Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] That Wissa Punch



albionalex

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
4,762
Toronto
Funny how opinions differ. Their pen was an obvious one on Saturday, and ours definitely wasn't. Ref didn't need to go to the screen i agree, but laws of the game state drop ball was correct after the pen was given then not given.

Last night Gilmour was clearly trying to prevent play from restarting; wissa swung to swipe the ball from his arm (he's clearly looking at the ball) - something and nothing for me as others have said on this thread. Was hardly a punch - again lots of blue and white tinted specs on here over this

Only if the ref blew for the pen before the ball went out for the corner. Which he didn't.
 




albionalex

Well-known member
Feb 26, 2009
4,762
Toronto

"On first view it seems a wonder how Wissa's card wasn't upgraded to a red by the VAR, but when you look closer at the specifics of the case it becomes clear.

The violent conduct law says a player who "deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

Gilmour holds onto the ball to prevent the restart of play, for which he too would receive a caution. In trying to get the ball back, Wissa makes an attempt to knock it out of the Brighton & Hove Albion player's arm by bringing his hand down. In the process, Wissa inadvertently brushes the face of Gilmour with his fingers.

Wissa isn't attempting to deliberately strike Gilmour in the face, nor is there force involved, so the VAR was right not to intervene in this accidental situation."
 


Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat

"On first view it seems a wonder how Wissa's card wasn't upgraded to a red by the VAR, but when you look closer at the specifics of the case it becomes clear.

The violent conduct law says a player who "deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible."

Gilmour holds onto the ball to prevent the restart of play, for which he too would receive a caution. In trying to get the ball back, Wissa makes an attempt to knock it out of the Brighton & Hove Albion player's arm by bringing his hand down. In the process, Wissa inadvertently brushes the face of Gilmour with his fingers.

Wissa isn't attempting to deliberately strike Gilmour in the face, nor is there force involved, so the VAR was right not to intervene in this accidental situation."
The fingers were tucked in, making it a fist because he wanted to punch the ball. The ball was level with Gilmour's chest, but the fist hit Gilmour's chin.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
63,051
The Fatherland
The fingers were tucked in, making it a fist because he wanted to punch the ball. The ball was level with Gilmour's chest, but the fist hit Gilmour's chin.
So you agree the action wasn’t intentional. Therefore it’s a yellow; ref got it right.
 




JBizzle

Well-known member
Apr 18, 2010
6,283
Seaford
There is no ‘fingertips’. It’s a fist. Knuckles.

The ‘intention’ argument is irrelevant. He connects with Billy’s face.
It's clearly a slap, not a punch unless his fist is six inches long... Either way, slap or punch, its a red.
 




Littlemo

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2022
1,739
The fingers were tucked in, making it a fist because he wanted to punch the ball. The ball was level with Gilmour's chest, but the fist hit Gilmour's chin.
Yeah this is how I saw it as well.

I get people not thinking it’s a punch because there isn’t much power behind it, but he’s made a fist with his hand and hit his face, so it’s a punch, even if it is a soft one.

I really don’t get people saying Wissa was going for the ball though. It’s not like the ball was there and Gilmour moved it, the ball was on his other side, not near his face at all and Wissa’s hand was never anywhere near the ball to get it.

I don’t think intent matters anymore. Hitting someone with your fist like that should always be a red.
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Yeah this is how I saw it as well.

I get people not thinking it’s a punch because there isn’t much power behind it, but he’s made a fist with his hand and hit his face, so it’s a punch, even if it is a soft one.

I really don’t get people saying Wissa was going for the ball though. It’s not like the ball was there and Gilmour moved it, the ball was on his other side, not near his face at all and Wissa’s hand was never anywhere near the ball to get it.

I don’t think intent matters anymore. Hitting someone with your fist like that should always be a red.
100%
 


Dave the OAP

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
46,793
at home
To be fair, if gillmour goes down like that after a light brush of his face, I don’t fancy his chances in many Brighton pubs.

vinni jones would be spinning in his grave ( if he were deceased)
 














LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
48,693
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Gilmour lifts the ball away with one hand, in doing so the ball literally touched his own upper arm, shoulder. Gilmour then moved the ball behind himself. In short the ball was near his face.
Barely…..I’d add if i wanted to grab the ball back i would be using both hands….moving towards the person so i was closer and not having the one arm fully extended at face level…the ball was not at any stage face level
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
55,021
Surrey
Do I want to see those incidents given as reds? No not really?
Would it have been a red if Gilmour made a fuss? Yes 100%
Do I want us to become a Fulham / Villa type cynical side? No
Exactly this. Anyone talking like this was some sort of menacing punch really is clueless. He clearly went to get the ball out of WBG's hands, missed it and barely stroked Gilmour's chin.

I am glad VAR didn't look at it and I'm glad Gilmour didn't make a meal of it. The correct way forward is to just get on with the games lads.
 


Audax

Boing boing boing...
Aug 3, 2015
3,298
Uckfield
Personally, my first instinct on seeing it on the TV last night was that Wissa's initial intent was violent, but he realised just-barely-in-time how stupid he was being and pulled it / modified it just enough to get away with it.
 


AlbionBro

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2020
1,455
Wissa swing was instinctive and wrong, straight red. I bet he is relieved he appears to got away with it, without penalty too. Gilmore never makes a fuss which I love but, the Albion paid the price for him being so straight.
 




The Fits

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2020
10,106
My feeling then and now is that it has to be a red but that it would also be very harsh. A harsh red is still a red.
Love Billy though, no fuss, just gets on, super kid.
 


BN41Albion

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2017
6,893
Just watched it. Looks a lot of fuss about nothing. I do wish people would try and be a bit more reasonable/impartial when slagging off referees. If that had been the other way round and Wissa was holding the ball, you'd all be having a go at him for trying to delay the free kick when we're a goal behind, and that Gilmour never intended to make contact with his face.
Absolutely this
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here