Bernardo penalty debate - no case to answer.

[deano ou812]

He made a meal of it, but it was a penalty. Perhaps if we did not get so so many nailed on ones not given, the players may not feel the need to make sure the ref sees it.
Just seen them ask Eddie Howe about it, thats right, as its City, lets make a non story a story and ask every bleeding manager. Eddie Fucking Howe talking about fair play ffs. Doesnt he remember his team turning into a bunch of thugs and avoiding nailed on reds against us.

Hmmmm always astounds me when we have been under scrutiny over an incident of some sort they start asking other managers and so forth on their views,do they do this for other incidents involving other teams,think they may have for the mane sending off but again that involved us and one of the media darlings being on the end of a red card,you can bet if g.jesus or aguero had of caught Mignolet the media outrage would have been wanting a further ban on top of the three game ban ..

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The FArce state that if there is 'clear and overwhelming evidence that a player has deceived a referee' he will receive a ban. Does the evidence include the shite that is peddled by so-called experts on TV, in the printed media, and by opposition managers who are still smarting that their hoofball tactics and plan delivered sweet FA after the match, or is it just a video snip of the incident looked at in forensic detail?

 

[malg]

How has this made 12 pages on here? Not even worth discussing.

 

[john lett]

Has Dyche been pulled for blackening Bernardo's name yet?

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Has Dyche been pulled for blackening Bernardo's name yet?

Everyone's too afraid, in case he plays the ginger card ;-)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

How do we know it wasn't unanimous mate?

We don't, and the Mail don't say it wasn't either. They've stuck an ambiguous line out there, and let people read into it what they want.

The sentence says:
"Sportsmail understands those claims fell on deaf ears, with a three-man panel failing to unanimously agree on the incident."

Nowhere does that say that someone thought it was a dive. The 'claim' as implied was it was a dive, and it is undeniably true that the panel did not unanimously agree that it was.

It IS deceitful wording, which is what you'd expect from those trying to get credit from City-haters.

 

[citizen_maine]

We don't, and the Mail don't say it wasn't either. They've stuck an ambiguous line out there, and let people read into it what they want.

The sentence says:
"Sportsmail understands those claims fell on deaf ears, with a three-man panel failing to unanimously agree on the incident."

Nowhere does that say that someone thought it was a dive. The 'claim' as implied was it was a dive, and it is undeniably true that the panel did not unanimously agree that it was.

It IS deceitful wording, which is what you'd expect from those trying to get credit from City-haters.

I did wonder if it was based on this article.
I read it as 'they didn't unanimously agree he dived'. They could also have been unanimous that he didn't, but that wouldn't play as well as 'click-bait'

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I did wonder if it was based on this article.
I read it as 'they didn't unanimously agree he dived'. They could also have been unanimous that he didn't, but that wouldn't play as well as 'click-bait'

Well, they didn't agree, so you read it right. It just doesn't say that any of them thought he did.

(Unaninimity is only relevant in one outcome, which is what it plays on)

 

[dooie68]

hay!! we were awarded a penalty that in the medias eyes and other supporters looked "Dodgy", who remembers the outrageous decision against Stirling against Spurs ???? I don't recall the media and other supporters from other clubs making much of a shout about that!! What goes around comes around. Move on

 

[Shirley]

The disappointment at him not being guilty is so clear in this drivel of a rag article.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/41728055