Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Recommended Posts

Paul McShane and Danny Williams have been charged by the FA for violent conduct


“Paul McShane and Danny Williams have both been charged by The FA following an on-field incident which was not seen by the match officials but caught on video.


It is alleged the two Reading players’ behaviour in or around the 83rd minute of the game against Middlesbrough on 12 April 2016 constituted violent conduct.


The matter was referred to a panel of three former elite referees who each reviewed the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they considered it a sending-off offence. For an FA charge to follow the decision by the panel must be unanimous.


Both players have until 6pm on 15 April 2016 to respond to their charge"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 691
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To update the story above, both players were found guilty and suspended for three games, including the one just lost against Leeds United, our midweek against Hull City and an away trip to Queens Park Rangers. Not the worst news as we are now safe after this weekend mathematically, but still disappointing to see two players on the same side behaving like that. I can see Danny Williams moving on in the summer, he has an ego problem and, besides, he is a better player than Reading deserve at the moment, despite this incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Latest Posts

    • I would have banned him for it. Poor use of mod powers 😉
    • And in the world of reality we will soon be top 6. #UTFB
    • Historically Boro have not done well at Stoke: Overall: Played 100 Won 42 Drawn 22 Lost 36 Home: Played 50 Won 31 Drawn 11 Lost 8 Away: Played 50 Won 11 Drawn 11 Lost 28 This season Stoke's home record reads P10 W6 D2 L2, so Boro's prospects don't look great. Think we will do well to get a point. Won't be too upset if we lose - though as usual the performance will factor into this.  
    • Well that's part of trying to play the counter attack, isn't it? For every lung full you give yourselves, you also give it to your opponents and get them prepared to defend. It wasn't like he was rushing his goal kicks either but when the ball was in his hands, it was usually after a period of Swansea pressure and he had his head up wanting to get us back up the pitch quickly which is exactly what you should be doing if you're playing on the counter-attack. We still wanted the second goal so as a group, we tried to counter them, we kept pressing them until the end, we didn't sit back and try and re-form our unit as a team when the opportunity might be there for a chance. So I guess you could say in my eyes, it wasn't about the keeper's decision, it was a tactical decision for the team. We wanted to kill the game off, even without possession we wanted to match or better Swansea's tempo. So I'm not sure why that comes back onto just the keeper.
    • I still don’t get why there is a deep analysis of Daniel and our goalkeepers when there is clearly greater problems in the quality of outfield players. I can’t remember a time a keeper has been slagged so much for not conceding a goal.  Given Swansea had pressed so high in the second half, our midfield where loosing the battle with a tiring back line, the fact there was plenty of green behind Swansea defence, and we have a history of conceding some stupid goals his decision making was right. If from recent games you take away the amount of self inflicted goals how many have we conceded, not many. Anyway I am a great believer in the term, if in doubt, kick it out. It’s not pretty but you get to reassess the situation. 

  • Create New...