Wanyama Banned For 5 Matches

[Saint86]

 

Big vic has been banned for 5 matches (six weeks)...

 

Personally I think this is very over the top although I guess it is the rules. Its never a red card and should be appealed by the club but Wanyama should be warned (by the club) for giving the ref that decision to make in the first place.

 

Updates in the dailFail here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3437845/Victor-Wanyama-ruled-action-six-weeks-red-card.html

[LJSaint]

He just wanted a holiday[emoji1]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nordic Saint]

Especially when all of the experts, including referees, are split 50/50 as to whether it even deserved a red card. He's got a 6-match ban almost on the toss of a coin. Both of his red cards have come from Clattenburg, who has a reputation for giving red cards for offences most other referees would only give yellows for. Anyway, let's not forget he made our only goal in the match and was doing a very effective job of controlling possibly the most dangerous attacking midfielder in the game, Payet. The MOTD panel said if Bertrand had playacted as much as Payet he could have got Byram sent off for a far worse tackle.

[Dark Munster]

As long as Romeu doesn't get injured or suspended I'm not concerned.

[SaintTex]

so with this , how many games will have he been out this season due to suspensions? At least 9?

 

missing a 1/4 of the season is really unacceptable.

[niceandfriendly]

6 weeks ban for making a one footed sliding tackle.

 

There's certainly no doubt about the direction the powers that be want football to move into. Will be completely contactless in 10 years.

[Shroppie]

6 weeks ban for making a one footed sliding tackle.

 

There's certainly no doubt about the direction the powers that be want football to move into. Will be completely contactless in 10 years.

Except in the penalty area, where full wrestling holds will be allowed.

 

Refereeing is in a total mess.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

[corky morris]

Except in the penalty area, where full wrestling holds will be allowed.

 

Refereeing is in a total mess.

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

Totally agree. I don't know what constitutes a penalty from corners. No clue whatsoever.

You seed kids doing it on Sundays too. Academies encourage shirt pulling & holding. Football League need to sort it IMHO.

[John B]

6 weeks ban for making a one footed sliding tackle.

 

 

That is not true he has been banned for 6 weeks because he has already had 2 red cards and is irresponsible and loses his cool from time to time

[MarkSFC]

6 weeks to decide on his future....new contract or move on. I know which I prefer...where's the exit?

[BARCELONASAINT]

I cannot believe the club are not going to appeal this....it was never a red card in first place!

[fish fingers]

I'm looking forward to Romeu getting a good run in the team.

[doddisalegend]

so with this , how many games will have he been out this season due to suspensions? At least 9?

 

 

 

missing a 1/4 of the season is really unacceptable.

 

 

Not to mention the ones his missed while sulking about spurs....

[The9]

That is not true he has been banned for 6 weeks because he has already had 2 red cards and is irresponsible and loses his cool from time to time

 

None of this is correct. He's been banned for 5 matches, which happens to take 6 weeks. If it was Christmas that would have been about a 2 week ban. The second part is completely irrelevant to the ban, and your opinion.

[angelman]

Any idea (sorry if already asked) why it is not being contested?

[Dig Dig]

Any idea (sorry if already asked) why it is not being contested?

 

Probably because Ron said after the game that it was a challenge which Victor "couldn't do" or something to that effect so it would be a bit strange for the club to appeal if the manager endorses the decision to send him off immediately after the game.

[The9]

Probably because Ron said after the game that it was a challenge which Victor "couldn't do" or something to that effect so it would be a bit strange for the club to appeal if the manager endorses the decision to send him off immediately after the game.

 

I doubt anything Koeman said at the time would be referenced in a hearing, and the reasons he "couldn't do" that challenge could mean anything rather than the specific interpretation that it was a challenge requiring a red card. Koeman could have meant that he "couldn't do" it because he was in a poor position to win the ball, for instance. Or that he "couldn't" accidentally miss the ball like that without a foul following, which has nothing to do with a red card.

 

Also Ronald has a history of being slightly inaccurate with his English when making comments, talking about Rodriguez's "feet" being injured, for instance.

[John B]

None of this is correct. He's been banned for 5 matches, which happens to take 6 weeks. If it was Christmas that would have been about a 2 week ban. The second part is completely irrelevant to the ban, and your opinion.

 

You obviously have not read the Daily Mail Article

 

 

 

Southampton will be without Victor Wanyama for six weeks after the FA confirmed his red card against West Ham will mean a five-match ban.

It was the third time the 24-year-old midfield man had been sent off this season, adding two extra games to the three matches for his horror tackle on Dimitri Payet.

 

and Window Cleaners Post

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?56025-Post-Match-Reaction-SAINTS-1-0-West-Ham-United&p=2305687#post2305687

 

Clattenberg had already warned him at least twice...but he just couldn't control himself.

[The9]

You obviously have not read the Daily Mail Article

 

 

 

Southampton will be without Victor Wanyama for six weeks after the FA confirmed his red card against West Ham will mean a five-match ban.

It was the third time the 24-year-old midfield man had been sent off this season, adding two extra games to the three matches for his horror tackle on Dimitri Payet.

 

and Window Cleaners Post

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?56025-Post-Match-Reaction-SAINTS-1-0-West-Ham-United&p=2305687#post2305687

 

Clattenberg had already warned him at least twice...but he just couldn't control himself.

 

I haven't read the Daily Mail article, but there's nothing in that pull-quote which has any relevance to the discussion. Plus they called it a "horror tackle", which is laughably OTT when the player wasn't injured and most people don't think it was a red card.

 

Clattenburg already having warned him is irrelevant, because you can't get a red card for cumulative fouls so it didn't play into his decision, and all it shows is that nothing he'd done to that point was even worthy of a yellow card.

[trousers]

Any idea (sorry if already asked) why it is not being contested?

 

I've been wondering this too. Given the sending off is open to different interpretations, what would be the harm in lodging an appeal. Even if there is only a slim chance that the appeal committee would overturn the card, surely that's a chance worth taking? I can only think there is some sort of cap on the number of appeals a team can lodge in one season, or that there is a punitive fine for having an appeal turned down. Otherwise, what's to lose in not lodging an appeal?

[trousers]

I haven't read the Daily Mail article, but there's nothing in that pull-quote which has any relevance to the discussion. Plus they called it a "horror tackle", which is laughably OTT when the player wasn't injured and most people don't think it was a red card.

 

Clattenburg already having warned him is irrelevant, because you can't get a red card for cumulative fouls so it didn't play into his decision, and all it shows is that nothing he'd done to that point was even worthy of a yellow card.

 

Which is probably why Clattenburg's initial instinct was seemingly to pull our the yellow card...

[Window Cleaner]

That is not true he has been banned for 6 weeks because he has already had 2 red cards and is irresponsible and loses his cool from time to time

 

For which he had already been warned both by the club and the FA. What most seem to be missing here is that Clattenberg spoke to him twice, including a gesture that obviously meant no more of that thanks. The knob carried on and got everything he deserves. He doesn't want to be here and should have been sold in January.

[The9]

I've been wondering this too. Given the sending off is open to different interpretations, what would be the harm in lodging an appeal. Even if there is only a slim chance that the appeal committee would overturn the card, surely that's a chance worth taking? I can only think there is some sort of cap on the number of appeals a team can lodge in one season, or that there is a punitive fine for having an appeal turned down. Otherwise, what's to lose in not lodging an appeal?

 

Quite. Either that or they have very specific criteria outlined under which teams can appeal, and it doesn't meet any of those. There's also the possibility of the ban being extended for a spurious appeal, but that would be unlikely in this case.

 

It could also be that Wanyama having already been sent off twice weighs against him in the process too, which is a bit of a double-whammy when you consider that it's adding to the ban as well as reducing the likelihood of changing the decision.

 

Or, conspiracy theory here, there might be the possibility that Wanyama has refused to attend or support his own cause because it's not in his interests to have to run around for an extra 450 minutes he's getting paid for anyway...

[stevegrant]

I've been wondering this too. Given the sending off is open to different interpretations, what would be the harm in lodging an appeal. Even if there is only a slim chance that the appeal committee would overturn the card, surely that's a chance worth taking? I can only think there is some sort of cap on the number of appeals a team can lodge in one season, or that there is a punitive fine for having an appeal turned down. Otherwise, what's to lose in not lodging an appeal?

There's a cost involved in appealing, but if the club thought they had a chance of overturning it, that wouldn't be anything like a problem. The only theoretical issue is the "frivolous appeal" rule where an extra game can be applied to the ban if the appeal panel think the club's wasted their time.

[The9]

Which is probably why Clattenburg's initial instinct was seemingly to pull our the yellow card...

 

Yep, he was either going to book him for persistent fouling or recklessness as opposed to dangerous. He then saw Payet chucking himself about and the West Ham players rushing in and decided it was dangerous.

[trousers]

What most seem to be missing here is that Clattenberg spoke to him twice, including a gesture that obviously meant no more of that thanks. The knob carried on and got everything he deserves.

 

The only possible outcome of 'accumulated warnings' is a yellow card for the next foul. As The9 has already highlighted, you don't get a straight red card purely because you've been 'spoken to' a few times beforehand. It was either a straight red or it wasn't. What happened before that doesn't come into it (logically).

[saint-crinny]

The only reason for appealing that I can see is because Clattenberg was clearly reaching for a yellow to start with and was very obviously influenced by the reaction of the West Ham players.

 

But that won't be enough - however you look at it, it was wild and a bit out of control, albeit he didnt really catch Payet, so the panel will always side with the ref's decision on this one.

 

Given Vic's previous red cards, and RK's critical reaction towards Vic after the game, I'd say you run the risk of a frivolous appeal, which can result in the ban being extended further. So that is probably why we're not appealing.

 

Besides, as we're safe, RK and co probably view it as an opp to see how we cope without Vic for an extended run, see how Romeu steps in etc, in preparation for Vic's inevitable departure in the summer

[stevegrant]

The only reason for appealing that I can see is because Clattenberg was clearly reaching for a yellow to start with and was very obviously influenced by the reaction of the West Ham players.

To be fair, this does assume that Clattenburg didn't simply forget which pocket had which card in.

 

But that won't be enough - however you look at it, it was wild and a bit out of control, albeit he didnt really catch Payet, so the panel will always side with the ref's decision on this one.

The crucial thing here is that there doesn't have to be contact, merely intent. The way he went in was an open invitation for the referee to send him off - exacerbated by the reaction of Payet rolling around and the likes of that little scrote Noble getting in the ref's face.

[Window Cleaner]

The only possible outcome of 'accumulated warnings' is a yellow card for the next foul. As The9 has already highlighted, you don't get a straight red card purely because you've been 'spoken to' a few times beforehand. It was either a straight red or it wasn't. What happened before that doesn't come into it (logically).

 

No but when a ref is deciding on the spur of them moment whether to give you a yellow or a red what has come before obviously does come into the equation. Sort of that looks nasty, I've already warned the idiot twice, right no brainer he's off.

[saint-crinny]

To be fair, this does assume that Clattenburg didn't simply forget which pocket had which card in.

 

 

The crucial thing here is that there doesn't have to be contact, merely intent. The way he went in was an open invitation for the referee to send him off - exacerbated by the reaction of Payet rolling around and the likes of that little scrote Noble getting in the ref's face.

 

That was my point really, he barely touched payet but it doesn't matter as it looked nasty.

 

Calltenberg knows exactly where his red card is - in the top pocket so he can flourish it with maximum arrogant impact and everyone can talk about him again. All refs are hateable, but he's top of the class

[Whitey Grandad]

Which is probably why Clattenburg's initial instinct was seemingly to pull our the yellow card...

He reached for his back pocket first, which is where the refs usually keep their red card. Where did Clattenburg keep his yellow during this game?

[ozzmeister]

I'd see this as a fantastic opportunity to see how well we cope without him. I'd like to see Rom and JWP given a decent run for a few weeks to see how they stick. If we cope well it will make selling him much less of an issue - I wonder if all these sending off's will have a negative impact on his price tag?

[Matthew Le God]

To be fair, this does assume that Clattenburg didn't simply forget which pocket had which card in.

 

Clattenburg has been a ref for 20 odd years, its hard to believe he suddenly forgot where he keeps his red and yellow cards. The red he takes from his top pocket, the yellow from his short pocket.

[stevegrant]

Calltenberg knows exactly where his red card is - in the top pocket so he can flourish it with maximum arrogant impact and everyone can talk about him again. All refs are hateable, but he's top of the class

 

He reached for his back pocket first, which is where the refs usually keep their red card. Where did Clattenburg keep his yellow during this game?

 

Clattenburg has been a ref for 20 odd years, its hard to believe he suddenly forgot where he keeps his red and yellow cards. The red he takes from his top pocket, the yellow from his short pocket.

So in summary, none of you know for sure. There we go then.

[OldNick]

the sending off and now he has a 'reputation' will cost our club £5m on the transfer fee we will get.

As for the 'horror tackle' quote, that is laughable.

I like the way Bertrand did not roll over and play act, but i do sometimes wonder if we played fire with fire. Cheaters do prosper in the modern game

[Nexstar]

It's also possible his view was somewhat blocked and he took direction from the 4th official with regard to the card colour.

[The9]

I'd see this as a fantastic opportunity to see how well we cope without him. I'd like to see Rom and JWP given a decent run for a few weeks to see how they stick. If we cope well it will make selling him much less of an issue - I wonder if all these sending off's will have a negative impact on his price tag?

 

We've had plenty of these opportunities already thanks to Wanyama's red cards. I'd be inclined to think he's been told they won't have a detrimental impact on his value or he'd be doing a lot less of that kind of thing - I think he's weakened his reputation in many ways over the past 9 months but buying clubs tend not to think "he could do that with us too" for some reason. That kind of recruitment flaw at other clubs is one of the reasons we were able to get to where we are from where we were.

[once_bitterne]

6 weeks ban for making a one footed sliding tackle.

 

There's certainly no doubt about the direction the powers that be want football to move into. Will be completely contactless in 10 years.

 

It's not a 6 week ban for one tackle tho is it. It's a 6 week ban for managing to get sent off 3 times in a few months.

[The9]

It's not a 6 week ban for one tackle tho is it. It's a 6 week ban for managing to get sent off 3 times in a few months.

 

To MLG it, 5 match ban at a time when fixtures are fairly well spread out, partially for getting sent off and partially for doing so 3 times in one season.

[Dig Dig]

I've been wondering this too. Given the sending off is open to different interpretations, what would be the harm in lodging an appeal. Even if there is only a slim chance that the appeal committee would overturn the card, surely that's a chance worth taking? I can only think there is some sort of cap on the number of appeals a team can lodge in one season, or that there is a punitive fine for having an appeal turned down. Otherwise, what's to lose in not lodging an appeal?

 

I doubt anything Koeman said at the time would be referenced in a hearing, and the reasons he "couldn't do" that challenge could mean anything rather than the specific interpretation that it was a challenge requiring a red card. Koeman could have meant that he "couldn't do" it because he was in a poor position to win the ball, for instance. Or that he "couldn't" accidentally miss the ball like that without a foul following, which has nothing to do with a red card.

 

Also Ronald has a history of being slightly inaccurate with his English when making comments, talking about Rodriguez's "feet" being injured, for instance.

 

You don't think that Koeman seemingly having no problem with the sending off after the game and also mentioning that he'll be speaking to Victor about his responsibilities would have no bearing on an appeal? Surely it's the first indication of the clubs stance on the matter.

 

Edit: quoted trousers by mistake.

[The9]

You don't think that Koeman seemingly having no problem with the sending off after the game and also mentioning that he'll be speaking to Victor about his responsibilities would have no bearing on an appeal? Surely it's the first indication of the clubs stance on the matter.

 

Edit: quoted trousers by mistake.

 

Nope. It's not going to be considered as evidence by the appeal board, who will just look at the incident.

[angelman]

Presumably the club think that there is no chance of it being over turned. Presume everyone knows what the chances are. Who knows, maybe they sought unofficial advice as to the merits of it and were told to forget it.

[sadoldgit]

Not at all clever, especially following the other recent sending off. Goodness knows what goes through the guys head but he has let the team and the club down again. You don't want to lose decent players but if he goes in the summer will it be a great loss?

[Dig Dig]

Nope. It's not going to be considered as evidence by the appeal board, who will just look at the incident.

 

Maybe not at the appeal itself but the clubs view of the incident and likelihood of an appeal is quite apparent and relevant to this discussion as to why the club are not appealing.....presumably because Koeman doesn't have a problem with the decision.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Not at all clever, especially following the other recent sending off. Goodness knows what goes through the guys head but he has let the team and the club down again. You don't want to lose decent players but if he goes in the summer will it be a great loss?

 

It's a loss we can cope with which doesn't make it a great loss, but in my opinion its better the Devil you know in football when it comes to transfers. I'd prefer to keep him. Plus this sort of stupidity from him moves him further away from a club (and wage) that would make it more likely that he would leave in the first place.

[trousers]

Of course, Clattenburg doesn't always keep his cards in his pockets....

 

Edited 9 February, 2016 by trousers

[DT]

Ludicrously harsh decision, but in line with a certain points reduction a few years back. Someone doesn't like us at the FA

[DT]

He'll be missed much more than people on here seem to think

[Dark Munster]

We've had plenty of these opportunities already thanks to Wanyama's red cards. I'd be inclined to think he's been told they won't have a detrimental impact on his value or he'd be doing a lot less of that kind of thing - I think he's weakened his reputation in many ways over the past 9 months but buying clubs tend not to think "he could do that with us too" for some reason. That kind of recruitment flaw at other clubs is one of the reasons we were able to get to where we are from where we were.

Including us, with that **** Osvaldo.

[david in sweden]

it's also sad that.... by the end of the season...Victor will have missed more games through suspensions than most of his team mates will have done .... through INJURY !