| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response 10:09 - Mar 16 with 1826 views | FrimleyBlue |
He says we were only allowed to respond by paper
Has the write ups of his interview by both twtd and eadt missed out any further words of ashtons?
Even if Davis plead guilty to the charge.. the club when responding has to waive the right to a personal hearing for it to be dealt with via paper, yet ashtons made it out like we didn't get the opportunity to represent Davis in person.
|  |
| |  |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 10:19 - Mar 16 with 1707 views | SitfcB |
He said on the radio the club weren’t even allowed to submit extra footage.
Think they have to wait for the written reasons to be able to go further in this instance, but it won’t matter by that point really. |  |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 10:24 - Mar 16 with 1663 views | FrimleyBlue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 10:19 - Mar 16 by SitfcB |
He said on the radio the club weren’t even allowed to submit extra footage.
Think they have to wait for the written reasons to be able to go further in this instance, but it won’t matter by that point really. |
That's mad, they really do seem like they've just made it up and not allowed due process to happen | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 11:40 - Mar 16 with 1417 views | Pinewoodblue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 10:19 - Mar 16 by SitfcB |
He said on the radio the club weren’t even allowed to submit extra footage.
Think they have to wait for the written reasons to be able to go further in this instance, but it won’t matter by that point really. |
If a player admits a charge they can ask that it be dealt with without the need for the player to attend. Either Davis made such a request or EFL broke their own rules.
If the club appeal and pay the appropriate fee to cover the cost an appeal hearing, the punishment applied should be suspended. Either we didn’t follow appeal proceedings, or the EFL , or the club decided not ask for suspension of the ban because it would have meant, if judgement upheld, Davis not being available for Norwich game.
It seems strange you can be refused an opportunity to submit video evidence. |  |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 11:43 - Mar 16 with 1402 views | FrimleyBlue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 11:40 - Mar 16 by Pinewoodblue |
If a player admits a charge they can ask that it be dealt with without the need for the player to attend. Either Davis made such a request or EFL broke their own rules.
If the club appeal and pay the appropriate fee to cover the cost an appeal hearing, the punishment applied should be suspended. Either we didn’t follow appeal proceedings, or the EFL , or the club decided not ask for suspension of the ban because it would have meant, if judgement upheld, Davis not being available for Norwich game.
It seems strange you can be refused an opportunity to submit video evidence. |
Yeah that's what I dont get about it, either the FA made up their own rules and just simply gave him a 3 game ban, or Davis or the club plead guilty and didn't request to be able to do anything further.
I get the not denying it part.. could have lead to a 4 game ban or even longer, so you don't want to risk that.
But nothing wrong with pleading guilting but requesting a personal hearing | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:00 - Mar 16 with 1303 views | Illinoisblue |
Also absurd that a player is deemed to be guilty yet the FA get to wait a few weeks before they release their written findings. Immediate 3-game ban. But you’ll have to wait to find out why. It’s a clown show.
And again, if there’s clear and obvious footage of the hair pull, let’s see it. |  |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:07 - Mar 16 with 1251 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:00 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
Also absurd that a player is deemed to be guilty yet the FA get to wait a few weeks before they release their written findings. Immediate 3-game ban. But you’ll have to wait to find out why. It’s a clown show.
And again, if there’s clear and obvious footage of the hair pull, let’s see it. |
Its b0llocks.
Even if its somehow proven incorrect, what's the consequence? Davis will have missed his games by then. Its like these retrospective apologies for crap decisions, great, brilliant, but absolutely meaningless and doesn't help us. |  | | |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:13 - Mar 16 with 1174 views | BseaBlue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:00 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
Also absurd that a player is deemed to be guilty yet the FA get to wait a few weeks before they release their written findings. Immediate 3-game ban. But you’ll have to wait to find out why. It’s a clown show.
And again, if there’s clear and obvious footage of the hair pull, let’s see it. |
I think the footage is the issue though. It sounds to me that the Ref put it in his report that is happened and then you have to prove it wrong (the FA will usually always back the referee)
There is no clear hair pull in any of the footage I have seen but then they will argue that you can't see that he hasn't done it! Innocent until proven guilty is not a theory that exists within the FA! |  | | |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:19 - Mar 16 with 1137 views | LeoMuff |
The whole thing smells very fishy, I mean no footage really proves anything, yet far more violent conduct is clearly visible.
I would personally hope the club is looking at legal options here as the whole thing makes no sense and just doesn’t feel right. Smacks of something else at play.
Can you imagine Man City losing Haaland for 3 games without any valid reasoning with a few games left of a title race ? Not happening |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:27 - Mar 16 with 1053 views | Illinoisblue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:07 - Mar 16 by _CliveBaker_ |
Its b0llocks.
Even if its somehow proven incorrect, what's the consequence? Davis will have missed his games by then. Its like these retrospective apologies for crap decisions, great, brilliant, but absolutely meaningless and doesn't help us. |
I wonder if we’re waiting for the season to pan out, and then Ashton is going to go nuclear on the ref and also the process itself. But as you say, none of that helps us navigate three games without one of our best players. | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:28 - Mar 16 with 1053 views | Ftnfwest |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:00 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
Also absurd that a player is deemed to be guilty yet the FA get to wait a few weeks before they release their written findings. Immediate 3-game ban. But you’ll have to wait to find out why. It’s a clown show.
And again, if there’s clear and obvious footage of the hair pull, let’s see it. |
In this instance it seems to be one word against another if it comes to it, which is something the FA won't go in our favour on. |  | | |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:30 - Mar 16 with 1019 views | Illinoisblue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:13 - Mar 16 by BseaBlue |
I think the footage is the issue though. It sounds to me that the Ref put it in his report that is happened and then you have to prove it wrong (the FA will usually always back the referee)
There is no clear hair pull in any of the footage I have seen but then they will argue that you can't see that he hasn't done it! Innocent until proven guilty is not a theory that exists within the FA! |
But how does the ref put it in his report when both he and his assistant missed it in the game? Who told them what happened, and how is that enough to get Davis banned? | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:36 - Mar 16 with 938 views | BseaBlue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:30 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
But how does the ref put it in his report when both he and his assistant missed it in the game? Who told them what happened, and how is that enough to get Davis banned? |
Because the jumped up idiot probably didn't like the fact that KMac called him out for another mistake against us so has taken the players word for it and put it in!
It is normally always the case with the FA that the referees report is taken as factually correct, unless you can prove otherwise. | | | |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:37 - Mar 16 with 926 views | Illinoisblue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:28 - Mar 16 by Ftnfwest |
In this instance it seems to be one word against another if it comes to it, which is something the FA won't go in our favour on. |
But whose word was it? A Leicester snitch seems unlikely as they didn’t protest much at the time. Did the ref go back and watch footage to find something to punish us? If so, it’s surely highlighting his own incompetence for not seeing it at the time. | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:42 - Mar 16 with 859 views | J2BLUE |
Got to take the positives. Lets get 6 points from the two home games and then unleash a fresh and rested Davis on Norwich. |  |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:46 - Mar 16 with 819 views | LeoMuff |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:28 - Mar 16 by Ftnfwest |
In this instance it seems to be one word against another if it comes to it, which is something the FA won't go in our favour on. |
And not really a situation that potentially £100m premier league money should balance on.
We should be threatening them with action that if we dont go up and drop points when Leif is out our lawyers will look them up. | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:52 - Mar 16 with 762 views | Zx1988 |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:37 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
But whose word was it? A Leicester snitch seems unlikely as they didn’t protest much at the time. Did the ref go back and watch footage to find something to punish us? If so, it’s surely highlighting his own incompetence for not seeing it at the time. |
That's certainly what was suggested in McKenna's post-match comments on Saturday; that Busby had gone back through the footage and 're-refereed' the game. |  |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:56 - Mar 16 with 730 views | Zx1988 |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:19 - Mar 16 by LeoMuff |
The whole thing smells very fishy, I mean no footage really proves anything, yet far more violent conduct is clearly visible.
I would personally hope the club is looking at legal options here as the whole thing makes no sense and just doesn’t feel right. Smacks of something else at play.
Can you imagine Man City losing Haaland for 3 games without any valid reasoning with a few games left of a title race ? Not happening |
What do you claim and how do you claim it, though?
Even if we miss out on promotion by a point, thanks to Millwall getting a last-minute winner down their right wing on Saturday, how can it be proved that the goal wouldn't have been scored if Leif was available and on the pitch?
The only scenarios I can think of are:
1) It transpires that Leif is actually seen as a generational 'worth the ticket price alone' sort of talent by Town fans, and attendances drop to 5,000 for Millwall and Birmingham, as people stay away whilst there's no chance of watching Leif's magic.
2) Some absolute calamity befalls most of the team, and we're left with one player fewer than required in order to fulfil a fixture, and we get docked points, which would not have otherwise happened if Leif wasn't suspended.
Otherwise any claim is going to be based on far too much conjecture and assumption. | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:58 - Mar 16 with 710 views | MattinLondon |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:52 - Mar 16 by Zx1988 |
That's certainly what was suggested in McKenna's post-match comments on Saturday; that Busby had gone back through the footage and 're-refereed' the game. |
If that’s the case how come the Leicester player was not also charged with violent conduct and also given a retrospective three match ban? Also the hair pull - is there actual clear cut footage of it happening? Someone should tell that disciplinary committee that it’s not the 80s anymore and there needs to be full transparency.
I did think that after the FA has published its findings the ban will get reduced to two matches and they hope that we will quietly go away but hopefully we’ll kick-up a storm regarding this. |  | | |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 13:28 - Mar 16 with 603 views | LeoMuff |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:56 - Mar 16 by Zx1988 |
What do you claim and how do you claim it, though?
Even if we miss out on promotion by a point, thanks to Millwall getting a last-minute winner down their right wing on Saturday, how can it be proved that the goal wouldn't have been scored if Leif was available and on the pitch?
The only scenarios I can think of are:
1) It transpires that Leif is actually seen as a generational 'worth the ticket price alone' sort of talent by Town fans, and attendances drop to 5,000 for Millwall and Birmingham, as people stay away whilst there's no chance of watching Leif's magic.
2) Some absolute calamity befalls most of the team, and we're left with one player fewer than required in order to fulfil a fixture, and we get docked points, which would not have otherwise happened if Leif wasn't suspended.
Otherwise any claim is going to be based on far too much conjecture and assumption. |
You can’t prove it but losing points when you have your best player out feels like grounds for a claim of a percentage of £100m plus if we lose out by that amount.
I would certainly like to know more about how this decision was come to and on what grounds. It very much feels like punishment for speaking out on what were shocking errors that have cost us 4 key points. | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 13:43 - Mar 16 with 492 views | Illinoisblue |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:19 - Mar 16 by LeoMuff |
The whole thing smells very fishy, I mean no footage really proves anything, yet far more violent conduct is clearly visible.
I would personally hope the club is looking at legal options here as the whole thing makes no sense and just doesn’t feel right. Smacks of something else at play.
Can you imagine Man City losing Haaland for 3 games without any valid reasoning with a few games left of a title race ? Not happening |
If there was legal action - and I doubt there will be - it would surely focus on the process and how a ref can choose to re-referee a game with no obvious evidence. | |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 14:01 - Mar 16 with 403 views | Guthrum |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:37 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
But whose word was it? A Leicester snitch seems unlikely as they didn’t protest much at the time. Did the ref go back and watch footage to find something to punish us? If so, it’s surely highlighting his own incompetence for not seeing it at the time. |
So the Ref whose incorrect penalty decisions resulted in an apology from the PGMOL was then allowed to go back over the game and cite one of our players for an incident he did not see at the time, resulting in a ban?
Are we going to be awarded retrospective penalty goals as well? |  |
| |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 14:19 - Mar 16 with 337 views | ReusersTown |
| The Davis Charge and Ashtons response on 12:00 - Mar 16 by Illinoisblue |
Also absurd that a player is deemed to be guilty yet the FA get to wait a few weeks before they release their written findings. Immediate 3-game ban. But you’ll have to wait to find out why. It’s a clown show.
And again, if there’s clear and obvious footage of the hair pull, let’s see it. |
Absurd, and intentionally designed that way | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
