[Albion] That Wissa Punch

[Herr Tubthumper]

Barely…..I’d add if i wanted to grab the ball back i would be using both hands….moving towards the person so i was closer and not having the one arm fully extended at face level…the ball was not at any stage face level

I’m very left handed so I reckon I’d use a single left hand myself.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I’m very left handed so I reckon I’d use a single left hand myself.

Whereas i am both left (writing) and right (throwing)

 

[Bodian]

Wissa swing was instinctive and wrong, straight red. I bet he is relieved he appears to got away with it, without penalty too. Gilmore never makes a fuss which I love but, the Albion paid the price for him being so straight.

But fortunately we didn't. Not like when that guy equalized after he should have been sent off a few weeks back.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Exactly this. Anyone talking like this was some sort of menacing punch really is clueless. He clearly went to get the ball out of WBG's hands, missed it and barely stroked Gilmour's chin.

I am glad VAR didn't look at it and I'm glad Gilmour didn't make a meal of it. The correct way forward is to just get on with the games lads.

I agree fully

But I think there are some clubs, I reckon at least 10 in the PL, where if a player gets a slap in the face and doesn't go down screaming and doesn't get the opponent sent off, that player can expect a massive bollocking from his manager and maybe a spell on the sidelines

 

[Bry Nylon]

Exactly this. Anyone talking like this was some sort of menacing punch really is clueless. He clearly went to get the ball out of WBG's hands, missed it and barely stroked Gilmour's chin.

I am glad VAR didn't look at it and I'm glad Gilmour didn't make a meal of it. The correct way forward is to just get on with the games lads.

This all day long, ffs.

Just chuck the ball down and get on with the game.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Blimey. What pubs do you frequent?

Only the very best

 

[Horses Arse]

People really think that was a punch? He's going for the ball and catches his face by accident.

If that's a red card it's absolutely ridiculous.

The intention is irrelevant. He swung his arm at an opponent in an off the ball incident and hit him.in the face. Red card, no question.

 

[Mental Lental]

The intention is irrelevant.

No it isn't.

 

[Nigella's Cream Pie]

The intention is irrelevant. He swung his arm at an opponent in an off the ball incident and hit him.in the face. Red card, no question.

Violent conduct - rules say:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The intention is irrelevant. He swung his arm at an opponent in an off the ball incident and hit him.in the face. Red card, no question.

Are we still doing this? Of course intent is relevant when it comes to throwing punches.

 

[Zeberdi]

Probably best to draw a line under it now. Any red would have been for violent conduct - I think even the most strident advocates of a red card would agree that a 3 match ban would have been very harsh in this instance.

 

[Horses Arse]

Are we still doing this? Of course intent is relevant when it comes to throwing punches.

Yes we are, for as long as daftness continues. Red cards for tackles are rarely intended to connect with the opponents leg, but they result in a red regardless. A stamp on a leg maybe intended to protect the ball (dahoud) but when they connect its a red. FFS, JP brushed a shoulder with his hand and the guy dives to the ground and wins a penalty.

I'd agree with you if this was 1978, but it isn't. It is a clear and obvious red in today's game. Its a bit shit but it's a fact

 

[Horses Arse]

Violent conduct - rules say:

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.

So his arm swung out involuntary, in a spasm? The force was not negligible, it was an aggressive action. It is a red in today's game. I don't like it but neither do I like players diving when feeling a brush on the arm. But that resulted in a penalty in this same game.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Yes we are, for as long as daftness continues. Red cards for tackles are rarely intended to connect with the opponents leg, but they result in a red regardless. A stamp on a leg maybe intended to protect the ball (dahoud) but when they connect its a red. FFS, JP brushed a shoulder with his hand and the guy dives to the ground and wins a penalty.

I'd agree with you if this was 1978, but it isn't. It is a clear and obvious red in today's game. Its a bit shit but it's a fact

Intent is not needed to punish dangerous tackles, but it is needed for violent conduct

 

[Horses Arse]

Intent is not needed to punish dangerous tackles, but it is needed for violent conduct

I thought it was expressed as deliberate rather than intent in violent conduct. i.e. a non-deliberate hand to the face would be someone falling over and trying to balance. However, this was a deliberate action - he meant to swing his arm at the player and he did swing his arm at the player, i.e. it was deliberate. He also made contact. Red card

Whilst I agree that it was hardly an assault it was still a red card offence as defined within the rules. It comes down to consistency again I guess; there is none. Just like haarland being able to abuse refs and Dunk not.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I thought it was expressed as deliberate rather than intent in violent conduct. i.e. a non-deliberate hand to the face would be someone falling over and trying to balance. However, this was a deliberate action - he meant to swing his arm at the player and he did swing his arm at the player, i.e. it was deliberate. He also made contact. Red card

Whilst I agree that it was hardly an assault it was still a red card offence as defined within the rules. It comes down to consistency again I guess; there is none. Just like haarland being able to abuse refs and Dunk not.

Well then i think a strongly worded letter of complaint to the FA is in order

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I thought it was expressed as deliberate rather than intent in violent conduct. i.e. a non-deliberate hand to the face would be someone falling over and trying to balance. However, this was a deliberate action - he meant to swing his arm at the player and he did swing his arm at the player, i.e. it was deliberate. He also made contact. Red card

Whilst I agree that it was hardly an assault it was still a red card offence as defined within the rules. It comes down to consistency again I guess; there is none. Just like haarland being able to abuse refs and Dunk not.

The exact wording is

“I, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.”

It’s my view, and many others view, he was not deliberately punching Gilmore. Further more, the force was negligible.

 

[Bodian]

The exact wording is

“I, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.”

It’s my view, and many others view, he was not deliberately punching Gilmore. Further more, the force was negligible.

He deliberately struck Gilmour. Even if he was supposedly attempting to get the ball back - he simply would not have been able to without making deliberate contact with Gilmour.

Negligible is subjective - but the replays show the other side of Gilmour's face rippling with the contact. That's not just a 'brush'.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The exact wording is

“I, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.”

It’s my view, and many others view, he was not deliberately punching Gilmore. Further more, the force was negligible.

Duffy was sent off for leaning his forehead against. Palace player. If he meant it, that Palace player would have been stretchered off.
There is no consistency.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

It's very hard to have any sympathy/outrage for the actual injustices when the same fans think this is a violent act that warrants a red card.

Went for the ball. Missed it.

File it under "whoops"