Wolves forward, Matheus Cunha, has received a two match suspension and fine (£80,000), following an incident after full-time in the match against Ipswich Town.

One of those suspended games, is their FA Cup third round fixture, a game in which he very likely wouldn’t have featured anyway!

Wolves fans are delighted (in general) with the outcome, as they were expecting at least 3-6 matches.

I’m struggling to see how the minimum 3 matches weren’t given here. It’s violent conduct, plain and simple. After the full time whistle or not, he’s under the care of the referee and still on the field of play: the rules don’t change.

Help me out here…

He took someone’s glasses off didn’t he? Not sure it’s all that bad.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 10:17 am

He took someone’s glasses off didn’t he? Not sure it’s all that bad.

Letter of the law it's violent conduct and 3 match minimum

I'm mystified by the decision
Sets a dangerous precedent I think

Cunha elbowed the Ipswich bloke on the head from behind before relieving him of his glasses.

The conspiracy theorists are questioning how Cunha was allowed to play in the games following the incident after he had pleaded guilty to the charge.

Far too lenient for me.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 10:17 am

He took someone’s glasses off didn’t he? Not sure it’s all that bad.

Just before that he fired a muay thai style elbow into the back of his head - thankfully it didn't connect properly because that could have been bad.

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 10:58 am

Just before that he fired a muay thai style elbow into the back of his head - thankfully it didn't connect properly because that could have been bad.

Didn’t see that to be fair, albeit they didn’t send Joao Pedro off for the same thing the other night during a game!

Rules are just there to be be adjusted as required by the F.A.

Why does it take so long to come to these decisions?

He’s played in 3 games since that game, scoring twice in those and contributing to picking up 7 points

I know they weren’t “winning” goals, but still have an impact on outcomes overall

jdrobbo wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 10:15 am

I’m struggling to see how the minimum 3 matches weren’t given here. It’s violent conduct, plain and simple. After the full time whistle or not, he’s under the care of the referee and still on the field of play: the rules don’t change.

Nothing given by the referee at the time so isn't a red card and doesn't come under that jurisdiction. He was on a charge from the FA and I have to say I am astonished at the leniency.

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 11:15 am

Why does it take so long to come to these decisions?

He’s played in 3 games since that game, scoring twice in those and contributing to picking up 7 points

I know they weren’t “winning” goals, but still have an impact on outcomes overall

Because it's not a red card, it becomes a Football Association charge which under the rules allows him a set number of days to appeal or put forward his own argument. So a ban cannot be immediate. But as I've said above, I find the suspension far too lenient.

It's baffling. He did two things after the match that if they'd occurred during the game he'd have been sent off for violent conduct and received a 3 match ban.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 11:17 am

Nothing given by the referee at the time so isn't a red card and doesn't come under that jurisdiction. He was on a charge from the FA and I have to say I am astonished at the leniency.

Not only in the leniency but the fact he was allowed to play the next few games, and against Man Utd he made one and scored one, guaranteeing them three points. I would be livid if I was a Leicester or Ipswich fan. Reminds me of Richarlison throwing the firework into the crowd whilst still at Everton, who were in the relegation struggle. Yet his ban was not until the following season and it was Spurs who lost his services as a result. That may have had a defining moment of Everton staying up.

warksclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 12:39 pm

Not only in the leniency but the fact he was allowed to play the next few games, and against Man Utd he made one and scored one, guaranteeing them three points. I would be livid if I was a Leicester or Ipswich fan. Reminds me of Richarlison throwing the firework into the crowd whilst still at Everton, who were in the relegation struggle. Yet his ban was not until the following season and it was Spurs who lost his services as a result. That may have had a defining moment of Everton staying up.

The F.A. should be made to come out and explain exactly how they arrived at their decision, it’s appalling.

it's rare anything out of the officiating side makes any sense nowadays. It's laughable at this point.

warksclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 12:39 pm

Not only in the leniency but the fact he was allowed to play the next few games

As I've explained - it wasn't a red card but an FA charge to which he has a right to reply and appeal. That takes time. Imagine if he served a ban and was then found not guilty. Had the referee seen it and sent him off then it would rightly have been automatic.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 3:07 pm

As I've explained - it wasn't a red card but an FA charge to which he has a right to reply and appeal. That takes time. Imagine if he served a ban and was then found not guilty. Had the referee seen it and sent him off then it would rightly have been automatic.

True enough, but if the ref issues a red card on Saturday, the player has the right to appeal (and presumably reply) and it's still settled in time to ban him for Tuesday. Why can't the FA look at the film, award an "honorary" red card, and deal with it the same way from then?

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... wich-melee

Looking at this, it seems that the FA never considered it to be violent conduct at all. They called it misconduct, which presumably has a lesser punishment.

There was no reason not to call it violent conduct, because if the ref had seen it and sent him off, that is exactly what it would have been called.

Bizarrely lenient, although to be fair it’s the first time Wolves have had much luck with the FA for a while.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 3:25 pm

True enough, but if the ref issues a red card on Saturday, the player has the right to appeal (and presumably reply) and it's still settled in time to ban him for Tuesday. Why can't the FA look at the film, award an "honorary" red card, and deal with it the same way from then?

Because those are not the rules. It's a referee that issues a red and there is an appeal process to get it through quickly. As I've said more than once on this thread, once charged the player is given a set time to respond and once that time is done, then a decision is made.

The only argument here is not when he's suspended, because the correct procedure has been followed, but the fact that he's only got a two game ban.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 3:31 pm

Because those are not the rules. It's a referee that issues a red and there is an appeal process to get it through quickly. As I've said more than once on this thread, once charged the player is given a set time to respond and once that time is done, then a decision is made.

The only argument here is not when he's suspended, because the correct procedure has been followed, but the fact that he's only got a two game ban.

Yes, I know those are the rules. But why are they the rules?

If the referee had waved a red card, then Cunha would have missed the next three matches automatically and the only question for the FA would have been whether to extend the ban. Cunha would have had the usual day in which to appeal.

But the ref didn't wave the red card. Why does that simple omission make the whole process take weeks instead of days? The FA only charge them in cases where they believe it was a sure red card anyway.

Incredible he didn’t get the 6 match ban . He drove an elbow into the fat old man’s head from behind ,went for the punch , but just reached the glasses and pulled them off before being restrained . Ok ,he’s Brazilian so the likes of cheating and cowardice go hand in hand with football skill , but still …Perhaps something happened before this which was taken in mitigation ? ?

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 3:36 pm

Yes, I know those are the rules. But why are they the rules?

If the referee had waved a red card, then Cunha would have missed the next three matches automatically and the only question for the FA would have been whether to extend the ban. Cunha would have had the usual day in which to appeal.

But the ref didn't wave the red card. Why does that simple omission make the whole process take weeks instead of days? The FA only charge them in cases where they believe it was a sure red card anyway.

The FA bring charges when it wouldn't be a red card - as we know from the Andre Gray situation back in 2016. That suspension took time too. That's how it works, that's how it always works.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with the process, the only problem here is the ban falling well short of what I believe is an acceptable suspension.

It was assault. For me happening after the game it should be a police rather than FA matter.

NL Claret wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2024 10:50 am

Cunha elbowed the Ipswich bloke on the head from behind before relieving him of his glasses.

Sounds like a bit of one.