| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:00 - Jan 7 with 4548 views | FrimleyBlue |
"Mr. is much bigger than me and I was surrounded by a large number of
people, mainly ITFC personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time"
yeah of course you did. |  |
|  |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:00 - Jan 7 with 4566 views | iamipswich |
Poor guy must have been terrified...I hope he's ok..
Pathetic. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:10 - Jan 7 with 4370 views | Wacko |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:00 - Jan 7 by FrimleyBlue |
"Mr. is much bigger than me and I was surrounded by a large number of
people, mainly ITFC personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time"
yeah of course you did. |
Threatened so much as to go up behind said group of people and elbow the biggest guy there |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:17 - Jan 7 with 4229 views | Illinoisblue |
So the referee didn’t see the Cunha incident, and didn’t see whatever it was that Delap was booked for. Great work, ref. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:19 - Jan 7 with 4209 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
I can guarantee MC didnt write a single word of his witness statement. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:20 - Jan 7 with 4169 views | baxterbasics |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:00 - Jan 7 by FrimleyBlue |
"Mr. is much bigger than me and I was surrounded by a large number of
people, mainly ITFC personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time"
yeah of course you did. |
The guy he elbowed had his back turned and was walking away at the time FFS. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:21 - Jan 7 with 4158 views | CrayonKing |
So in summary: the commission didn't accept any of Cunha's mitigating circumstances but because he admitted it, in the face of overwhelming evidence, and apologised they gave him a reduced ban from the 3 they thought was appropriate.
Not clear on my skim through why they thought the starting point for assault was only a 3-match ban. |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:23 - Jan 7 with 4096 views | Bellevue_Blue |
Pretty pathetic punishment all things considered.
Document essentially states all MC statements as well as Wolves are inaccurate or unbelievable. Goes onto say 'The Commission unanimously agreed with The FA that this was a serious case. MC had elbowed and then pulled off his glasses.'
Yet they give him a shortened two game ban ... make it make sense. If it we're in a game he would have got three games at an absolute minimum for one of those actions. [Post edited 7 Jan 13:26]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:25 - Jan 7 with 4077 views | NthQldITFC |
23. Having repeatedly viewed the video footage, the Commission did not accept MC’s version of events, as quoted in paragraph 14 above. It noted that there were a number of individuals on the pitch, although it was not possible to determine their roles and clubs in every instance. However, it did not see any provocation from ITFC personnel that would have caused MC to behave as he did. In particular, appeared calm and was simply standing on the pitch with his arms out to act as a barrier to those behind him. Understandably turned round when he felt MC’s elbow on him, and indeed put his hand on MC, but he did not appear aggressive at this point and the Commission could see no justification for MC’s action in touching his face and removing his glasses. The Commission noted that MC had to be restrained and led away by WWFC staff/teammates.
A single game Premier League ban (overall a two game ban) and meaningless fine, given that the FA say that they in no way accept Cunha's bullsh!t excuses, is extremely lenient, laughably so. [Post edited 7 Jan 13:26]
|  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:31 - Jan 7 with 3903 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:25 - Jan 7 by NthQldITFC |
23. Having repeatedly viewed the video footage, the Commission did not accept MC’s version of events, as quoted in paragraph 14 above. It noted that there were a number of individuals on the pitch, although it was not possible to determine their roles and clubs in every instance. However, it did not see any provocation from ITFC personnel that would have caused MC to behave as he did. In particular, appeared calm and was simply standing on the pitch with his arms out to act as a barrier to those behind him. Understandably turned round when he felt MC’s elbow on him, and indeed put his hand on MC, but he did not appear aggressive at this point and the Commission could see no justification for MC’s action in touching his face and removing his glasses. The Commission noted that MC had to be restrained and led away by WWFC staff/teammates.
A single game Premier League ban (overall a two game ban) and meaningless fine, given that the FA say that they in no way accept Cunha's bullsh!t excuses, is extremely lenient, laughably so. [Post edited 7 Jan 13:26]
|
There are many many decisions on unseen incidents which were admitted where 3 games were applied in tbe normal way.
Also, an admission is no real mitigation wjen its accompanied by dishonest statements in justification.
I question the fas integrity here. [Post edited 7 Jan 13:32]
| | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:35 - Jan 7 with 3845 views | patrickswell |
So, the commission decide that neither Cunha's version of events or that put forward by Wolves were credible, but because he apologised, paid for new glasses and had an unblemished record, they would commute the sentence from 3 matches to 2 matches together with a fine.
Make it make sense... [Post edited 7 Jan 13:51]
|  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:39 - Jan 7 with 3770 views | SheffordBlue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:35 - Jan 7 by patrickswell |
So, the commission decide that neither Cunha's version of events or that put forward by Wolves were credible, but because he apologised, paid for new glasses and had an unblemished record, they would commute the sentence from 3 matches to 2 matches together with a fine.
Make it make sense... [Post edited 7 Jan 13:51]
|
It was the Independent Commission that decided those things rather than the FA. Outcome might be no different but it's worth differentiating I think. | |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:43 - Jan 7 with 3670 views | Tokey |
I was expecting something in the report commending the restraint of the ITFC security member who was the victim all of this - having received a blow to the head and then had his glasses ripped off he was hugely calm. I would have been furious. | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:46 - Jan 7 with 3605 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:39 - Jan 7 by SheffordBlue |
It was the Independent Commission that decided those things rather than the FA. Outcome might be no different but it's worth differentiating I think. |
Some might suggest that the same integrity issue applies... and the fa have significant influence. | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:50 - Jan 7 with 3547 views | SheffordBlue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:46 - Jan 7 by redrickstuhaart |
Some might suggest that the same integrity issue applies... and the fa have significant influence. |
Seems to me it's much likely that this is just a standard procedural thing rather than any integrity issue.
Aren't all the authorities supposed to have it in for Wolves because they dared bring the vote against VAR!? | |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:50 - Jan 7 with 3551 views | mistert |
Morsy got a 4 match ban after 'raising his hands' towards an Accrington player when the video evidence was much less conclusive. It's the lack if consistency that always irritates me most of all. |  | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:06 - Jan 7 with 3350 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:50 - Jan 7 by SheffordBlue |
Seems to me it's much likely that this is just a standard procedural thing rather than any integrity issue.
Aren't all the authorities supposed to have it in for Wolves because they dared bring the vote against VAR!? |
Then why is the outcome different to the nirm? | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:08 - Jan 7 with 3320 views | Deano69 |
Pathetic |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:23 - Jan 7 with 3165 views | CrayonKing |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 13:50 - Jan 7 by SheffordBlue |
Seems to me it's much likely that this is just a standard procedural thing rather than any integrity issue.
Aren't all the authorities supposed to have it in for Wolves because they dared bring the vote against VAR!? |
Whilst it's *probably* not corrupt, there's so much money in the game that decisions like this do need to be transparent and consistent.
I do agree that its most-likely just different people making subjective decisions, leading to inconsistent results. However complacency is what allows corruption to take hold so when there are outliers they should be looked at seriously. | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:51 - Jan 7 with 2976 views | SheffordBlue |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:23 - Jan 7 by CrayonKing |
Whilst it's *probably* not corrupt, there's so much money in the game that decisions like this do need to be transparent and consistent.
I do agree that its most-likely just different people making subjective decisions, leading to inconsistent results. However complacency is what allows corruption to take hold so when there are outliers they should be looked at seriously. |
They've published a fairly detailed explanation of how they reached their conclusions. We might disagree with the outcome (I think he got off really lightly) but the process looks like it's been followed - e.g comparable incidents were highlighted and the commission discounted some of those put forward by Wolves etc. | |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:58 - Jan 7 with 2927 views | Ryorry |
Can't get the link to open, my browser (Chrome) thinks it's corrupt! 😂 |  |
| |
| Rewatch the video of the incident.... his description is fanciful on 15:03 - Jan 7 with 2894 views | unstableblue |
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13277214/matheus-cunha-wolves-forw
As I tried to get closer to Rayan to make sure he was okay, I was suddenly surrounded by a lot of people. I felt like I was being shoved by the ITFC security
personnel, so I shoved them back in an effort to break away from them to protect myself. It was never my intention to come into contact with Mr. and I
certainly never meant to elbow him. I simply wanted to push him away from Rayan. Then all of a sudden, I remember Mr. turned round and had his
hands on my shirt, and I shouted “stop” but he kept hold of my shirt. Mr. is much bigger than me and I was surrounded by a large number of
people, mainly ITFC personnel, so I remember feeling quite threatened at the time. So in an effort to get Mr. 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.”
Cunha approaches a group of Ipswich Town staff
Rayan is nowhere near
Mr X has his back to Cunha and is speaking to colleagues no Wolves personnel
He was not surrounded - he approaches the grouping of ITFC staff who are not even looking at him
Ridiculous from the FA
I assume his previous record has saved him here
3 match ban at least as a minimum, 5 the norm
Buy anwyay - its done
If he'd played for Wolves last night against Forest it would have been a different result. |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:03 - Jan 7 with 2893 views | DanTheMan |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:58 - Jan 7 by Ryorry |
Can't get the link to open, my browser (Chrome) thinks it's corrupt! 😂 |
They are using some very old tech to serve the PDF, something I've not seen in over a decade.
Given it's the FA, doesn't surprise me! |  |
| |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:13 - Jan 7 with 2820 views | dyersdream |
Shows how corrupt th Fa and wolves are | | | |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 15:19 - Jan 7 with 2754 views | CrayonKing |
| Written reasons for Cunha decision published on 14:51 - Jan 7 by SheffordBlue |
They've published a fairly detailed explanation of how they reached their conclusions. We might disagree with the outcome (I think he got off really lightly) but the process looks like it's been followed - e.g comparable incidents were highlighted and the commission discounted some of those put forward by Wolves etc. |
That's a fair comment too.
The main issue I have with it is the FA starting from a position that it should be a 3-match ban. That's ridiculously lenient for an assault on a non-player and I can't understand why that's all they pushed for. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
