| Very clever from Wolves 10:12 - Dec 31 with 6543 views | blueprint |
Cunha gets a 2 game ban following the appeal. He only misses 1 league game as he is then banned for the FA Cup match. Absolute joke. [Post edited 31 Dec 2024 10:12]
|  | | |  |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 12:40 - Dec 31 with 1830 views | Churchman |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 11:15 - Dec 31 by redrickstuhaart |
Kudus incident is a better comparison. Dealt with correctly on the day. Red card. Increased to 5 for open hand in someone's face. As opposed to an elbow in the back of the head without warning. After the match. On a non player.
It is inexplicably inconsistent and once again raises serious questions about the professionalism and integrity of the FA |
Elbowing an official and deliberately ripping his glasses off his face? It was appalling behaviour that merited a long ban and fine, not a nod, wink, really doesn’t matter response from the FA.
You are right - it certainly does raise questions about the professionalism and integrity of the FA. Seems to me they have neither. They’ll be accepting annual 13 month accounts and a plateful of excuses from Leicester next….oh. |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 12:52 - Dec 31 with 1766 views | iamatractorboy |
I've just watched the footage of this again and I cannot believe he's essentially got a one league game ban for this. First he cowardly elbows the Ipswich security bloke from behind, wtf???, then when the chap unsurprisingly takes issue with it, he grabs him round the neck/collar, again wtf, then finally grabs his glasses. And this is a TWO game ban? Incredible. |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 12:55 - Dec 31 with 1758 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Very clever from Wolves on 12:52 - Dec 31 by iamatractorboy |
I've just watched the footage of this again and I cannot believe he's essentially got a one league game ban for this. First he cowardly elbows the Ipswich security bloke from behind, wtf???, then when the chap unsurprisingly takes issue with it, he grabs him round the neck/collar, again wtf, then finally grabs his glasses. And this is a TWO game ban? Incredible. |
Each part of the incident is a red card on its own.
I cannot explain the decision making process here. Integrity has to be questioned. | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:00 - Dec 31 with 1681 views | TexacoCup |
I’m waiting to see the ‘written report’, probably just a vague sentence or two ! |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:10 - Dec 31 with 1655 views | ITFCSG |
Then I hope his injury rules him our for more than 2 matches then. Pure scum. [Post edited 31 Dec 2024 14:10]
| | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:12 - Dec 31 with 1640 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:00 - Dec 31 by TexacoCup |
I’m waiting to see the ‘written report’, probably just a vague sentence or two ! |
How on earth are they unable to publish the written reasons simultaneously?
I can put them together in a few minutes, max:
Mateus Cunha has been suspended for a period of 6 matches. The reasons given by the panel were as follows:
Video evidence, after the final whistle, shows that Cunha delivered a deliberate blow to the back of a security officer's head whilst the officer was facing away from him and uninvolved in and ongoing altercation with Cunha. The security officer did not react agressively but, on turning around, was grabbed around the lapels by Cunha who then made contact with his face in a clawing motion and pulled off the officer's glasses.
Both incidents are of a nature which would warrant a red card in a game situation. That is our starting point. There is no substantive mitigation offered and it is difficult to see any would be possible, where there was no ongoing altercation and the officer was facing away and not involved with Cunha at the time of the incident.
There are aggravating features. The incident was after the final whistle and not in the heat of a game situation. The officer was facing away and the attack appears unprovoked. The victim was not a player. Furthermore, there were two separate physical assaults whichi would both have warranted a red card if in-game.
The panel therefore concluded that a standard 3 game ban was unsufficient and upgraded it to 6. | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:28 - Dec 31 with 1587 views | BloomBlue |
| Very clever from Wolves on 10:28 - Dec 31 by PhilTWTD |
They didn't appeal, he admitted the charge. Assume the delay was assembling the panel over Christmas. |
On Talk Sport earlier they said Wolves were surprised they had to wait that long for a decision by the FA because as you say they didn't contest it. The reason for the delay was (apparently) again as you say, because they had given a lot of the panel time off over Christmas (same as many companies/organisations do). |  | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:29 - Dec 31 with 1581 views | BrockleyBlue78 |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:12 - Dec 31 by redrickstuhaart |
How on earth are they unable to publish the written reasons simultaneously?
I can put them together in a few minutes, max:
Mateus Cunha has been suspended for a period of 6 matches. The reasons given by the panel were as follows:
Video evidence, after the final whistle, shows that Cunha delivered a deliberate blow to the back of a security officer's head whilst the officer was facing away from him and uninvolved in and ongoing altercation with Cunha. The security officer did not react agressively but, on turning around, was grabbed around the lapels by Cunha who then made contact with his face in a clawing motion and pulled off the officer's glasses.
Both incidents are of a nature which would warrant a red card in a game situation. That is our starting point. There is no substantive mitigation offered and it is difficult to see any would be possible, where there was no ongoing altercation and the officer was facing away and not involved with Cunha at the time of the incident.
There are aggravating features. The incident was after the final whistle and not in the heat of a game situation. The officer was facing away and the attack appears unprovoked. The victim was not a player. Furthermore, there were two separate physical assaults whichi would both have warranted a red card if in-game.
The panel therefore concluded that a standard 3 game ban was unsufficient and upgraded it to 6. |
Top work. Really hope the club push for further action in this instance. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:30 - Dec 31 with 1579 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:29 - Dec 31 by BrockleyBlue78 |
Top work. Really hope the club push for further action in this instance. |
If I was the the security bloke and saw the FA taking this so lightly I would be in touch with the police. | | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:08 - Dec 31 with 1510 views | MK1 |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 10:23 - Dec 31 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Its over with, lets concentrate on Ipswich rather than get all flustered about whether we agree with someone elses ban. |
It does effect us though. Wolves are the most likely to be the one we need to finish above, so having their best player only banned for 1 PL game effects us massively. If he scores the winner in one of the 4 other games that he should have been banned for, then that could relegate us. |  |
| |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:11 - Dec 31 with 1504 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:08 - Dec 31 by MK1 |
It does effect us though. Wolves are the most likely to be the one we need to finish above, so having their best player only banned for 1 PL game effects us massively. If he scores the winner in one of the 4 other games that he should have been banned for, then that could relegate us. |
He has already done so due to the pathetic delay. | | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:13 - Dec 31 with 1499 views | MK1 |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:11 - Dec 31 by redrickstuhaart |
He has already done so due to the pathetic delay. |
Exactly. To say that what happens to other clubs in our league doesn't effect us is just plain daft. | |
| |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:14 - Dec 31 with 1493 views | Exiled2Surrey |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:08 - Dec 31 by MK1 |
It does effect us though. Wolves are the most likely to be the one we need to finish above, so having their best player only banned for 1 PL game effects us massively. If he scores the winner in one of the 4 other games that he should have been banned for, then that could relegate us. |
In parallel, what do you reckon Duran will get for his misdemeanour?
Got very dodgy red - dubious to say the least - MOTD think it is super harsh and I tend to agree
Villa appeal - get told to sling their proverbial hook - Duran still has 3 game ban
Now Duran is being charged with improper conduct for kicking a water bottle!
Any guesses what his punishment will be for such a heinous crime? | | | |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:17 - Dec 31 with 1486 views | MK1 |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:14 - Dec 31 by Exiled2Surrey |
In parallel, what do you reckon Duran will get for his misdemeanour?
Got very dodgy red - dubious to say the least - MOTD think it is super harsh and I tend to agree
Villa appeal - get told to sling their proverbial hook - Duran still has 3 game ban
Now Duran is being charged with improper conduct for kicking a water bottle!
Any guesses what his punishment will be for such a heinous crime? |
10 game ban and £150,000 fine. | |
| |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:17 - Dec 31 with 1486 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Lets move on. (n/t) on 15:14 - Dec 31 by Exiled2Surrey |
In parallel, what do you reckon Duran will get for his misdemeanour?
Got very dodgy red - dubious to say the least - MOTD think it is super harsh and I tend to agree
Villa appeal - get told to sling their proverbial hook - Duran still has 3 game ban
Now Duran is being charged with improper conduct for kicking a water bottle!
Any guesses what his punishment will be for such a heinous crime? |
Its extraordinary. How many players and coaches have kicked water bottles over the years? Looks vindictive. What influence is being brough to bear here? | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 15:23 - Dec 31 with 1461 views | MK1 |
Does the member of our security staff who was assaulted get any of the £80,000? | |
| |
| Very clever from Wolves on 12:48 - Jan 7 with 934 views | Exiled2Surrey |
Cunha accepted the charge, and in his evidence said: "I was surrounded by a large number of people, mainly Ipswich personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time. So in an effort to get [secutiry staff member] to let go of my shirt, in the heat of the moment I regrettably reached out and grabbed his glasses. I know it was wrong to do this and I take full responsibility for my actions." | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 13:47 - Jan 7 with 830 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Very clever from Wolves on 12:48 - Jan 7 by Exiled2Surrey |
Cunha accepted the charge, and in his evidence said: "I was surrounded by a large number of people, mainly Ipswich personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time. So in an effort to get [secutiry staff member] to let go of my shirt, in the heat of the moment I regrettably reached out and grabbed his glasses. I know it was wrong to do this and I take full responsibility for my actions." |
And the excuse for elbowing a man in the head to create that situation is what?! | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:09 - Jan 7 with 791 views | football |
| Very clever from Wolves on 12:48 - Jan 7 by Exiled2Surrey |
Cunha accepted the charge, and in his evidence said: "I was surrounded by a large number of people, mainly Ipswich personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time. So in an effort to get [secutiry staff member] to let go of my shirt, in the heat of the moment I regrettably reached out and grabbed his glasses. I know it was wrong to do this and I take full responsibility for my actions." |
The written response is a joke - absolute bull. he felt threatened by our security guard and just went to help out Ait-Nouri. The FA didn't buy it yet still only got a two match ban | | | |
| Very clever from Wolves on 18:42 - Jan 7 with 688 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
According to Sky the apology was a hand-written letter. I wonder if whoever wrote it used a crayon. |  |
| |
| Very clever from Wolves on 19:24 - Jan 7 with 674 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Very clever from Wolves on 14:28 - Dec 31 by BloomBlue |
On Talk Sport earlier they said Wolves were surprised they had to wait that long for a decision by the FA because as you say they didn't contest it. The reason for the delay was (apparently) again as you say, because they had given a lot of the panel time off over Christmas (same as many companies/organisations do). |
Cunha was given until 19th to respond, the report says he responded on 23rd which was too close to the holiday period to convene a panel. How convenient that he played a major part in the Leicester & Spurs games. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
