Search results

You've seen an explanation? Please give details! Sauce?

True enough. But anything that made it into a bigger fuss would have been good!

I think you'll find the law on violent conduct has been accurately and eruditely expressed on here.

Wright got it spot on - could have done with being a bit more vociferous about it though, IMHO. Nothing like the song and dance the BBC and Sky unleashed to get Hemed banned.

The lack of transparency at the FA is worrying. There may not actually be any corruption, but ..................................

I had forgotten that - time's a great healer, eh? But you're quite right, it's another example of a consistent pattern.

We weren't playing one of those! :facepalm:

Consistent? Yes, Barton found not guilty of stamping, Stephens' appeal summarily rejected, Hemed found guilty quicker than the FA have ever previously moved in history, and Lukaku found not guilty of kicking a Brighton player when he clearly did... ... ... ... hmmmm ... ... ... I would say...

Out of interest, do the FA call for evidence from the victims? (Not that there can really be victims when they're kicked by a player from one of their favourite clubs, of course).

F'kin' hell, have they got The Complete And Utter Shyster on the panel now? I don't suppose the powers that be will have the guts to reveal who it is on their panel who cannot see beyond protecting the big clubs.

Not a murmur on MOTD. C'est la vie.....................