The mancityfans.net football forum

Just read the article below about Williamson getting a three match ban. This bit of it I dont get "Despite being found guilty after contesting the charge, Williamson escaped a possible extended ban." I thought the rule was that if you were found guilty then you would automatically get an extended ban for appealing it. Im sure we havent appealed something in the past becuase of this rule, so why is it different in this case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/9215777.stm

Lees Alter Ego wrote:Just read the article below about Williamson getting a three match ban. This bit of it I dont get "Despite being found guilty after contesting the charge, Williamson escaped a possible extended ban." I thought the rule was that if you were found guilty then you would automatically get an extended ban for appealing it. Im sure we havent appealed something in the past becuase of this rule, so why is it different in this case?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/9215777.stm

Only if the appeal was "frivolous", eg like Ferdinand last year trying to contest a blatent ban just so he could play in the semi final against us.

If Williamson went and tried to plead a case and wasnt taking the piss, then fair enough, he shouldnt have his ban increased. Haven't seen the incident though, but clearly it was felt there was some merit to his appeal.

Extended bans have been given for far less frivolous appeals than this one. He had a damn cheek appealing if you ask me and I'm pretty surprised it didn't get extended.

However I suspect there is now some sort of nudge and wink business going on at the FA about whether an appeal may be held as frivolous, thought that after the rush to appeal for Balotelli.

Is it because it was a retrospective ban and not appealing the original decision on the pitch?