Bunn - Appeal?

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Aggy"]one poor decision cost us potentially 2 points.[/quote]I agree, but it''s the the one we''re not debating,  neither was it the Bassong pen but the crassly incompetent decision to award a penalty outside the box. Should have placed the ball down as though for the "free kick" then picked the ball up and walked straight to the penalty spot with it and shown Foy up for the cock that he is. That cost us all three points imo.

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="Aggy"]one poor decision cost us potentially 2 points.[/quote]I agree, but it''s the the one we''re not debating,  neither was it the Bassong pen but the crassly incompetent decision to award a penalty outside the box. Should have placed the ball down as though for the "free kick" then picked the ball up and walked straight to the penalty spot with it and shown Foy up for the cock that he is. That cost us all three points imo.[/quote]

Definitely, but that one''s not really up for debate as there''s no doubt.

[ron obvious 1,502]

FFS, I''ve watched it on slomo, recording the BBC News coverage, several times now, & I can see no evidence of it hitting Bunn anywhere other than about 6" below his right armpit. If this is correct, the goalscoring opportunity or not does not come into it; the ref has got it wrong (although not culpable - the equivalent of an accidental handball you might say) & there is every reason to appeal.

In other words the grounds for appeal are that there was no handball.

[AJ 1,218]

So many things could be picked out today, we just need to forget and move on sadly

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]FFS, I''ve watched it on slomo, recording the BBC News coverage, several times now, & I can see no evidence of it hitting Bunn anywhere other than about 6" below his right armpit. If this is correct, the goalscoring opportunity or not does not come into it; the ref has got it wrong (although not culpable - the equivalent of an accidental handball you might say) & there is every reason to appeal.

In other words the grounds for appeal are that there was no handball.[/quote]

Except you seem to be admitting that the ball made contact with his arm, unless I''m reading your post wrong.

The ball does make contact with the underside of his arm.

Can you honestly tell me that if a Sunderland player had made that challenge in their box that you wouldn''t want a penalty? Honestly?

Bunn has done himself no favours by making the challenge with his arms aloft. You regularly see players deliberately tuck their hands in to make sure there can be no argument over intent should the ball strike their arm. By raising his hands roughly into the path of the ball he has created a situation where it is possible for the referee to make a decision.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="QHcanary"][quote user="ron obvious"]FFS, I''ve watched it on slomo, recording the BBC News coverage, several times now, & I can see no evidence of it hitting Bunn anywhere other than about 6" below his right armpit. If this is correct, the goalscoring opportunity or not does not come into it; the ref has got it wrong (although not culpable - the equivalent of an accidental handball you might say) & there is every reason to appeal. In other words the grounds for appeal are that there was no handball.[/quote] Except you seem to be admitting that the ball made contact with his arm, unless I''m reading your post wrong. The ball does make contact with the underside of his arm. Can you honestly tell me that if a Sunderland player had made that challenge in their box that you wouldn''t want a penalty? Honestly? Bunn has done himself no favours by making the challenge with his arms aloft. You regularly see players deliberately tuck their hands in to make sure there can be no argument over intent should the ball strike their arm. By raising his hands roughly into the path of the ball he has created a situation where it is possible for the referee to make a decision.[/quote]

Isn''t anyone going to read my earlier post? . The ball "making contact with the underside of his arm" is of no consequence. What is critical is WAS IT INTENTIONAL? . Neither is having his arms "aloft" . You can put your arms where you like , you just must not move them towards the ball.

[ron obvious 1,502]

For the avoidance of any further doubt: As far as I can see, viewed head on in slomo, the ball hits Bunn about 6" below his armpit. It does NOT appear to then bounce against the underside of his arm.

If anyone''s got a slomo recording of a sideways on view of the incident, that might prove things one way or the other. But at the moment I can''t see evidence of a handball in any shape or form.

[QHcanary 0]

Did fellaini move his hand toward the ball yesterday?

No, he jumped with his hand in the air, but I doubt you''d argue that it wasn''t a penalty.

Intent is a bit of a woolly area really. Why did he raise his arms in the way he did if not to play the ball?

I''m not saying that''s why, more playing devils advocate.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Sorry QHc, who was that post intended for?

[QHcanary 0]

Graham paddon''s beard.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Bunn: To me the ball hit his chest then the underside of his arm, hence why the ball bounced downwards. Had the ball simply hit his chest it would have bounced upwards, and very possibly over his head. I don`t think we have much of an argument given he had his arms out rather than tucked behind his back.

Bassong: Very harsh. The crowd had shouted for a handball 30 seconds earlier and i think it was this that swayed the lino into giving the second one. Of course, for the Rose one there was no crowd pressure so the same lino took the easy option and bottled the decision.

All in all the officials were very obviously swayed by the home crowd today, and bearing that in mind our performance was superb.  It shows some of the negative tools on here we still have that special spirit- perhaps they should try showing some themselves...

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Bunn: To me the ball hit his chest then the underside of his arm, hence why the ball bounced downwards. Had the ball simply hit his chest it would have bounced upwards, and very possibly over his head. I don`t think we have much of an argument given he had his arms out rather than tucked behind his back.

Bassong: Very harsh. The crowd had shouted for a handball 30 seconds earlier and i think it was this that swayed the lino into giving the second one. Of course, for the Rose one there was no crowd pressure so the same lino took the easy option and bottled the decision.

All in all the officials were very obviously swayed by the home crowd today, and bearing that in mind our performance was superb.  It shows some of the negative tools on here we still have that special spirit- perhaps they should try showing some themselves...

[/quote]

Finally some common sense.

[ron obvious 1,502]

I agree Mr.Carrow, I thought it odd that it bounced back downwards, but that''s exactly what it seemed to do - without touching his arm.

If he relaxed his pecs (ooherr) as the ball hit him, it might have done this. Footballers can be quite skilful in stopping a ball dead.

I''m not saying this happened, but it''s a possibility.

Hopefully there''ll be some decent camera angles on MOTD2.

I know it''s all water under the bridge, but if we can appeal successfully it''ll mean we don''t lose Bunn for any games.

[Budapest Canary 152]

If we have the slightest ground to appeal I would do it, hoping that the FA would compensate for other erratic decisions by the officials that had hit us today.

[ncfcstar 291]

The ball does not hit his arm, anyone who has seen the super slow-mo super zoom replay can clearly see this. Why anyone is arguing that the ball hit his arm I really do not know. It was not handball, it was not a free kick, the ball hits Bunn on the chest and he then kicks it away.

Bassong incident is laughable and the Rose ''free kick'' just shocking.

[Aggy 755]

Graham Paddon''s Beard - you are correct, but it would be almost impossible (and exceptionally unlikely) for the FA to over turn a decision made by a ref on a matter of intention in a situation such as today. It is not a situation where there is a unanimous certainty that it was entirely unintentional; he did have his arms raised slightly and the ref - and the FA committee who deals with appeals presumably - would argue that the raised hands in front of his body were an intentional effort to bring the ball under his control.

Whether that is correct or not we can argue around in circles all day long. Bottom line is that it would be exceptionally surprising for the FA to over turn that decision.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Hang on - are you saying that raising your arms is a red card offence - even if the ball doesn''t touch your arm??

That''s bizarre.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

I haven`t seen the super slo-mo, but if it really does show no arm contact i`m sure we`ll appeal and we`ll have the luxury of not missing the excellent Bunn.  He must have some mighty pecs to deflect downwards a ball kicked firmly upwards at his chest!  Fingers crossed.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Moobs might be more useful in fact ...

[ZLF 274]

it was definitely a free kick for me - he raised his arms and it his the under side of the his upper arm which is handball outside the box whether a keeper or not.

Its a red card if deliberate (raised arms suggest there is some subconcious intent) or denies a goal scoring chance.

For me its a yellow card - but I can see why the ref considered and chose a red - and I would probably call for a red if the tables were turned.

Shame turners header put us in that position.

As for the pen, I think the lino is right - again it hit his arm and so is a pen, other than he failed to flag graham offside, which is why bass played teh ball so he was active and interfering with play. Lino error.

Our pen - as with fellaini yest was clearly inside the box. The only decision to go our way was a yellow and not red for holt. but too late by then.

Back to the orig. question - I think we would only appeal if it did not hit the arm, i cant see us overturning it as it, for me, clearly hit the under upper arm.

signing of camp looking another good act...

[ron obvious 1,502]

Have you got a link for the ball hitting his under arm ZLF? The only one I''ve seen quoted is very jerky (that might be my pc though) & shot from a bad angle.

The only slomo one I''ve seen is dead ahead, & that doesn''t appear to show contact.

I''m not doubting you, I just want to know.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="crabbycanary"]

Not only did that numpty of a Lino miss the offside for their pen, but he didn''t give us a pen for the handball by Rose. That is just plain incompetence and I would love to see the Assessors report, and where he is going to be running the line next week. Watch out Lowestoft! (Sorry Lowy fans)

[/quote]

 

Is it? You don''t think it might perhaps be something else.

[QHcanary 0]

I''ve seen it multiple times at home in HD. I''m almost certain it hit the underside of his arm. Had it not the ball would have continued on an upward trajectory.

That''s what it looked like to me anyway. I''m sure plenty will disagree.

[Norwich or die tryin! 0]

Waste of time appealing. Will never get overturned. Just play Camp against Wigan and move on. Not the end of the world.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

One match ban = Not worth appealing whatever the rights and wrongs. Unless you play for Man Utd or Engerland obviously....

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="ncfcstar"]The ball does not hit his arm, anyone who has seen the super slow-mo super zoom replay can clearly see this. Why anyone is arguing that the ball hit his arm I really do not know. It was not handball, it was not a free kick, the ball hits Bunn on the chest and he then kicks it away. Bassong incident is laughable and the Rose ''free kick'' just shocking.[/quote]

Absolutely right. Sums it up perfectly.

[Norwich or die tryin! 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="ncfcstar"]The ball does not hit his arm, anyone who has seen the super slow-mo super zoom replay can clearly see this. Why anyone is arguing that the ball hit his arm I really do not know. It was not handball, it was not a free kick, the ball hits Bunn on the chest and he then kicks it away. Bassong incident is laughable and the Rose ''free kick'' just shocking.[/quote]

Absolutely right. Sums it up perfectly.

[/quote]3 terrible decisions that cost us a garented win.

[crabbycanary 2]

[quote user="Webbo118"][quote user="crabbycanary"]

Not only did that numpty of a Lino miss the offside for their pen, but he didn''t give us a pen for the handball by Rose. That is just plain incompetence and I would love to see the Assessors report, and where he is going to be running the line next week. Watch out Lowestoft! (Sorry Lowy fans)

[/quote]

 

Is it? You don''t think it might perhaps be something else.

[/quote]

How do you mean Webbo? Not insinuating anything are you?!! :)

As with the Fellaini incident, the officials have deemed the ball to hit the hand, they haven''t used any common sense in as much as where the player landed, (both with feet in the box) to ascertain what the punishment should be.

Ironically, yesterday, if the away fans hadn''t been moved to the other end of the ground, then that would have been right in front of the City fans, and they could have helped the linesman make his mind up.

Also, the lino admitted to R Martin that he said he wasn’t sure how much he (Sunderland player) was interfering with play, yet it was an intentional pass to him!! I''ll stick with incompetence!

[QHcanary 0]

Right. I''ve watched it again from recorded MOTD2.

How anyone can say it hasn''t touched his arm is beyond me, so without debating the legitimacy of the decision there is no way an appeal would be successful.

[ron obvious 1,502]

I watched it too. At worst it hit his armpit. In that case I suppose that some point on the ball circumference would have touched him under the arm.

But, even stretching it that far, deliberate? where could he have put his arms where the ball couldn''t have hit them? Even with them down by his side.

I''m not really blaming the ref, but it was a very marginal decision. Taken together with the other decisions it looks like something less than impartial refereeing. At best.

Have we ever seen, could we ever imagine seeing, anything like that at ManU???