Redcar Rioja 5,872 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I thought that a sending off as a result of a second yellow card means a one game ban, the same as a red card received for a professional foul but dissent and violent conduct can be punished with a suspension for three games. Was McNair's red card for a professional foul or for violent conduct? Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,230 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said: I thought that a sending off as a result of a second yellow card means a one game ban, the same as a red card received for a professional foul but dissent and violent conduct can be punished with a suspension for three games. Was McNair's red card for a professional foul or for violent conduct? Serious Foul Play was the reason, which means 1 match ban. The article we put out also alludes to this by saying he'd only be missing for the Reading game right now. Violent conduct is a 3-match ban and the wording of it is almost word for word the same as Serious Foul Play, with the big difference being intent. McNair may well rightfully have been sent off but even if they don't accept our appeal, I think they'll agree that his intention was never to hurt the player, his aim was always the ball. I guess you could think of it as if Clayton had done that kind of tackle on one of his "You're not getting past me" yellow card occasions. If he'd taken them out with his studs into their shins, it would be violent conduct as his intent was always to catch the player. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Redcar Rioja 5,872 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 I see that the club are providing evidence of the incident from several angles in their appeal in the hope the sending off is wiped out. I wonder what and how many angles they have and what they show? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Brunners 7,952 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 21 minutes ago, Redcar Rioja said: I see that the club are providing evidence of the incident from several angles in their appeal in the hope the sending off is wiped out. I wonder what and how many angles they have and what they show? Warnock was unequivocal in stating it wasn't a red and Paddy didn't even "touch" Bacuna. I am still personally of the opinion that I don't believe he'd be that definitive about it unless he'd seen something we hadn't. Link to post Share on other sites
Neverbefore 10,695 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Brunners said: Warnock was unequivocal in stating it wasn't a red and Paddy didn't even "touch" Bacuna. I am still personally of the opinion that I don't believe he'd be that definitive about it unless he'd seen something we hadn't. We've seen a lot more angles close up on the TV than 71 year old, extremely biased, notoriously angry Warnock seen on his one viewing from 50 odd yards away at the time of the interview. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Snake 45 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: We've seen a lot more angles close up on the TV than 71 year old, extremely biased, notoriously angry Warnock seen on his one viewing from 50 odd yards away at the time of the interview. Ageist - reported! Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,230 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: We've seen a lot more angles close up on the TV than 71 year old, extremely biased, notoriously angry Warnock seen on his one viewing from 50 odd yards away at the time of the interview. I think Ronnie Jepson did get a screen up to show them the replay too, though still, the point stands that it took us lot a while to see anything at all too. I certainly didn't get a good look at it until slowing it down and watching it repeatedly. I think Warnock will have only seen similar to what we seen at the time he made that statement and we don't even have a 100% consensus on here. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Redcar Rioja 5,872 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 7 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: We've seen a lot more angles close up on the TV than 71 year old, extremely biased, notoriously angry Warnock seen on his one viewing from 50 odd yards away at the time of the interview. That's what I was thinking but surely the club would have looked at their evidence and figured it was a waste of time and he did make contact or perhaps they have angles that we haven't seen and are convinced. I would be surprised if they risked a bigger ban for a frivolous appeal and surely it would be more than just NW calling the shots in something like this? Memory fails me but wasn't there a recent sending off (in the last couple of years) that we won when it looked nailed on, maybe it's just me and I'm imagining things? Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,230 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Redcar Rioja said: That's what I was thinking but surely the club would have looked at their evidence and figured it was a waste of time and he did make contact or perhaps they have angles that we haven't seen and are convinced. I would be surprised if they risked a bigger ban for a frivolous appeal and surely it would be more than just NW calling the shots in something like this? Memory fails me but wasn't there a recent sending off (in the last couple of years) that we won when it looked nailed on, maybe it's just me and I'm imagining things? I remember Gestede at Norwich being overturned causing a few shocked responses. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Will 2,958 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) I don't see how anyone can say there wasn't contact, the video clearly shows there was. Bacuna's leg was moving forwards and at the exact time Paddy's foot would have contacted it, it starts moving backwards. If you haven't noticed this please watch the video again and just focus on Bacuna's leg, don't look at Paddy at all. The only possible way for that to happen is for something to impact it from the front. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Neverbefore 10,695 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Redcar Rioja said: That's what I was thinking but surely the club would have looked at their evidence and figured it was a waste of time and he did make contact or perhaps they have angles that we haven't seen and are convinced. I would be surprised if they risked a bigger ban for a frivolous appeal and surely it would be more than just NW calling the shots in something like this? Memory fails me but wasn't there a recent sending off (in the last couple of years) that we won when it looked nailed on, maybe it's just me and I'm imagining things? I don't think there's been a frivolous appeal extension in English football since aliadiare so I doubt that comes into considering. The very fact that were all sat here still arguing about it means there's reasonable doubt which makes the appeal worth a shot. I just really don't see it being overturned because by the letter of the law it seems a right decision. Think you one you might be thinking of was adama? Where he gave someone an elbow in the box and got sent off for it. Pretty sure that got overturned. Though I could be completely misremembering too! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Neverbefore 10,695 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said: I remember Gestede at Norwich being overturned causing a few shocked responses. I think that was because we were desperate for the ban to stand. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,230 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Neverbefore said: I think that was because we were desperate for the ban to stand. That was definitely part of it. I remember a fair few at the time were thinking about all the horrid luck we've had with appeals in the past and this was the one they overturned. They still did us a dirty by accepting our appeal. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Rishworthian 166 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 From those excellent slowed down shots it is clear that the ball was free. I took the view that Paddy got to the ball first and that Bacuna was slightly later. Hence McNair has the ball and the tackle was from Bacuna. With that logic it cannot possibly be a red card. It is not even a foul 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Brunners 7,952 Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 37 minutes ago, Neverbefore said: We've seen a lot more angles close up on the TV than 71 year old, extremely biased, notoriously angry Warnock seen on his one viewing from 50 odd yards away at the time of the interview. He'd seen it on the tablet multiple times before the interview, you can even see him watching it back while Paddy is walking off the pitch, so try again. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts