The FA has released written reasons behind their Independent Regulatory Commission’s decision to suspend Blues skipper Sam Morsy for four games following his clash with Accrington Stanley’s Ethan Hamilton.

Morsy was charged with violent conduct by the FA for the incident which took place just before the half hour in Town’s 2-1 victory over Stanley at Portman Road.

The referee, Geoff Eltringham, missed the incident at the time and had already submitted his report before emailing the FA after seeing video footage, which had been widely shared on social media following a tweet by Accrington chairman Andy Holt.

At the hearing held last Tuesday, Town provided additional evidence to the Commission, former players Stuart Ripley and Lawrie Sanchez and ex-referee Ray Olivier.

However, they felt it “was not easy to make out what had occurred from the footage provided by ITFC but it could be seen that SM [Morsy] raised his right arm and made contact with the Accrington player”.

The Commission believed the evidence of the footage conclusively illustrated a ‘serious missed incident’ of violent conduct.

“From the footage provided by the FA, all three Commission members felt that they could comfortably say that SM had deliberately struck his opponent in the face with his right hand as they came together.

“It was, to the mind of the Commission, clear that SM had rapidly jabbed his hand out towards the face of his opponent.”

The FA’s written reasons can be found in full here. Morsy has served two matches of his ban but will miss Saturday’s home game against Gillingham and next Tuesday’s trip to Doncaster Rovers.

Photo: Pagepix

grinch added 11:40 - Feb 1 moral of story don't raise your hands like he did as lots are caught on camera at different angles and if players go down like they have been shot then you leave yourself wide open and as captain the team in a difficult position for 4 games if tge ref had seen it then again we would have had 10 men for alot of the game hope he has learnt from this incident
11

borge added 11:40 - Feb 1 Points 12 and 13 in their report are somewhat contradictory - how can they 'comfortably' say that he deliberately struck the Accrington player's face having said it wasn't easy to make out what had occurred? Silly boy for raising his hands regardless though.
17

Ipswichbusiness added 11:45 - Feb 1 The way that I am reading paragraphs 12 and 13 is that there are two video clips, one from the Club and one from the FA. The one from the club is unclear, but shows him raising his hand and the other is better and shows a blow.
2

Bazza8564 added 11:49 - Feb 1 Trial by social media then! Disappointing that failure of referee twice to recognise it through his own methods and it takes the opposition chairman to whinge like a chastised brat to get anything done. Not saying that SM wasnt guilty of something but four games for a twitter rant feels a little out of line
7

galacticoblue added 11:53 - Feb 1 It is still all basically guesswork and promotes the reason why players will fall over at the slightest of contacts.
8

BaddowBlue1 added 11:56 - Feb 1 Take it that the 4th Official missed the incident that was almost in front of him. Sam shouldnt have done it but I do think that Hamilton was "playing the game"
7

wiltshireblue added 12:00 - Feb 1 I'm sure i'll be shot down when someone points out I'm talking cr*p, but... Is my understanding right in that if it was seen at the time he would have been red carded and given a 2 match suspension. I know there's circumstances where that can be extended after the event in extreme situations. However, I'd imagine after a flash in the pan moment Stanley would have been chuffed us being down to 10 men and might not have caused a stir after enjoying that element of it. However, as all officials totally failed to spot it at the time, he gets 4 games??. I don't get it. I understand punishment for the event but extra for it not being spotted is beyond me. Looks like the Stanley Chairman won then

11

TimmyH added 12:02 - Feb 1 'It was not easy to make out what happened from the footage but it was clear Morsy raised his arm and made contact with the Accrington player' - and the FA board then come to the assumption it was a purposeful act of striking the player with his right hand. A contradiction if ever I've heard one!
9

wiltshireblue added 12:03 - Feb 1 Sorry, I should have said I know it could have been a 2/3 game suspension if spotted at the time
1

PortmanTerrorist added 12:10 - Feb 1 Officiating right up through to FA is absolutely shocking at this level; we all know this and yet there is still surprise over the nature of the decision and resulting ban. The lad he struck eventually remembered they were in a game and got up, and showed no markings at all from the contact. HOWEVER, you cannot raise your hand at an opponent. That does not excuse the officiating on the day or the ridiculous 4 game ban essentially based on taking the word of Stanley over ITFC as there is NO conclusive footage as it has to be shared.

2

Jugsy added 12:12 - Feb 1 Wiltshireblue, I might be wrong but I believe it's a combination of this being his second red card offence plus the fact we appealed what they deem to be a violent offence. The last bit might be wrong, but they always scale up when it's a second red card in a season. Like many have said, don't give the officials a decision to make, that was Morsy's mistake.
6

JewellintheTown added 12:13 - Feb 1 Sam Morsy = Shouldn't have hit him but EH probably deserved it. Morsy was played. Ethan Hamilton = Shouldn't have gone all shot in the face dramatics. Will be "welcomed" back to Portman Road I'm sure. Andy Holt = Needs to stop being a "sh*t house" of a stirrer. Will get the best reception we can give him at PR.
2

SouperJim added 12:38 - Feb 1 It's a contact sport. They admit it was "not easy to make out what had occurred" and then completely contradict themselves by saying Morsy "deliberately struck his opponent". He wasn't even looking at the player in the footage! You could just as easily make a similar case for the Accrington player being guilty of simulation. Complete nonsense.
12

number8 added 12:38 - Feb 1 This won't be a PC comment but.........if you want to get into someone wait ya time and then hit em' hard in the challenge getting both ball and player - job done. Worse case scenario then it's not going to be a four game ban.
6

terryf added 12:42 - Feb 1 What surprises me is that Hamilton initially led with his arm in the first instance, but there was no mention of that point. Morsy's immediate reaction was to respond either with or without intent. Either way it was six of one and half a dozen of the other to me. A 4 match ban was extremely harsh on Morsy and Hamilton was not even reprimanded. Wonder what would have been the outcome if Hamilton had made contact with Morsy in the first place??

10

JimInGreensboro added 12:42 - Feb 1 The offending hand had to have come from the grassy knoll.
3

DaGremloid added 12:55 - Feb 1 Complete and utter bullsh1t. If we had a gobby chairman we could have had 3 or 4 of their players suspended. Pathetic decision.
6

happybeingblue added 13:00 - Feb 1 Morsy is a liability already racking up bookings suspensions etc, as a 30 yr old he should be able to manage his aggression at this stage of his career,the jury is still out for me on him, he was hyped up to the max on arrival and considering he is meant to be our captain he is no matty holland. a lot of our fanbase are too quick to lord/embrace a player at portman rd these days and continue to go way over the top on their level of performance,sitting 9th in the table and with no consistency from any player except 2 or 3 we are a long way from looking like a team getting promoted at present.

-2

Robert_Garrett added 13:04 - Feb 1 Still havent mentioned that Ethan struck the first blow?
0

positivity added 13:20 - Feb 1 wonder how many bans sanchez and chums would have racked up with those reasons?
6

Suffolkboy added 13:22 - Feb 1 There are always at least two ways of looking at any incident : on video it certainly appeared the Stanley player raised something ,and went down purposefully to daw attention . The FA are consistently weak and ‘inconsistent ‘ but always seeking to have the last word in disciplinary matters ,punishing whoever can be exposed ! That said it's a complete mystery how any one of the officials missed the incident .. I'm sure, however , that KM and his coaches will be making it clear to every ITFC player that to achieve professional goals we need each to be totally professional and consistently intelligent on and off the pitch . SM take note ,put it right ; you can best serve the side and team mates by remaining on the field ! As Captain please lead by example . COYB

3

runningout added 13:26 - Feb 1 4 game ban is over the top. I'm sure the guy wasn't hurt one bit. Hope these decisions are consistent now and they have a good look at certain teams that like to act their way through matches
0

Fixed_It added 13:49 - Feb 1 It's hard to see how the Commission weren't influenced by Holt's comments, and therefore their findings were prejudiced.
3

Pilgrimblue added 14:03 - Feb 1 I thought the contact was minimal and Ethan only went down in order to get Morsy booked. Sadly this has become the way players react to the slightest contact. Difficult to deal with but if every player that falls and appearing to be badly hurt should be taken off for 5 minutes. The managers may think twice before using this tactic! So many writhing around just to get player carded only to jump up and continue as though nothing had happened. Saying it's part of the game is unacceptable, it wouldn't be tolerated on rugby!!

2

Orraman added 14:09 - Feb 1 Looks like the proviso “Innocent until proved guilty” does not apply to the kangaroo courts of the FA. Imagine a witness in a Crown Court trial saying that it was not easy to make out what he had witnessed - Case Dismissed
2

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls