If the Charlton team had behaved like this, CL would have gone into meltdown...
"Evidence of the complete moral decline of Charlton under Douchbag", "What is going on at my beloved club?" etc. etc.
And if anybody had tried to deflect it onto the manager, or the players, there would have been further outrage: "Well, RD employed the manager, so the ultimate responsibility lies with him!", "Yeah, but RD employed the manager, who signed the players, so he much have sanctioned that kind if thuggish attitude!" etc. etc.
But what do we get about the Accrington owner? "Come and meet the best owner in the EFL"?
Just not true though.
You have made that up.
Taylor was sent off. Some said fairly, some unfairly. Ditto Sarr.
No one blamed Bowyer or Duchatelet.
And to create your bizarre narrative you've pretended not to know that the meet the Accrington owner event took place BEFORE the game.
What's frustrating is that at the moment, the only player with any punishment from the incidents is Taylor.
To be fair, he was the first offender.
He also arguably did the least wrong. Sykes and Finley both did far worse and the #3 should have been sent off for his continued verbal abuse and intimidation of the officials.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
If the Charlton team had behaved like this, CL would have gone into meltdown...
"Evidence of the complete moral decline of Charlton under Douchbag", "What is going on at my beloved club?" etc. etc.
And if anybody had tried to deflect it onto the manager, or the players, there would have been further outrage: "Well, RD employed the manager, so the ultimate responsibility lies with him!", "Yeah, but RD employed the manager, who signed the players, so he much have sanctioned that kind if thuggish attitude!" etc. etc.
But what do we get about the Accrington owner? "Come and meet the best owner in the EFL"?
Just not true though.
You have made that up.
Taylor was sent off. Some said fairly, some unfairly. Ditto Sarr.
No one blamed Bowyer or Duchatelet.
And to create your bizarre narrative you've pretended not to know that the meet the Accrington owner event took place BEFORE the game.
Yeah and I reckon he may have had a few (slices of pork pie) before turning up to the game.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
If you’re not careful the Queen will bang your silly heads together! (See front page of today’s Times for further details).
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
Aaagggghhh.
You really still do not get it, despite me explaining on numerous occasions. It is nothing to do with interpretations as I have said. It is nothing to do with whether it is a stamp or rake, as I have said.
The issue is that you said he was charged with stamping. Your specific words were, "The charge is a stamp, end of." This was the 13th post on page 2. Please read your post, where you said this. I said he was not charged with stamping, he was charged with violent conduct and provided 2 pieces of proof. This morning at 6.50 you said yourself he was charged with violent conduct. Do you read what you post ?
I really don't believe you cannot understand this.
Perhaps your trolling and I've fallen for it ? Apologies once again to everyone, but I'm determined to help NorthumberlandAddick understand what he said.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
Tbf, you're wrong, he's right. Interpretations are irrelevant when dealing with facts.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
Tbf, you're wrong, he's right. Interpretations are irrelevant when dealing with facts.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
Tbf, you're wrong, he's right. Interpretations are irrelevant when dealing with facts.
Not sure you’re helping.
Let it go folks. Been there, it’s not worth it.
It's not the same though, cos much like northy you were wrong
No doubt in my mind, Accrington have been charged because of their players' conduct towards the officials - particularly the incident with the linesman.
Nothing to do with the Taylor incident. They've dealt with that already.
FA will see that they need to show that they protect officials.
Shame the ref didn’t protect his colleague at the time.
Never fear, Solly was there.
This is meant with sincerity @Big_Bad_World as you’re a decent poster on here and, for a Millwall fan, clearly a good bloke but....you know a helluva lot about Charlton!
Isn’t it about time you made it official and switched from the dark side?
We can do some sort of ceremony. Chuck you in a lake or whatever so you’re born again, then never talk about your previous life.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
Tbf, you're wrong, he's right. Interpretations are irrelevant when dealing with facts.
I cannot believe what their manager has said.... Stanley boss John Coleman said Finley had apologised for his actions but said the midfielder did not stamp on Charlton's Taylor.
"What you see doesn't lie, he has got involved like other players have got involved," said Coleman of the incident.
"He has been foolish. I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him.
"He hasn't actually caught the lad but he has put his foot in there where he could endanger someone.
"He knows it is wrong. He has apologised to the club, we had already dealt with it ourselves internally, and any further action we will have to live with it.
If he really doesn't think it was a stamping then what an utter moron he is. Just keep your mouth shut and say that it will be handled internally.
Any respect I had for Accrington has gone straight out of the window.
It wasn't a stamp. He raked him, which is wholly unacceptable, but not the same.
It was a stamp and a rake but doesn't matter what it was.
My final comment, is that if Taylor was truly stamped on, it's surprising that he showed no sign of any injury.
He brings his boot down on his head first, its a stamp regardless of how hard it is. The charge is a stamp, end of.
You said the charge was a stamp. It was not. You are wrong. I'm not sure why you cannot comprehend a simple fact. You can carry on forever saying it was a stamp or someone else says it was a stamp, it doesn't matter. You say it was a stamp, I say he was raked. We'll agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter. But you can't change facts, however many posts you make. The charge was for violent conduct, not for a stamp, that is my point.
Evidence 1
Accrington Stanley midfielder Sam Finley has been given a five-game suspension for violent conduct by the Football Association after appearing to stamp on Charlton's Lyle Taylor.
Sam Finley has been suspended for five games after he was found to have committed an act of violent conduct for which the standard punishment “would be clearly insufficient”. The midfielder was involved in an incident during the 80th minute of last Saturday’s game against Charlton which was not seen by the match officials but caught on camera.
Finley admitted the charge but contested that the standard penalty was clearly insufficient.
An Independent Regulatory Commission subsequently upheld The FA’s claim that the standard three-match sanction should be increased.
The charge of violent conduct covers many different offences. If you elbow someone in the face it is the same charge. You clearly don't understand. If you bring the sole of your boot down it is a stamp. You can go on for as long as you like on this but that is what happened.
Thank-you, it took a while, but I'm pleased you finally admit that you were wrong. In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I can't see...no definitely not, where I said I was wrong. Lets contact the FA and see if they will change their policy so that it says...the player has been charged with landing a right hook on a defender or smashing his elbow in the players jaw whilst he wasn't looking......I'm not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not
I give up. As you have denied the facts, there's clearly nothing further to discuss. I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
Just obtuse then...cheers for clearing this up. I have never said I'm right and you're wrong which you have and the reason for that is that I respect other peoples interpretations whether I agree or not. Think on.
Tbf, you're wrong, he's right. Interpretations are irrelevant when dealing with facts.
No doubt in my mind, Accrington have been charged because of their players' conduct towards the officials - particularly the incident with the linesman.
Nothing to do with the Taylor incident. They've dealt with that already.
FA will see that they need to show that they protect officials.
Shame the ref didn’t protect his colleague at the time.
Never fear, Solly was there.
This is meant with sincerity @Big_Bad_World as you’re a decent poster on here and, for a Millwall fan, clearly a good bloke but....you know a helluva lot about Charlton!
Isn’t it about time you made it official and switched from the dark side?
We can do some sort of ceremony. Chuck you in a lake or whatever so you’re born again, then never talk about your previous life.
I only knew about Super Solly as @hoof_it_up_to_benty commented that he, potentially, stopped the Stanley players from doing something silly (paraphrasing somewhat).
The handball reference was because I was at the match in question.
Thanks for the offer, though, but I quite enjoy being a bit dirty
Been reading in today’s Grau about the plucky Accrington players and their big FA Cup match against Derby. No mention of their appalling behaviour last weekend.
Comments
You have made that up.
Taylor was sent off. Some said fairly, some unfairly. Ditto Sarr.
No one blamed Bowyer or Duchatelet.
And to create your bizarre narrative you've pretended not to know that the meet the Accrington owner event took place BEFORE the game.
In your own words, "the charge of violent conduct"
PS I could bring the sole of my foot down and rest it very gently on my cat, but I certainly would not be stamping on it.
I'm sure everyone else understands and clearly you never will.
Apologies to everyone else for this nonsense.
You really still do not get it, despite me explaining on numerous occasions.
It is nothing to do with interpretations as I have said.
It is nothing to do with whether it is a stamp or rake, as I have said.
The issue is that you said he was charged with stamping.
Your specific words were, "The charge is a stamp, end of."
This was the 13th post on page 2.
Please read your post, where you said this.
I said he was not charged with stamping, he was charged with violent conduct and provided 2 pieces of proof.
This morning at 6.50 you said yourself he was charged with violent conduct.
Do you read what you post ?
I really don't believe you cannot understand this.
Perhaps your trolling and I've fallen for it ?
Apologies once again to everyone, but I'm determined to help NorthumberlandAddick understand what he said.
Let it go folks. Been there, it’s not worth it.
Isn’t it about time you made it official and switched from the dark side?
We can do some sort of ceremony. Chuck you in a lake or whatever so you’re born again, then never talk about your previous life.
"I know Sam and there is not a great deal of malice in him."
So he admits there is malice, just not a great deal of it. I'm not sure I'd want him appearing as a witness for the defence.
I only knew about Super Solly as @hoof_it_up_to_benty commented that he, potentially, stopped the Stanley players from doing something silly (paraphrasing somewhat).
The handball reference was because I was at the match in question.
Thanks for the offer, though, but I quite enjoy being a bit dirty