was pretending to have been severely hurt, or badly injured so that the offender might get a red card. He was pushed over ffs! Any of us who have played football will have been pushed over at some time - it really doesn't hurt much unless you break your arm (as I once did) or turn your ankle - and even then, it's you arm or your ankle that you clutch, not hands over face as if you've just been shot and think you're dying!

Read the FA rule.

No one disputes the foul. But it was blatant exaggeration, to influence the officials, which is now outlawed and led to a ban.

The FA have openly said this is intended to deter all simulation. Over time, if they persist with this AND ACT AGAINST ALL PLAYERS, it should do the trick. But will they have the balls to, if say Ashley Young did a 'Bailey'?

 

[The Large One]

You contradicted yourself there Al. Yellow card for the push but only looked at as it was his second yellow. Shouldn't have mattered then as he would've been off anyway.

Not really.

It was looked at again because Fulham contested a straight red. We don't know whether Fulham wouldn't have contested what would've been a second yellow. One would assume they wouldn't because he clearly shoved him hard.

The difference is that a straight red is a three-match ban, whereas a second yellow is a one-match ban.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Burn the witch!
Burn the witch!
Burn the witch!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Perhaps two games seems a little tough, but as far as I can see, Wright is cheating, so suck it up, City.

If it had been dealt with correctly on the day, I'd have thought a yellow for the opponent for shoving him, and another yellow for Wright for feigning injury (don't give me this "landed awkwardly on his head" rubbish, Bristol City: that's a bit dog-ate-my-homework-miss for my liking).

Regardless- and I freely admit I can't bring myself to get too worked up about a journeyman Bristol City player missing a couple of games in any case- this decision is a Great Thing. This sort of shit from players, where they roll around and exaggerate every single touch, typically those where a couple of neutrons have barely passed within the same continent of each other, is an absolute scourge of the game, and if this incident actually makes some of them think twice about doing it, then it's going to be a fantastic improvement to football. I'm fed up with pundits telling us that "there was contact, therefore he's entitled to go down". No, no he's not! He (or she) should only be going down if the aforementioned contact is genuinely sufficient to make them do so, taking into account factors like momentum prior to any challenge or incident. "Entitled" is one of those hideous myths that's been allowed to creep into the game and somehow been accepted. Would you go down if somebody in the pub shoved you like that? Almost certainly not, or at least you wouldn't be clutching your face as a result.

I know our players have done similar things in the past (an incident with El Abd springs to mind from a few years back, and we all know Knockaert can be a bit fragile to say the least, just two examples) but I'm sick of it being part of football. I hope the likes of Fernando Forestieri will see this decision and realise that if they continue in that vein, they'll face suspensions and public vilification for their actions. It's clearly meant to be a deterrent by the powers that be: let it actually be so, for once.

Historically, people in the game have always been reluctant to deal with cheats on the pitch, because they're worried about stigmatising individuals. This is a rare example of the football authorities showing some balls in the decision making process, and therefore I for one applaud them. Sorry, Mr Wright, but if it makes you feel less sad about it all, think of yourself as a crusader for the betterment of football

 

[Guy Fawkes]

There have been numerous examples in our games where an opposition player has gone to ground and stayed there, looking for a free kick from the ref, implying they are really hurt only to jump up and run off to get back in position once they know no free kick is to be awarded. Most of the time there is little or no contact and the other (Albion) player won / retained the ball fairly.

Will these be looked at by the FA because these are a more deliberate attempt to con than this incident which has led to the Bristol players ban.

I doubt they would have even looked at this again (even if there was an attempt to simulate injury) if it wasn't for an appeal against the red card.

Hardly a way to discourage cheating and prevent diving, etc if the FA will only look at it in exceptional circumstances (appeals) rather than proactively looking to stamp out cheating

 

[Weststander]

There have been numerous examples in our games where an opposition player has gone to ground and stayed there, looking for a free kick from the ref, implying they are really hurt only to jump up and run off to get back in position once they know no free kick is to be awarded. Most of the time there is little or no contact and the other (Albion) player won / retained the ball fairly.

Will these be looked at by the FA because these are a more deliberate attempt to con than this incident which has led to the Bristol players ban.

I doubt they would have even looked at this again (even if there was an attempt to simulate injury) if it wasn't for an appeal against the red card.

Hardly a way to discourage cheating and prevent diving, etc if the FA will only look at it in exceptional circumstances (appeals) rather than proactively looking to stamp out cheating

The FA should review those too. The law explicity mentions attempting to infiuence officials to give cards or penalties.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The FA should review those too. The law explicity mentions attempting to infiuence officials to give cards or penalties.

They should, but the fact they don't makes this decision to ban the Bristol player extremely harsh imo as there are far more clear cut examples of attempting simulation that go undetected / unpunished so if I was connected to Bristol City in some way, I would be really annoyed by this (joke) decision - it should be all or none and not cherry picking at what they look at

 

[Weststander]

They should, but the fact they don't makes this decision to ban the Bristol player extremely harsh imo as there are far more clear cut examples of attempting simulation that go undetected / unpunished so if I was connected to Bristol City in some way, I would be really annoyed by this (joke) decision - it should be all or none and not cherry picking at what they look at

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm pleased with the decision, whilst you feel it's an injustice.

The FA better carry on with this, otherwise what's the point of making a couple of scapegoats?

 

[Superphil]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm pleased with the decision, whilst you feel it's an injustice.

The FA better carry on with this, otherwise what's the point of making a couple of scapegoats?

I’m trying to find the version of the video he watched, because all I can see in the video at the beginning of this thread is a blatant attempt by one player to get an opo player punished.