Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] That Wissa Punch



BN41Albion

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2017
6,315
Just watched it. Looks a lot of fuss about nothing. I do wish people would try and be a bit more reasonable/impartial when slagging off referees. If that had been the other way round and Wissa was holding the ball, you'd all be having a go at him for trying to delay the free kick when we're a goal behind, and that Gilmour never intended to make contact with his face.
Absolutely this
 

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 11, 2003
58,882
The Fatherland
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.
 

Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
11,290
Cumbria
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

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
6,569
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

Test your smoke alarm
Helpful Moderator
Jul 21, 2003
19,613
Playing snooker
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.
 

Horses Arse

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
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

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
2,271
Shiki-shi, Saitama

Nigella's Cream Pie

Fingerlickin good
Apr 2, 2009
1,042
Up your alley
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.
 


Zeberdi

Brighton born & bred
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Oct 20, 2022
4,548
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

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
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

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
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

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,834
Central Borneo / the Lizard
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

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
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

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,834
Central Borneo / the Lizard
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

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 11, 2003
58,882
The Fatherland
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

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
11,290
Cumbria
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

Ordinary Supporter
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.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top