Tom Davis (10 Viewers)

[Grendel]

What are you on about, even Duffy said after the match it was accidental! Presumably there will also be a charge for the assault on McNulty?

No Duffy said he had to take his word for it it was accidental. Come on if this was the other way round everyone would be screaming for a ban

 

---

[chiefdave]

Has nobody got a link to stamp, haven't seen it back yet

 

[chiefdave]

No Duffy said he had to take his word for it it was accidental. Come on if this was the other way round everyone would be screaming for a ban

There's no way that if Duffy thinks he's being deliberately stamped on he's saying he's saying that after the game.

And don't put words into other peoples mouths. If it was a stamp I'd accept our player being banned and would expect an opponent to be banned but this was nothing like a stamp. There's no intent and no force.

In any case their players were happily dishing it out, you don't see Robins running to the FA complaining.

 

[Grendel]

There's no way that if Duffy thinks he's being deliberately stamped on he's saying he's saying that after the game.

And don't put words into other peoples mouths. If it was a stamp I'd accept our player being banned and would expect an opponent to be banned but this was nothing like a stamp. There's no intent and no force.

In any case their players were happily dishing it out, you don't see Robins running to the FA complaining.

Nolan raised the issue with the FA - this is what people don’t seem to understand. It’s much much easier in live games - there’d cameras and media prescence everywhere so it’s always going to be looked at.

It was stupid he got caught out and that’s that. Treading on someone’s leg in a live game in front of a camera was plain dumb.

 

[wingy]

It's totally subjective from that image I can just as easily make the case as deny it ,it all depends on the motivation of judge.

 

[wingy]

Nolan raised the issue with the FA - this is what people don’t seem to understand. It’s much much easier in live games - there’d cameras and media prescence everywhere so it’s always going to be looked at.

It was stupid he got caught out and that’s that. Treading on someone’s leg in a live game in front of a camera was plain dumb.

It Depends If there is intent, I really don't see that in his posture, looks totally clumsy to me.

 

[block16]

Bit ridiculous to charge as they haven’t charged other incidents, however if you isolate this one in my opinion he did intend to do it. He looks down then stands on him and at no stage apologises just carries on running. Absolutely stupid thing to do especially on live tv as that’s the only time the FA follow these things up. Willis will now come in- Big blow but I still believe we’ll make Wembley

 

[Nick]

It's all well and good robins going on about being street wise, he should have reported things against us to get opposition players banned.

It's like Lincoln complaining about somebody playing long ball

The caught on video thing is nonsense, every game is on video.

 

[Grendel]

It's all well and good robins going on about being street wise, he should have reported things against us to get opposition players banned.

It doesn’t work like that - there were no incidents other than the one raised

 

[Nick]

It doesn’t work like that - there were no incidents other than the one raised

I mean through out the season.

 

[Grendel]

I mean through out the season.

Not live on TV

 

[chiefdave]

Nolan raised the issue with the FA - this is what people don’t seem to understand.

How is Nolan allowed to raise it? Looking at the FA website it says the referee can raise an issue he saw but without a clear view or the FA can raise things completely missed by the referee.

It also says it has be for a sending off offence so the only one that applies is:

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, 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.

So for that to apply treading on Duffy is nowhere near enough, it has to be excessive force.

 

[Nick]

Not live on TV

It doesn't matter.. It is still on video, it still happens. There could be something 10 times as bad on video but it's fine as it's not on tv. How does that work?

 

[chiefdave]

Not live on TV

What does that have to do with anything? Its either on tape or its not.

 

[Grendel]

How is Nolan allowed to raise it? Looking at the FA website it says the referee can raise an issue he saw but without a clear view or the FA can raise things completely missed by the referee.

It also says it has be for a sending off offence so the only one that applies is:

So for that to apply treading on Duffy is nowhere near enough, it has to be excessive force.

No it doesn’t - if you place your head on an opponent or a leg on an opponent as Davies did then that’s excessive force

 

[Grendel]

What does that have to do with anything? Its either on tape or its not.

Because there never has been a case of an incident being raised unless it is. Are you seriously suggesting this incident would have resulted in a ban in a normal league game - it wouldn’t - all such bans occur in live games or premier league highlights

It’s the reality — just accept it

 

[skyblueelephant76]

It Depends If there is intent, I really don't see that in his posture, looks totally clumsy to me.

The problem is he looks down before he places his foot there, I don't see anyway he won't be banned. I also can't think of anyone who has had a charge after a match and won the appeal - can anyone?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

No Duffy said he had to take his word for it it was accidental. Come on if this was the other way round everyone would be screaming for a ban

I personally wouldn’t, because it is an arbitrary punishment.

The referee can’t spot every bit of foul play, but, that’s why other sports have citing committees, such as rugby. There is a clear due process whereas in this scenario, there is none.

This is a trial by mob, because it’s on sky, and Notts County have had a whinge, the FA have acted. We know if it was a league game, nothing would have been done about it, because when Ameobi elbowed McDonald, nothing happened - that is also a red card offence worthy of a retrospective ban.

All is fair in love and war, and I think Davies did mean to trod on him, I play rugby, and I’ve ‘accidentally’ stood (not stamped) on people. I expect players to lead in with elbows, or trod on other players discretely, but, the FA needs to have a process in dealing with such instances. On this thread alone, there Rhead maliciously elbowing a GK in the head, and Ameobi elbowing our player — the FA do nothing. Davies trods on a player, he gets a 3 match ban.

If FA turned round and wanted to create citing committees, I’d be for it, and if they cited Davies’ and the banned him, I’d agree with it because there’s due process.

 

[PVA]

The video is here, about 1m 10s in.

Coventry 1-1 Notts County

It's so blatant. He looks down and then stands on Duffy's leg. I don't see how he can avoid a ban.

 

[Warwickhunt]

The problem is he looks down before he places his foot there, I don't see anyway he won't be banned. I also can't think of anyone who has had a charge after a match and won the appeal - can anyone?

Lincoln are quite good at challenging red cards

 

[wingy]

The video is here, about 1m 10s in.

Coventry 1-1 Notts County

It's so blatant. He looks down and then stands on Duffy's leg. I don't see how he can avoid a ban.

Yeah I take it all back, nailed on.
Oh well .

 

[Otis]

Yeah I take it all back, nailed on.
Oh well .

So, we might as well appeal. He would miss Wembley anyway.

 

[Johnnythespider]

So if we assume he will be banned would you use one of Willis/McDonald with Hyam, or drop Hyam and use Willis and McDonald as a pair. I'd be inclined to play them both as I think they compliment eachother.

 

[Deleted member 4439]

Yeah I take it all back, nailed on.
Oh well .

Strange, must have had sky blue glasses on when I first saw the replay. Agree, nailed on.

 

[Otis]

So if we assume he will be banned would you use one of Willis/McDonald with Hyam, or drop Hyam and use Willis and McDonald as a pair. I'd be inclined to play them both as I think they compliment eachother.

Willis and Hyam. Hyam doesn't deserve to be dropped and McDonald has been very rocky of late.

 

[Paul Anthony]

So if we assume he will be banned would you use one of Willis/McDonald with Hyam, or drop Hyam and use Willis and McDonald as a pair. I'd be inclined to play them both as I think they compliment eachother.

The McDonald we had on show earlier in this season would absolutely walk back into that place and be solid, no worries. But that's the problem. Lately he's been very off form, very unsteady. On current his form and in such an important game, I just don't think we can risk carrying him as a passenger, it has to be Willis and Hyam, surely?

 

[coop]

It's only his back two studs that catch Duffy but him looking down first is what will get him banned and could cost us .I think he will be a big loss.

 

[Grendel]

So, we might as well appeal. He would miss Wembley anyway.

Agree it’s deliberate now?

 

[Hobo]

Davis was really stupid and naive, live tv is all over every incident. I picked up on it with several others when it happened. It was not accidental as he looked down before he did it. Has got what he deserved in all honesty.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Still absolutely outrageous that live games are treated differently to other games. Utterly corrupt! And trial by media. Had ref seen it would he have sent him off?

Refs have to report all cards in a written report - either trust them or not it’s just trial by media

 

[Otis]

Agree it’s deliberate now?

I never said it wasn't.

I've said all along that it looked deliberate, but merely focused on Duffy accepting Davies's assertion that it was an accident. I just said there was room for doubt, but it has always looked deliberate to me.

 

[covcity4life]

I dont get why davies would look at him onnfloor thennrun over him.

Either stupid or intentional. Either way he could cost us if banned

 

[RegTheDonk]

You'd know if you just stepped on something, do it on a stone and you know, never mind someone's leg. If it was accidental, the instinct would be to turn around and have a look, especially with Duffy screaming. Davis was trying to pull a fast one and its backfired - Robins in a difficult place, can hardly be angry at people he wants to be "streetwise". Having said that, no appeal and it's admitting guilt.

 

[Terry_dactyl]

You'd know if you just stepped on something, do it on a stone and you know, never mind someone's leg. If it was accidental, the instinct would be to turn around and have a look, especially with Duffy screaming. Davis was trying to pull a fast one and its backfired - Robins in a difficult place, can hardly be angry at people he wants to be "streetwise". Having said that, no appeal and it's admitting guilt.

If he’d really been ‘street wise’ he’d have trod on him on purpose and then apologised.

 

[TheParsonsHose]

Cannot see that getting overturned.

Very foolish.