He can't have seen what actually happened though or it would have been a yellow minimum

I think he saw them come together, but did not see that it was a smash with the arm / elbow

Posted By: SimonOTBC on March 3rd 2025 at 10:33:50

Message Thread

That Hyam thug better be charged today (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 09:26:55
- Surely they won't as the red saw it? (NCFC) - Kangol Canary, Mar 3, 10:24:45
  - He wasn’t looking at the same angle as the tv camera (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:38:27
    - He did have the same view I think. In the replay looking straight down the pitch (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 3, 10:42:58
      - Yeah his positioning is better than I thought (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:54:56
        
        Gunn is also slightly behind Hyam when he hits him (NCFC) - jamesward, Mar 3, 16:50:25
        
        Surely that’d be a ban in itself? (n/m) (NCFC) - APB, Mar 3, 16:27:03
      - We need a wobbly grainy film from a fan’s mobile 80m away to be sure (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Git, Mar 3, 10:49:15
        
        Gunn’s head went back and to the left….back and to the left (n/m) (NCFC) - Under soil heating, Mar 3, 13:06:08
  - He can't have seen what actually happened though or it would have been a yellow minimum (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 3, 10:33:50
    - Yep has to be that (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:40:20
- Well if Kenny at QPR was a ban then this has to be. (NCFC) - Chopper, Mar 3, 10:17:29
- The FA wont do a thing (NCFC) - Under soil heating, Mar 3, 10:08:29
  - How much of your vast wealth would you bet on that? (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:10:06
    - My last Rolo (n/m) (NCFC) - Under soil heating, Mar 3, 10:18:40
- FOREARM SMASH COULD HAVE KILLED HIM (NCFC) - Old Git, Mar 3, 09:56:31
  - That's the problem though isn't it (NCFC) - Old Man, Mar 3, 09:58:57
    - I think based on this he should get done (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:03:36
      - Yes, and exactly why Kenny was done. Would be double standards not to charge (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 3, 10:06:31
        
        We’d be getting into ‘agenda against Norwich’ territory (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:09:15
        
        Did they ever explain why that specific action got looked at? (NCFC) - Knitted Jesus, Mar 3, 10:32:04
        
        Because it was clearly violent conduct (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 3, 10:42:52
        
        Off the ball is also a distinction I think (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 3, 10:43:45
- Agreed (n/m) (NCFC) - Augustus Pablo, Mar 3, 09:45:49
- VMT (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 3, 09:34:05

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.