Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
This charge against Cunha 17:56 - Mar 5 with 3482 viewsbluesym

Says he has until Monday 10th to respond. Does this mean if he responds on Sunday the 9th,he is eligible to stil play this weekend?

Poll: Is Micheal Mcintyre actually funny?

0
This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 with 3445 viewsSuffolkPunchFC

No, because the 3 match ban is automatic, and immediate - this is a separate charge that would only add a further suspension after the 3 match ban
3
This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 with 3452 viewsPhilTWTD

He's already suspended for three games for the red card, the charge relates to the refusal to leave the field.
1
This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 with 3434 viewsbluesym

This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 by SuffolkPunchFC

No, because the 3 match ban is automatic, and immediate - this is a separate charge that would only add a further suspension after the 3 match ban


Ahhh of course. Cheers.

Poll: Is Micheal Mcintyre actually funny?

0
This charge against Cunha on 18:01 - Mar 5 with 3394 viewsberkstractorboy

This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 by PhilTWTD

He's already suspended for three games for the red card, the charge relates to the refusal to leave the field.


If the FA want to repay Ipswich for the ridiculously lenient suspension the 1st time around give him at least 1 more game so he doesn't play us!

You would think given his previous and now this charge there has to be some more games on top of the automatic 3.
1
This charge against Cunha on 18:24 - Mar 5 with 3183 viewsDubtractor

This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 by PhilTWTD

He's already suspended for three games for the red card, the charge relates to the refusal to leave the field.


It seems fairly likely that he's going to get an additional ban, based on this charge, doesn't it?

I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun. I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
Poll: Important Christmas poll - which is the best Celebration chocolate?

0
This charge against Cunha on 18:33 - Mar 5 with 3099 viewsMullet

This charge against Cunha on 18:24 - Mar 5 by Dubtractor

It seems fairly likely that he's going to get an additional ban, based on this charge, doesn't it?


Yeah he’ll be banned for two weeks only on Thursdays

Poll: Which itfc kit do you usually buy
Blog: When the Fanzine Comes Around

2
This charge against Cunha on 18:49 - Mar 5 with 2999 viewsSwansea_Blue

This charge against Cunha on 17:58 - Mar 5 by PhilTWTD

He's already suspended for three games for the red card, the charge relates to the refusal to leave the field.


Not for the severity of the offence then? Interesting. Millwall are going through this with their keeper and the FA have deemed the offence severe enough to submit a claim to the regulator commission (whoever they are) to ask for an extension.

It’s very subjective though isn’t it. Cunha’s strop was entirely improper but there wasn’t much aggression in what he did. The Millwall keeper’s’ challenge was far more likely to endanger an opponent. So maybe that explains why the FA have gone only for the refusal to leave the field part of his latest outburst.

Poll: Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

1
This charge against Cunha on 18:51 - Mar 5 with 2979 viewsZx1988

This charge against Cunha on 18:49 - Mar 5 by Swansea_Blue

Not for the severity of the offence then? Interesting. Millwall are going through this with their keeper and the FA have deemed the offence severe enough to submit a claim to the regulator commission (whoever they are) to ask for an extension.

It’s very subjective though isn’t it. Cunha’s strop was entirely improper but there wasn’t much aggression in what he did. The Millwall keeper’s’ challenge was far more likely to endanger an opponent. So maybe that explains why the FA have gone only for the refusal to leave the field part of his latest outburst.


All this involvement of external commissions and arbitrators just seems like an absolute mess.

Whatever happened to the FA being able to say 'our competition, our rules, and if you don't agree with it, feel free to go and form your own league with blackjack and hookers.'?

You ain't a beauty but, hey, you're alright.
Poll: Stone Island - immediate associations

1
Login to get fewer ads

This charge against Cunha on 18:56 - Mar 5 with 2932 viewsdyersdream

This charge against Cunha on 18:51 - Mar 5 by Zx1988

All this involvement of external commissions and arbitrators just seems like an absolute mess.

Whatever happened to the FA being able to say 'our competition, our rules, and if you don't agree with it, feel free to go and form your own league with blackjack and hookers.'?


He'll just write a letter and Fa will let him off
1
This charge against Cunha on 19:04 - Mar 5 with 2844 viewsSwansea_Blue

This charge against Cunha on 18:51 - Mar 5 by Zx1988

All this involvement of external commissions and arbitrators just seems like an absolute mess.

Whatever happened to the FA being able to say 'our competition, our rules, and if you don't agree with it, feel free to go and form your own league with blackjack and hookers.'?


I don’t understand it. I assumed it was the FA who put a panel together to deal with all this stuff. But apparently not. 🤷‍♂️

Poll: Do you think Pert is key to all of this?

0
This charge against Cunha on 19:42 - Mar 5 with 2668 viewsSmoresy

So!

Kudus pushes a player's face with his hands, and then maybe 10 seconds later he does the same to another, in the consequent melee. The ref sees the first incident and books him for it. VAR watch the replays and intervene; Kudus is sent off. The FA then charges Kudus for the second incident, effectively putting forward that the player warrants two red cards for two violent actions. He's suspended for 5 games.

Here, Cunha has thrown two crap punches, a pathetic little kick and an embarrassing little headbutt. It was a minimum of three violent actions and yet one red card now happily covers the lot; the FA's charge is only that he afterwards refused to leave the field. Behold the consistency!

I could understand if Kudus's carried a higher degree of violence, sure, but all of it was weak af in both cases. The worst by a distance was the assault on our security man, an innocent bystander / civilian after the heat of battle, and yet that's the one that didn't even warrant a normal suspension!

[Post edited 5 Mar 19:43]
5
This charge against Cunha on 19:46 - Mar 5 with 2613 viewsFrimleyBlue

This charge against Cunha on 19:42 - Mar 5 by Smoresy

So!

Kudus pushes a player's face with his hands, and then maybe 10 seconds later he does the same to another, in the consequent melee. The ref sees the first incident and books him for it. VAR watch the replays and intervene; Kudus is sent off. The FA then charges Kudus for the second incident, effectively putting forward that the player warrants two red cards for two violent actions. He's suspended for 5 games.

Here, Cunha has thrown two crap punches, a pathetic little kick and an embarrassing little headbutt. It was a minimum of three violent actions and yet one red card now happily covers the lot; the FA's charge is only that he afterwards refused to leave the field. Behold the consistency!

I could understand if Kudus's carried a higher degree of violence, sure, but all of it was weak af in both cases. The worst by a distance was the assault on our security man, an innocent bystander / civilian after the heat of battle, and yet that's the one that didn't even warrant a normal suspension!

[Post edited 5 Mar 19:43]


So if found guilty. That's two improper conduct charges in the space of a couple of months.. so he should really get a further 2/3 matches surely.

a niche perspective
Poll: We've had Kuqi v Pablo.. so Broadhead or Celina?
Blog: Marcus Evans Needs Our Support Not to Be Hounded Out

1
This charge against Cunha on 19:59 - Mar 5 with 2514 viewsSmoresy

This charge against Cunha on 19:46 - Mar 5 by FrimleyBlue

So if found guilty. That's two improper conduct charges in the space of a couple of months.. so he should really get a further 2/3 matches surely.


He very well should but I'm not holding my breath!
1
This charge against Cunha on 20:01 - Mar 5 with 2509 viewsCoastalblue

Have to think he's potentially working his way out of a big deal at the end of the season with all this stuff. Would surely be an ideal target for Arsenal but would that want to sign somebody who behaves like this?

No idea when I began here, was a very long time ago. Previously known as Spirit_of_81. Love cheese, hate the colour of it, this is why it requires some blue in it.
Poll: If someone promised you promotion next season, would you think

0
This charge against Cunha on 20:20 - Mar 5 with 2411 viewsSitfcB

This charge against Cunha on 19:42 - Mar 5 by Smoresy

So!

Kudus pushes a player's face with his hands, and then maybe 10 seconds later he does the same to another, in the consequent melee. The ref sees the first incident and books him for it. VAR watch the replays and intervene; Kudus is sent off. The FA then charges Kudus for the second incident, effectively putting forward that the player warrants two red cards for two violent actions. He's suspended for 5 games.

Here, Cunha has thrown two crap punches, a pathetic little kick and an embarrassing little headbutt. It was a minimum of three violent actions and yet one red card now happily covers the lot; the FA's charge is only that he afterwards refused to leave the field. Behold the consistency!

I could understand if Kudus's carried a higher degree of violence, sure, but all of it was weak af in both cases. The worst by a distance was the assault on our security man, an innocent bystander / civilian after the heat of battle, and yet that's the one that didn't even warrant a normal suspension!

[Post edited 5 Mar 19:43]


The wording in the Kudus charge was the same as Cunha’s really… ‘after’


COYB
Poll: What will today’s 10 pager be
Blog: [Blog] One Year On

1
This charge against Cunha on 20:35 - Mar 5 with 2314 viewsWestover

IMO he should still be banned from the assault at Portman road, he might be a good player but he's a nasty piece of work.
0
This charge against Cunha on 20:50 - Mar 5 with 2250 viewsSmoresy

This charge against Cunha on 20:20 - Mar 5 by SitfcB

The wording in the Kudus charge was the same as Cunha’s really… ‘after’



Hopefully they are treated at least the same. The distinction I'd make in the wording is that Kudus's included "and/or used violent conduct after the offence", whereas Cunha offence is only acting "in an improper manner" "after his dismissal". Truth is that Kudus was sent off only after he'd had his moments of madness, and then took his punishment quietly afterwards. Why that sequence was broken down by incident to double-charge him, but the FA was happy to regard Cunha's violent aspects as one, only the FA will know.
1
This charge against Cunha on 06:09 - Mar 6 with 1758 viewsBlue_Heath

This charge against Cunha on 20:50 - Mar 5 by Smoresy

Hopefully they are treated at least the same. The distinction I'd make in the wording is that Kudus's included "and/or used violent conduct after the offence", whereas Cunha offence is only acting "in an improper manner" "after his dismissal". Truth is that Kudus was sent off only after he'd had his moments of madness, and then took his punishment quietly afterwards. Why that sequence was broken down by incident to double-charge him, but the FA was happy to regard Cunha's violent aspects as one, only the FA will know.


Or maybe he plays at PR Morsy winds up in first minute and not only we play ten men but he's out for most of season!
0
This charge against Cunha on 06:46 - Mar 6 with 1707 viewsWallingford_Boy

This charge against Cunha on 18:24 - Mar 5 by Dubtractor

It seems fairly likely that he's going to get an additional ban, based on this charge, doesn't it?


I don’t think there’s any doubt he’ll get a further ban, it’s more the nature of his dismissals for me, he’s basically fighting…. Again.

RIP Sir Bobby

0
This charge against Cunha on 08:44 - Mar 6 with 1443 viewsBlueRaider

This charge against Cunha on 19:46 - Mar 5 by FrimleyBlue

So if found guilty. That's two improper conduct charges in the space of a couple of months.. so he should really get a further 2/3 matches surely.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Abercromby#:~:text=On%2029%20October%201986%

I remember this from when is was growing up, the guy kept getting the red card !

Blog: Yellow Cards and Why They Bug Me

0
This charge against Cunha on 09:09 - Mar 6 with 1370 viewsbaxterbasics

This charge against Cunha on 18:51 - Mar 5 by Zx1988

All this involvement of external commissions and arbitrators just seems like an absolute mess.

Whatever happened to the FA being able to say 'our competition, our rules, and if you don't agree with it, feel free to go and form your own league with blackjack and hookers.'?


Premier League clubs have access to expensive lawyers. FA has to make their procedures water tight.

zip
Poll: Your minimum standard of 'success' for our return to The Championship?

0
This charge against Cunha on 10:02 - Mar 6 with 1242 viewsParsley

This charge against Cunha on 18:51 - Mar 5 by Zx1988

All this involvement of external commissions and arbitrators just seems like an absolute mess.

Whatever happened to the FA being able to say 'our competition, our rules, and if you don't agree with it, feel free to go and form your own league with blackjack and hookers.'?


In fact, forget the league!
0




About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2025