| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? 12:37 - Feb 1 with 2467 views | berkstractorboy |
If the FA are happy to charge one of our players via footage seen on social media that alerted the ref (and the completely blind 4th official missed it under his nose), why are they not charging Andy Holt as a Club Official of bringing the game into disrepute with his social media comments about SM? |  | | |  |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:44 - Feb 1 with 2396 views | Fixed_It |
Why are you asking Phil? |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:44 - Feb 1 with 2394 views | Parsley |
It's just how he rolls |  | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:44 - Feb 1 with 2395 views | Metal_Hacker |
For me it's a pointless exercise
I'd rather we have a bit of decorum , not stoop to their levels and crack on
Revenge is sweet as they say when least expected
If we did , it'd not get SM out of the ban so......... |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:50 - Feb 1 with 2333 views | SitfcB |
I think the FA probably had a word and told him he had to make a statement hence the ‘apology’.
Should’ve been charged and fined though. |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:53 - Feb 1 with 2306 views | berkstractorboy |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:44 - Feb 1 by Fixed_It |
Why are you asking Phil? |
Because maybe he might know more about this given his connections that's all. Maybe its fine they can say what they want from personal twitter accounts and he had a slipped wrist from FA and was told to apologise which he did in a very Boris sorry, not sorry manner. | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:56 - Feb 1 with 2290 views | Illinoisblue |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:44 - Feb 1 by Metal_Hacker |
For me it's a pointless exercise
I'd rather we have a bit of decorum , not stoop to their levels and crack on
Revenge is sweet as they say when least expected
If we did , it'd not get SM out of the ban so......... |
I’d rather we went to war than showed some decorum. Next time we play Accrington it should be full on cold water in the showers, no heat, kiosks closed for away fans, slash tyres on their bus, etc. *
* joking of course, no need for any of that. |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:56 - Feb 1 with 2289 views | PhilTWTD |
Agree, surprising that his comments didn't lead to some censure. |  | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:57 - Feb 1 with 2275 views | berkstractorboy |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:44 - Feb 1 by Metal_Hacker |
For me it's a pointless exercise
I'd rather we have a bit of decorum , not stoop to their levels and crack on
Revenge is sweet as they say when least expected
If we did , it'd not get SM out of the ban so......... |
To get justice for what is an unacceptable comment. Why is it OK to charge SM and Holt get away with it. Agree it does little but its an example not to get away with it.
Personally if I was FA I'd be more worried about the tackles that could have caused serious long term injuries, 2 in the Huddersfield v Stoke game and one against Man City which went to VAR and somehow the player still stayed on when studding Laporte in his thigh. Studs up and high!! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:00 - Feb 1 with 2263 views | Illinoisblue |
I did try…. | |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:04 - Feb 1 with 2199 views | OriginalMarkyP |
He'll get his. Oh, boy will he get his. |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:04 - Feb 1 with 2205 views | Jimmy86 |
Posted a similar thread the other day and agree, 100%
Leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as I'm sure that Holt's outburst had an effect in the FA becoming aware of the incident... FA haven't covered themselves in glory with this in all honesty.. | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:06 - Feb 1 with 2174 views | Jimmy86 |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:00 - Feb 1 by Illinoisblue |
I did try…. |
Good effort my man! If I was on twitter I'd definitely re-tweet that.. Also bet you don't get a reply... FA are a bunch of dossers | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:09 - Feb 1 with 2148 views | berkstractorboy |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:00 - Feb 1 by Illinoisblue |
I did try…. |
V good. I did also tweet the FA and FA spokesman but of course have heard nothing, | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:10 - Feb 1 with 2140 views | berkstractorboy |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:56 - Feb 1 by PhilTWTD |
Agree, surprising that his comments didn't lead to some censure. |
Thanks Phil, mates at FA turning a blind eye then. | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:11 - Feb 1 with 2121 views | NthQldITFC |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:56 - Feb 1 by Illinoisblue |
I’d rather we went to war than showed some decorum. Next time we play Accrington it should be full on cold water in the showers, no heat, kiosks closed for away fans, slash tyres on their bus, etc. *
* joking of course, no need for any of that. |
Drink all their fekken milk, that'll learn 'em. |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:32 - Feb 1 with 2022 views | Trequartista |
Amusing to discover that Lawrie Sanchez (Wimbledon 1984-1994) construed that as violent conduct. |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:39 - Feb 1 with 1961 views | SitfcB |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:00 - Feb 1 by Illinoisblue |
I did try…. |
Find it funny that the tweet is still there ha.
Although the tweet he RTd with the video has been deleted, probably at the request of the FA  | |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:47 - Feb 1 with 1909 views | Garv |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 12:57 - Feb 1 by berkstractorboy |
To get justice for what is an unacceptable comment. Why is it OK to charge SM and Holt get away with it. Agree it does little but its an example not to get away with it.
Personally if I was FA I'd be more worried about the tackles that could have caused serious long term injuries, 2 in the Huddersfield v Stoke game and one against Man City which went to VAR and somehow the player still stayed on when studding Laporte in his thigh. Studs up and high!! |
Any tackle could cause long term injury, thankfully most don't.
Let's not start deflecting away from an act of silliness from Morsy by picking random tackles from the same weekend which went unpunished.
The Armstrong tackle on Laporte didn't deserve a red anyway. It was high but not excessive force. That was a rare sensible decision after review. |  |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:55 - Feb 1 with 1840 views | berkstractorboy |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:47 - Feb 1 by Garv |
Any tackle could cause long term injury, thankfully most don't.
Let's not start deflecting away from an act of silliness from Morsy by picking random tackles from the same weekend which went unpunished.
The Armstrong tackle on Laporte didn't deserve a red anyway. It was high but not excessive force. That was a rare sensible decision after review. |
Morsy was silly but I am disputing that evidence is clearly showing a strike to the face to find him guilty, it doesn't from the footage we can see. We will all have opinions on it and I don't condone what SM did if he really did punch him.
The reason I raise the Armstrong tackle, and I disagree with you how is that not a reckless tackle as high and studs up, forget excessive force, is looking at what Armstrong did and Morsy, which is more dangerous to an opponent? One was seriously more dangerous than the other, one a player got up after a few secs with not a mark on him, the other the player down for a couple of mins getting treatment. | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 14:10 - Feb 1 with 1783 views | Garv |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:55 - Feb 1 by berkstractorboy |
Morsy was silly but I am disputing that evidence is clearly showing a strike to the face to find him guilty, it doesn't from the footage we can see. We will all have opinions on it and I don't condone what SM did if he really did punch him.
The reason I raise the Armstrong tackle, and I disagree with you how is that not a reckless tackle as high and studs up, forget excessive force, is looking at what Armstrong did and Morsy, which is more dangerous to an opponent? One was seriously more dangerous than the other, one a player got up after a few secs with not a mark on him, the other the player down for a couple of mins getting treatment. |
I agree the evidence on Morsy isn't exactly conclusive, so the ban feels very harsh. Form tells us Morsy probably is that kind of player though. Did we even appeal it in the end?
Think the difference is the malicious nature of Morsy vs Armstrong. Armstrong is going for a ball that is knee height, he can't really challenge in any other way - the alternative is pull out the tackle completely. On the whole it was honest, if clumsy.
Morsy lashed out, basically. Whether he connected with the guy's face or not, it's almost irrelevant. | |
| |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 14:24 - Feb 1 with 1714 views | berkstractorboy |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 14:10 - Feb 1 by Garv |
I agree the evidence on Morsy isn't exactly conclusive, so the ban feels very harsh. Form tells us Morsy probably is that kind of player though. Did we even appeal it in the end?
Think the difference is the malicious nature of Morsy vs Armstrong. Armstrong is going for a ball that is knee height, he can't really challenge in any other way - the alternative is pull out the tackle completely. On the whole it was honest, if clumsy.
Morsy lashed out, basically. Whether he connected with the guy's face or not, it's almost irrelevant. |
Valid points, just all seems a little harsh comparing the 2 and which endangers a player more.
We couldn't appeal it and seems zero point as the FA do what they want anyway. | | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 17:18 - Feb 1 with 1407 views | HighgateBlue |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 13:10 - Feb 1 by berkstractorboy |
Thanks Phil, mates at FA turning a blind eye then. |
Who knows whether he will be charged, and if not, why not.
But to suggest that it is because he is pally with the FA is ludicrous. Back in August his club was fined in relation to Covid, and he publicly told the FA to "shove it". So no, like most conspiracies theories, it is easily debunked by the evidence.
Petty vengeance isn't going to get Morsy back. And it's certainly not gonna stop it from happening again. That will be down to Morsy, and whether he can lead by example on matters of discipline. |  | | |
| Phil - why are the FA not charging Holt? on 18:55 - Feb 1 with 1242 views | backwaywhen |
Let’s just give him the warmest of welcomes when returns to PR , that way we all get to have our say .
Ps he will not look forward to ever coming back here . | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
