| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length 14:07 - Jan 4 with 3280 views | unstableblue |
Normally the resident former ref tends to tow the line on decisions - but he was at a loss as to why only 2 games - expected a minimum 3
Also couldn’t understand the length of time taken - it often does take a month in my view - which has meant the Bristol cup game is in the two banned
Really important Wolves lose on Monday night to Fulham
Also Chelsea need to beat Palace today [Post edited 4 Jan 14:08]
|  |
| |  |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 14:11 - Jan 4 with 3201 views | Stenvict |
Wolves are playing Forest.
Fulham are losing to the mighty Ipswich Town tomorrow. |  |
| |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 14:15 - Jan 4 with 3116 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Doesn't concern us, forget it.
If we're going to rely on other teams having players suspended then we're already done. |  |
| |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 15:11 - Jan 4 with 2806 views | unstableblue |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 14:15 - Jan 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Doesn't concern us, forget it.
If we're going to rely on other teams having players suspended then we're already done. |
Agree there has been too much focus on Cunha ban.
Just thought the ref ‘pundit’ comment was interesting and rare.
I’d slightly disagree on focussing on our rivals… we’ll only survive of someone drops down and falters… and in some way what makes the league so interesting | |
| |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 15:23 - Jan 4 with 2722 views | EastTownBlue |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 15:11 - Jan 4 by unstableblue |
Agree there has been too much focus on Cunha ban.
Just thought the ref ‘pundit’ comment was interesting and rare.
I’d slightly disagree on focussing on our rivals… we’ll only survive of someone drops down and falters… and in some way what makes the league so interesting |
It was more of a comment on the FA committee than a refereeing decision. | | | |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 19:00 - Jan 4 with 2292 views | Simonds92 |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 14:15 - Jan 4 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Doesn't concern us, forget it.
If we're going to rely on other teams having players suspended then we're already done. |
In what world is that statement ever true?! If he'd have banned for the last 3 games, as he should have been, we'd currently be sat 3,4,5 points ahead of them. If they end up that many points ahead of us at the end of the season it will be as a direct result of him not being sufficiently punished for what was violent conduct. | | | |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 12:49 - Jan 7 with 1401 views | SheffordBlue |
The written reasons for the ban have now been published online for anyone who wants the detail.
| |
| |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 13:42 - Jan 7 with 1110 views | Steve_M |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 12:49 - Jan 7 by SheffordBlue |
The written reasons for the ban have now been published online for anyone who wants the detail.
|
The logic is strong here, the panel didn't believe Cunha's claim to have been worried by the Town staff near his teammate but they are happy to take his apology as mitigating circumstances.
Seems more like Wolves asked for a one match ban, the standard was three and they split the difference - which is odd given they didn't accept his evidence.
Oh well, it's done now. No point worrying about it again until the next time the FA impose an inconsistent punishment somewhere (like on Morsy). |  |
| |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 15:11 - Jan 7 with 903 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Even Sky Soccer Saturday questioning Cunha ban length on 13:42 - Jan 7 by Steve_M |
The logic is strong here, the panel didn't believe Cunha's claim to have been worried by the Town staff near his teammate but they are happy to take his apology as mitigating circumstances.
Seems more like Wolves asked for a one match ban, the standard was three and they split the difference - which is odd given they didn't accept his evidence.
Oh well, it's done now. No point worrying about it again until the next time the FA impose an inconsistent punishment somewhere (like on Morsy). |
The bit that annoys me is Cunha was given until 19th December to admit or contest the charges but it now seems he only accepted the charge on 23rd thus delaying the decision on appropriate punishment allowing the ban to include an FA Cup game. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
