|
Karma?
Mar 1, 2015 18:52:05 GMT
Post by Del on Mar 1, 2015 18:52:05 GMT
Before he left the field.The Bognor fan went on to the pitch .
|
|
tonyd
1st team Player
Posts: 1,494
|
Karma?
Mar 2, 2015 1:19:34 GMT
Post by tonyd on Mar 2, 2015 1:19:34 GMT
Where did you hear that? I was there and didn't see a fan come on to the pitch.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 2, 2015 15:37:40 GMT
Post by Andy K on Mar 2, 2015 15:37:40 GMT
Before he left the field.The Bognor fan went on to the pitch . There's been so many "stories" floating around about what happened/what didn't happen. If what you say is true (I presume you heard it from someone rather than seeing it) then K's as a club failed in proper duty of care for players and spectators as they allowed the Tolfrey thing to happen with knowledge of a prior incident.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 2, 2015 16:38:05 GMT
Post by Stewart on Mar 2, 2015 16:38:05 GMT
If what you say is true (I presume you heard it from someone rather than seeing it) K's player twitter post is the'story'I heard.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 2, 2015 19:45:07 GMT
Post by Del on Mar 2, 2015 19:45:07 GMT
I didn't see it.Tolfrey was coaching some young children At Merstham's training ground on Friday night when i was there.I happened to mention the incident to someone who knows him & that's what he was told by Tolfrey. Maybe he misheard him but he said he was punched. Maybe the likely scenario was that he went behind the goal to retrieve the ball & a Bognor fan took a swing at him !
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 2, 2015 20:08:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by markn on Mar 2, 2015 20:08:02 GMT
Don't get it. Tolfrey may be a saint and help old ladies across the road normally but as everybody kept banging about when it happened at GGL, a player cannot enter the stands!
If he took a punch or severe abuse, I don't say I can't understand it but it's still wrong (no excuses). I would let ti go but the indignation back when Wayne did it was so bad I think I have a hearing complaint. Basically there was no excuse then so is none now.
|
|
sdg
Spectator
Posts: 15
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 14:12:26 GMT
Post by sdg on Mar 4, 2015 14:12:26 GMT
It don't matter what the Bognor fan did. You cannot leave the field of play. It wasn't right when Wayne or Cantona did it whatever the provocation and K's made a huge error playing him. It sends out the wrong signal and if they want to paint it any other way then as long as they feel good eh! Double faced and hypocritical. Over to you SDG Only just read this but I'm perfectly happy with Tolfrey playing. The FA are investigating and we're co-operating with that investigation, which is as it should be. If they find him guilty he'll get a punishment and I don't see the need for us to exclude him for any extra games on top of that. Seeing as you've called me out personally, I never personally claimed for Shaw to be sacked, I'd have been happy for him to stay at Sutton if it went to the FA and he got whatever punishment they saw fit. But that didn't happen because it got brushed under the carpet from the FA, Shaw never had any sort of ban from football and when it had all blown over you signed him again. Which isn't any more 'the right signal' than Tolfrey playing in the interim while he awaits the FA's verdict but there you go - we're looking after our player, you looked after yours and Man United looked after theirs.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 15:06:33 GMT
Post by Amber Aleman on Mar 4, 2015 15:06:33 GMT
Any idea why the FA "investigation" is taking so long? Surely all the evidence that was ever going to emerge reached them within a few days of the incident.
I'm not sure that it's right to say that the FA brushed the Shaw incident under the carpet. Because it happened during the warm-up, before the officials and most of the players were on the pitch, the FA may have decided that it fell outside their jurisdiction. In any case (as has been said before in this thread) SUFC took swift action and sacked the player. And if the club had just waited until the furore had "blown over" before re-instating Wayne Shaw then he would have been back before the end of the season. Instead SUFC waited over 12 months before inviting him back.
Given the apparent seriousness of the Tolfrey incident, the minimum I'd expect would be for Kingstonian FC to suspend the player pending the outcome of the investigation.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 15:27:00 GMT
Post by Andy K on Mar 4, 2015 15:27:00 GMT
The thing about Shaw was that incident happened before the game and therefore would be under the jurisdiction of SUFC as a club, not a referee. Infact I think at the time the officials were in the changing room. As far as I'm aware this incident was not reported to the FA by Kingstonian (although I could be wrong) - so the only people who would be in a position to act were Sutton, which they did (however much that disgusts you Simon!).
Of course you want to keep one of your best players playing and available, but I think you are missing the point of what we're saying here - our indignation is aimed mostly at those same K supporters where "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Probably Johnnie is the only one on here who can give a better view about the actual incident as he was there. But as I've said before although what Tolfrey did was wrong, there should be blame apportioned to the other side.
|
|
sdg
Spectator
Posts: 15
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 16:19:07 GMT
Post by sdg on Mar 4, 2015 16:19:07 GMT
FA investigations take time, it's more than just one bod at the FA looking at YouTube and coming up with a punishment. They have to investigate thoroughly and then book in a date for the hearing, the player might want representation, etc. There may will be a backlog of stuff to work through, people might not respond to letters straight away, it's not unreasonable for it to take a few weeks to get stuff together. In the case of Suarez to give you one example it took a month to charge him and another month for the hearing; if Tolfrey's might be expected to be the same then him being kept out of the game for an extra two months would be somewhat unfair on him, and unnecessarily detrimental to our own team.
As for Shaw, anything that happens in the stadium is very much within the FA's jurisdiction, but it wasn't on film and as you say they probably never got a report.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 17:28:59 GMT
Post by Andy K on Mar 4, 2015 17:28:59 GMT
According to the laws of the game: "(a player) is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person. Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not. " Also according to the law a ref is in charge from when he enters the field at the start of a game to the moment he leaves the field after the final whistle. I presume then he was on the field in charge when this happened? But my most important point is....why does it matter so much what Sutton fans think?
|
|
sdg
Spectator
Posts: 15
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 17:41:57 GMT
Post by sdg on Mar 4, 2015 17:41:57 GMT
Well Sutton fans started the thread, and I only came back to it three days later when I noticed Mark N had personally called me out for my view.
I don't get your point about the ref, things can be within the FA's jurisdiction without being within a ref's, for example if there was hooliganism or racism before a game then the FA could issue a fine, stadium ban, etc. In fact the FA can sanction clubs and players for things that aren't even within the context of a specific game, for example involvement with gambling or causing offence on social media. If they'd known what Shaw did and been presented with evidence then they could, and probably would, have taken action.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,194
|
Karma?
Mar 4, 2015 20:21:34 GMT
Post by markf on Mar 4, 2015 20:21:34 GMT
As far as I am aware a referee is pretty much in charge of all discipline as soon as he arrives at the ground and until he leaves it.
As said above the difference between the two was that Wayne's was not seen by a match official and he can't report what he hasn't seen or has not been in attendance at. The ref at K's may not have seen the initial issue but he will have seen Tolfrey the wrong side of the pitch barrier and along with the video evidence that, the ref's report will be the main evidence in the investigation along with any eye-witness accounts submitted by those present from both clubs and any neutrals.
The collection of these maybe what has held up any investigation, although there are timescales for these to be submitted within.
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 8, 2015 20:50:41 GMT
Post by Amber Aleman on Mar 8, 2015 20:50:41 GMT
There was maybe a touch of karma at the Dripping Pan yesterday where Ks lost 1-0 to Lewes. According to the NLP report "Tolfrey fumbled a floated free kick, giving Rowe an open goal he didn't miss".
|
|
|
Karma?
Mar 13, 2015 7:43:15 GMT
Post by exiledsufc on Mar 13, 2015 7:43:15 GMT
according to the Bognor forum,they have no case to answer in the Tolfrey incident,so it looks like Tolfrey will be getting a longish ban
|
|