Wilks/FA Suspension communication

[Boomstick]

Can't let this lie, are the club asking questions?

[RoversAlias]

I'm assuming the issue is that there never was a yellow card amnesty. In which case, 2 thoughts.

1) This is grossly unfair on lower League and non-league clubs and (common theme) totally against the spirit of disciplinary laws of the game.

2) Where did so many of us pick up the idea that there WAS an amnesty?

Grant McCann is the only person I've heard mention it. I haven't once heard it from anybody else, but the words in the week from Liam Hoden and from SM on here convinced me that there was in fact an amnesty because the club had  checked and got confirmation Wilks could play. Obviously, there never was any amnesty but the FA have cocked up here.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Aye looks like there is no amnesty, which given we had played 5 games and palace 2 is unfair really.

[steve@dcfd]

As bfyp said there must not have been an amnesty for yellow cards from any round. Chorley had players suspended when they played us in round two.
We’ve had Butler suspended from round 4. Now Wilks suspended from round 5. So if they continue with this especially for the FA Cup it needs a rethink for non league, then league and finally at round three for Championship and Premier league sides. Otherwise it is unfair.

[idler]

If he hadn’t been booked twice it wouldn’t have mattered.
We have had some silly yellows earned this year.

[Filo]

As usual the FA have not publicly admitted they f**ked up

[DonnyBazR0ver]

It certainly needs addressing. I can see the merit of red cards being carried over but there needs to be an amnesty of yellows from round 3 when the top 2 divisions join in.

That said, Wilks was booked in Rounds 3 & 4 so the ban was correct really.

[Colemans Left Hook]

As usual the FA have not publicly admitted they f**ked up

YET

Funny how the BBC never even mentioned the fact about the "alleged" late notification  pre-match

If it were my club i would be sueing them for negligence they have already "F*kced it up" with that amateur Coventry team in the fa vase and have clearly not learned from their mistakes .

An ex-gratia payment of £125,000 would settle matters  -- there are ways and means for this to be paid without the public knowing !! As i said elsewhere Rovers risked losing that amount by playing Wilkes if they were thown out ?

I would also have literally asked for a "dna same of the person" who "spoke with forked tongue" as insurance if/when they said he could play.  I presume words like "are you sure " would have been uttered?

You simply don't take the advice of a phone call (if it was a phone call) .  You get it in writing it's called being professional.

As regards that "alleged" pathetic blame the ref mis-spelling the name bit   - i suggest the FA stop "digging" the hole.   there are more complex names than that  for example  one player is slowly changing his name from "virtu-thick"  to simply "thick" 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/matty-virtue/profil/spieler/279458

"thick" of course is not a word i would use to the F.A

shirt numbers once allocated for the season should be non transferable (if they are not already)  i.e. wilks becomes Doncaster 7  -- problem solved.

[deebee]

I posted earlier in the week that the BBC had Wilks as banned, many on here had a go at the BBC for getting wrong which of course they hadn't. If they knew then surely we should have.

[Bristol Red Rover]

The issue here is Butler's suspension not Wilks'.

I searched the FA site for clarification on this and the nearest I found was that they would be clarifying the rules for the FA Cup in additional info for players. I'd assume that was done and at some point details will emerge, or else they have seriously f**ked up and should be liable to giving us compensation.

[RoversAlias]

They need to revert to the system of all domestic competitions working as one in terms of cards. 5 bookings, 10 bookings and red cards lead to suspensions no matter whether it's a league game, FA Cup, Carabao Cup or Checkatrade. It's not difficult, it wasn't a problem before so why change it.

[IDM]

To stop players getting a tactical yellow to spend the suspension in what may be seen as a meaningless cup game rather than miss a league fixture..

[RoversAlias]

Do we reckon that is worth fixing for the sake of this confusion though? Based on what has happened here to us with Wilks, I'd say not.

[donnievic]

As bfyp said there must not have been an amnesty for yellow cards from any round. Chorley had players suspended when they played us in round two.
We’ve had Butler suspended from round 4. Now Wilks suspended from round 5. So if they continue with this especially for the FA Cup it needs a rethink for non league, then league and finally at round three for Championship and Premier league sides. Otherwise it is unfair.

we didn’t play Chorley in round 2 and on talksport they even had the Barnet chairman on about the banning system as there captain or main player was banned for either the sheff Utd or Brentford game because of it

[JonWallsend]

To stop players getting a tactical yellow to spend the suspension in what may be seen as a meaningless cup game rather than miss a league fixture..

 I am a bit confused about the competition specific suspensions. it does prevent players picking up a cheap yellow to miss a relatively less important cup game, which seems reasonable. However, it doesn't prevent a tactical appeal against an additional one match ban for sarcastically applauding the referee, which you know you can't win but will ensure you miss an FA cup tie against a league one team, rather than a premier league, must win, game versus West Ham.

Saha suspension was not competition specific or was he also booked in r3 and r4.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Saha suspension was not competition specific or was he also booked in r3 and r4.

Zaha had just a yellow against Spurs. Red cards count across all competitions - easy eh

[dickos1]

But did they know the rules ???

Even if we thought the slate was clean after 3rd round he was still banned cause his bookings were in 3rd and 4th round weren’t they?

But doesn’t that mean only his 4th round booking is current?

Of course it would.
Easy to understand.

Why?
If the bookings are wiped for round 3 to coincide with the prem and championship sides, then his booking in round 3 and 4 would obviously count

[drfchound]

But did they know the rules ???

Even if we thought the slate was clean after 3rd round he was still banned cause his bookings were in 3rd and 4th round weren’t they?

But doesn’t that mean only his 4th round booking is current?

Of course it would.
Easy to understand.

Why?
If the bookings are wiped for round 3 to coincide with the prem and champi sides, then his booking in round 3 and 4 would obviously count

Dickos, look carefully at what you have written yourself.
You said in your first post “even if we thought the slate was clean AFTER the third round”.

Roversontheup said that if that was the case then only the fourth round booking would count.

In your latest post you are saying that the bookings are wiped FOR round three.
Not After round three as you original post.

There is a big difference.

[BillyStubbsTears]

But did they know the rules ???

Even if we thought the slate was clean after 3rd round he was still banned cause his bookings were in 3rd and 4th round weren’t they?

But doesn’t that mean only his 4th round booking is current?

Of course it would.
Easy to understand.

Why?
If the bookings are wiped for round 3 to coincide with the prem and championship sides, then his booking in round 3 and 4 would obviously count

If that was the case then Butler shouldn't have been banned against Oldham.