Darnell loves a good tackle. (Charged by FA - Pg16)

FootballcrazyP_

Crazy Bird Man
Patron
Firstly its a short Video and you don't know in what context it happened. Maybe he asked Fisher to pat something back into place. Maybe A Balls Shield or something.

Ok probably not, but lets hope nothing and we move on. Fisher will be taking a ribbing for it from the lads anyway.
 

Simply Sage

First Team
Is it sexual assault if there is no sexual intent to the act? Genuine question.

It’s a form of assault, for sure, but is it sexual? Does this not belong more in the realms of poking someone in the eye or something?
From the Met Police website:

"What separates sex, or a gesture of affection, from sexual assault? It's a matter of consent. That is, both people agreeing to what's happening by choice, and having the freedom and ability to make that choice."

I'm not sure the look on Paterson's faced indicated consent. And I'd be surprised, if asked, whether he would say he had asked Fisher to do it just before that look either.

I think an argument based on 'but it's all part of the rough and tumble of the game' would get PNE in a load of trouble. He grabbed his Nads - and Paterson looked around at the ref for him to take action.

Rugby came down on heavily on the Marler incident. The football authorities won't risk a poor comparison with that - especially with the recent resignation of the FA Chairman for providing evidence of what are seen as archaic institutionalised stances on issues of personal liberty and discrimination.

Will be staggered if there is not action taken.
 

baysidepne

Manager
Two incidents in Scotland over the past few years, both resulted in two game bans for Violent Conduct for Steven Maclean of Hearts and Ryan Christie of Celtic.

No real evidence of it happening South of the Border....

An act directed towards the private parts of a player on the field is now considered an act of "brutality" and deemed violent conduct.

 

Dirty Harry

Advisor to the Owner
Two incidents in Scotland over the past few years, both resulted in two game bans for Violent Conduct for Steven Maclean of Hearts and Ryan Christie of Celtic.

No real evidence of it happening South of the Border....

An act directed towards the private parts of a player on the field is now considered an act of "brutality" and deemed violent conduct.

...it looked south of the border to me.
 

Mr Meeseeks

Forum Patron
Patron
The big difference is that Windass us competing for the ball whichbis partner the game.

Fisher grabbed Patterson's genitals which isnt
Kicking someone clean in the throat is as much a part of the game as fondling someone’s gonads.

I guarantee there’s more bollock twisting goes on in the Championship than karate kicks, so I’d argue which one is more a part of the game.
 

paddysr

Bearded Beauty
Staff member
Patron
Kicking someone clean in the throat is as much a part of the game as fondling someone’s gonads.

I guarantee there’s more bollock twisting goes on in the Championship than karate kicks, so I’d argue which one is more a part of the game.
Don't talk stupid. It wasn't a karate kick it was someone competing for the ball.

There is no excuse for grabbing someone's genitals
 

Pumba

Advisor to the Owner
From the Met Police website:

"What separates sex, or a gesture of affection, from sexual assault? It's a matter of consent. That is, both people agreeing to what's happening by choice, and having the freedom and ability to make that choice."

I'm not sure the look on Paterson's faced indicated consent. And I'd be surprised, if asked, whether he would say he had asked Fisher to do it just before that look either.

I think an argument based on 'but it's all part of the rough and tumble of the game' would get PNE in a load of trouble. He grabbed his Nads - and Paterson looked around at the ref for him to take action.

Rugby came down on heavily on the Marler incident. The football authorities won't risk a poor comparison with that - especially with the recent resignation of the FA Chairman for providing evidence of what are seen as archaic institutionalised stances on issues of personal liberty and discrimination.

Will be staggered if there is not action taken.
Not being funny but the bit in italics doesn’t answer my question. It’s assuming something happened with a sexual motivation behind it; I’m saying there wasn’t one in this case and therefore wondering if it counts as sexual assault.

Think it’s moot though, he’s probably going to get a ban.
 

Mr Meeseeks

Forum Patron
Patron
Don't talk stupid. It wasn't a karate kick it was someone competing for the ball.

There is no excuse for grabbing someone's genitals
Okay so what is the difference between these two pictures? Given Rafferty has headed the ball well away at this point, the argument of going for the ball kind of loses its effect. It’s near identical bar the point of contact.

Rightly or wrongly, those sort of underhand tactics go on in the game. In fact it tends to happen more the higher up in standard you go. It’s just not caught on camera often, Fisher is a very silly boy doing it so brazenly but he isn’t the only one doing these sort of things.


CCD25ED4-33F3-45C8-925B-0D9191C64D2E.jpeg
F3D154A6-6C65-4D08-9B9E-EA223C032AE0.jpeg
 

paddysr

Bearded Beauty
Staff member
Patron
Okay so what is the difference between these two pictures? Given Rafferty has headed the ball well away at this point, the argument of going for the ball kind of loses its effect. It’s near identical bar the point of contact.

Rightly or wrongly, those sort of underhand tactics go on in the game. In fact it tends to happen more the higher up in standard you go. It’s just not caught on camera often, Fisher is a very silly boy doing it so brazenly but he isn’t the only one doing these sort of things.


View attachment 2248
View attachment 2249
Before the first picture was taken there was a football there to be won, there is no force in the first picture and the first picture has no intent.

Just because something is happening all the time doesnt make it acceptable.

If the two instances were the other way around you would be arguing the opposite point.
 
Top