Charlton Thread.
- Thread starter cashman
- Start date
He’ll not got away with that.
3 match ban on its way.
3 match ban on its way.
Aye thats good but still deprived us of our penalty specialist.
They are after MORE than 3 matches it says on fishy,
Then to me the grinning shows he got what he wanted.
Still can’t believe, especially in this day and age of feigned injury, that a player who had has his head stamped on or raked with a studded boot would get up without rubbing his head, and walk away laughing. This is a guy playing football, not rugby.
Taylor’s behaviour suggests that Finlay, if he tried, didn’t connect, either that or Taylor’s head is made of wood, which I doubt.
So, if it was attempted violent conduct, would that carry a similar sanction to actual violent conduct?
And if attempted violent conduct is punishable, why isn’t Charlton’s No.4 being ‘cited’ for the ‘challenge’ on Billy Kee caught by Kippax’s camera?
Taylor’s behaviour suggests that Finlay, if he tried, didn’t connect, either that or Taylor’s head is made of wood, which I doubt.
So, if it was attempted violent conduct, would that carry a similar sanction to actual violent conduct?
And if attempted violent conduct is punishable, why isn’t Charlton’s No.4 being ‘cited’ for the ‘challenge’ on Billy Kee caught by Kippax’s camera?
Probably because its only Accrington Stanley?
Sam quite rightly charged. Hopefully he will see the error of his ways and behave better in future.
Hopefully Andy H makes his views on good conduct known to the players and management team as he alluded to on Twitter and that those of our fans who are still in denial reflect at some point that it’s ok to admit you are wrong now and again.
Hopefully Andy H makes his views on good conduct known to the players and management team as he alluded to on Twitter and that those of our fans who are still in denial reflect at some point that it’s ok to admit you are wrong now and again.
In answer to my own question, it appears that ”striking or attempting to strike an opponent” is one and the same offence.
That's a very patronising remark Lord D, I don't think any of us were 'in denial' - just waiting to see if there was some clear evidence of the alleged incident.
Doesn’t matter where Sam is concerned.
Retaliation is as bad as instigation.
He’s in bother.
From the Fishy site;
'It is alleged the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient'
Bother indeed!
Only goes to show there is no hiding place for any player in today's game.
I'm sure the jury will scrutinise the video in forensic detail before any verdict.
Sam is a talented young player but, if this case is proven, a moment of petulance may result in a lengthy ban & will cost us dearly.
No doubt he will have plenty of time to reflect on how his actions have let the club down.
We've always prided ourselves on playing the game without malice.
When a national newspaper is running a video that infers the opposite, that reputation is destroyed.
Fingers crossed for a lenient judge.
'It is alleged the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient'
Bother indeed!
Only goes to show there is no hiding place for any player in today's game.
I'm sure the jury will scrutinise the video in forensic detail before any verdict.
Sam is a talented young player but, if this case is proven, a moment of petulance may result in a lengthy ban & will cost us dearly.
No doubt he will have plenty of time to reflect on how his actions have let the club down.
We've always prided ourselves on playing the game without malice.
When a national newspaper is running a video that infers the opposite, that reputation is destroyed.
Fingers crossed for a lenient judge.
None at all.
Lesson learnt, I hope.
Only way it could have been worse, for both players, would have been if he had connected.
Thuggish behaviour that did the club no credit.
Only way it could have been worse, for both players, would have been if he had connected.
Thuggish behaviour that did the club no credit.