Aston Villa v Norwich City Match Thread | Page 2 | Vital Football

Aston Villa v Norwich City Match Thread

ASPINALL said:
Hourihane is a legend, if it kicks off he is in there.

Love it
Click to expand...

Whilst I get where you're coming from and completely understand why he reacted in that manner, I bet he wishes he'd managed to keep his cool. Feel sorry for the lad if he is banned. Hopefully his booking will prevent that.

The Leeds players decisions and poor officiating have potentially ruled him out of the biggest games of his career and deprived us of a potentially important player.
 
northamptonvillan said:
Whilst I get where you're coming from and completely understand why he reacted in that manner, I bet he wishes he'd managed to keep his cool. Feel sorry for the lad if he is banned. Hopefully his booking will prevent that.

The Leeds players decisions and poor officiating have potentially ruled him out of the biggest games of his career and deprived us of a potentially important player.
Click to expand...

He had just kicked the ball out for them upon request, concerned for their players injury.

Totally agree with you mate, he will regret it but i would have done the same - the Leeds players attitude was shocking on Sunday.
 
I think the line will be - was he booked for grappling and did the Ref miss the alleged punch., The same is similar for Bamford - was he booked for his part in the clash OR for blatantly feigning the hit (Bamford's is obviously more clear cut).

IF the Ref states he missed the second parts of those clashes, then retro comes into play (he didn't have the opportunity to double book or follow with straight red card). If for any reason he states the yellow was for each of those incidents it doesn't - I think.
 
mike_field said:
I think the line will be - was he booked for grappling and did the Ref miss the alleged punch., The same is similar for Bamford - was he booked for his part in the clash OR for blatantly feigning the hit (Bamford's is obviously more clear cut).

IF the Ref states he missed the second parts of those clashes, then retro comes into play (he didn't have the opportunity to double book or follow with straight red card). If for any reason he states the yellow was for each of those incidents it doesn't - I think.
Click to expand...
I think that the FA will bottle it like they always do. Bamford will get a ban regardless because this was such a blatant case of cheating they cant let it go, and then to even things up they will give Connor a one match ban to appease Leeds.
El Ghazi s red will be overruled.
 
mike_field said:
I think the line will be - was he booked for grappling and did the Ref miss the alleged punch., The same is similar for Bamford - was he booked for his part in the clash OR for blatantly feigning the hit (Bamford's is obviously more clear cut).

IF the Ref states he missed the second parts of those clashes, then retro comes into play (he didn't have the opportunity to double book or follow with straight red card). If for any reason he states the yellow was for each of those incidents it doesn't - I think.
Click to expand...

When do we find out Mike?
 
new rules say that you cant rest too many players as huddersfield rested 10 players and the fa changed the rules
 
wal said:
new rules say that you cant rest too many players as huddersfield rested 10 players and the fa changed the rules
Click to expand...
I have tried to find these rules wal and can only come up with a reference to having to field 5 players who played in the previous game or who will play in the next game. But this appears to apply only to cup games.
 
From the Mail;

The policy states: “For any league match played on or after the fourth Thursday in March, any team sheet for a league game should include at least 10 outfield players who featured on the team sheet for the league match before.”

The EFL added: “In the event any club breaches the threshold, they may be charged with a breach of Regulation 24 and the matter will be referred to a disciplinary commission.”

Therefore, 10 of the players involved in Villa’s squad for the 1-1 draw with Leeds United on Sunday must be included in the 18 against the Canaries to avoid possible sanctions.

That should still give us plenty of scope to rest enough players and give a few some game time as we might need them in the play offs.
 
I've done something on it for tomorrow, or maybe this evening.

If I tell will you still all read it?
 
Actually didn't we have the same debate last year, I knew I had the blurb of the rule saved for a reason.

As it also obviously must have leeway for enforced switches - but I don't think a club has been charged since it came in after Huddersfield.
 
rest however many we want -
pay the fine (not that there'll be one) - pretty sure that's what Mike will conclude innit
 
I'm sure the only punishment is a fine, but if someone blatantly takes the piss - given there's no example I can find of this rule actually being used, I'm not sure if they have deeper powers and that's what worries me.

If I knew for sure - I was actually going to put Just Pay The Fine in the headline lol
 
Ricardomeister2 said:
From the Mail;

The policy states: “For any league match played on or after the fourth Thursday in March, any team sheet for a league game should include at least 10 outfield players who featured on the team sheet for the league match before.”

The EFL added: “In the event any club breaches the threshold, they may be charged with a breach of Regulation 24 and the matter will be referred to a disciplinary commission.”

Therefore, 10 of the players involved in Villa’s squad for the 1-1 draw with Leeds United on Sunday must be included in the 18 against the Canaries to avoid possible sanctions.

That should still give us plenty of scope to rest enough players and give a few some game time as we might need them in the play offs.
Click to expand...


What if a handful of those are injured and can't play in the 18...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.