UPDATED: Bradford City winger Kyle Bennett has ban reduced

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Kyle Bennett trudges back to the changing rooms after receiving his marching orders Kyle Bennett trudges back to the changing rooms after receiving his marching orders

Kyle Bennett's ban for his debut red card was this afternoon cut to one game after City appealed.

The on-loan Doncaster winger was facing three matches out following the altercation with Preston's Neil Kilkenny, who was also dismissed by referee Stuart Attwell.

City felt the punishment did not fit the crime and appealed against its severity - an act that was upheld by a Football Association panel.

But Preston appealed against the red card itself, citing wrongful dismissal in that the neck and head area wasn't touched. 

The panel agreed and over-ruled Attwell completely, allowing Kilkenny to play again this weekend.

Under appeal laws, clubs can choose to contest the decision or the punishment - but not both.

Bennett will miss Saturday's trip to his boyhood club Wolves but will be available for the next home game against Crewe.

 

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:02pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Can but try, if the evidence is good enough to suggest it was play acting by Killkenny then his ban needs increasing, it is that that needs stamping out of the game. Could you imagine him doing that to Tommy Smith and then having a career after their next meeting?
Can but try, if the evidence is good enough to suggest it was play acting by Killkenny then his ban needs increasing, it is that that needs stamping out of the game. Could you imagine him doing that to Tommy Smith and then having a career after their next meeting? Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 12

2:05pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Mr Tii says...

Won't be successful , Rules are rules am afraid .
Won't be successful , Rules are rules am afraid . Mr Tii
  • Score: -13

2:19pm Thu 30 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

It's possible the referee was conned so there is a possibility that Bennetts card could be rescinded. Worth a punt I'd say, as there will have been clarification sought from local referees. The sad thing is that if Kilkenny stays on his feet the ref has very little to do other than telling the players to calm down, it also spoilt an excellent refereeing display by the much maligned Attwell.
It's possible the referee was conned so there is a possibility that Bennetts card could be rescinded. Worth a punt I'd say, as there will have been clarification sought from local referees. The sad thing is that if Kilkenny stays on his feet the ref has very little to do other than telling the players to calm down, it also spoilt an excellent refereeing display by the much maligned Attwell. bcfc1903
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Thu 30 Jan 14

minkiebantam says...

Does anyone know whether Preston are to challenge theres as well?
I feel the only way it would be recinded, would be if both teams challenged the Red cards.
Yes, Kilkenny did go down quicker than a lady of the night and probably thats what made Attwell react so quickley, but looking back at the video. The same amount of force was used by both players when they pushed back.
Fingers crossed anyway!?
CTID!
Does anyone know whether Preston are to challenge theres as well? I feel the only way it would be recinded, would be if both teams challenged the Red cards. Yes, Kilkenny did go down quicker than a lady of the night and probably thats what made Attwell react so quickley, but looking back at the video. The same amount of force was used by both players when they pushed back. Fingers crossed anyway!? CTID! minkiebantam
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

minkiebantam wrote:
Does anyone know whether Preston are to challenge theres as well?
I feel the only way it would be recinded, would be if both teams challenged the Red cards.
Yes, Kilkenny did go down quicker than a lady of the night and probably thats what made Attwell react so quickley, but looking back at the video. The same amount of force was used by both players when they pushed back.
Fingers crossed anyway!?
CTID!
Apparently not, it really depends what the ref has carded them for.

@Mr Ti
Rules are rules am afraid .

Expand please, I don't know which rule Bennett has fallen foul of to be honest reviewing the video myself, the club also must think similar or there would be no point appealing.
[quote][p][bold]minkiebantam[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know whether Preston are to challenge theres as well? I feel the only way it would be recinded, would be if both teams challenged the Red cards. Yes, Kilkenny did go down quicker than a lady of the night and probably thats what made Attwell react so quickley, but looking back at the video. The same amount of force was used by both players when they pushed back. Fingers crossed anyway!? CTID![/p][/quote]Apparently not, it really depends what the ref has carded them for. @Mr Ti Rules are rules am afraid . Expand please, I don't know which rule Bennett has fallen foul of to be honest reviewing the video myself, the club also must think similar or there would be no point appealing. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 4

4:11pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Mr Tii says...

Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .
Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules . Mr Tii
  • Score: -8

4:30pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Rambo says...

Mr Tii wrote:
Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .
No its not. It never has been.

I would challenge them on the basis that as they were sent off for "violent conduct" none of the below rules were broken. From the FA's and FIFA's own websites regarding sending off offences, specifically here violent conduct -

Violent conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match offi cial 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. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play.

Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention.
A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Tii[/bold] wrote: Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .[/p][/quote]No its not. It never has been. I would challenge them on the basis that as they were sent off for "violent conduct" none of the below rules were broken. From the FA's and FIFA's own websites regarding sending off offences, specifically here violent conduct - Violent conduct A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match offi cial 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. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play. Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention. A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off. Rambo
  • Score: 5

4:37pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Rambo wrote:
Mr Tii wrote:
Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .
No its not. It never has been.

I would challenge them on the basis that as they were sent off for "violent conduct" none of the below rules were broken. From the FA's and FIFA's own websites regarding sending off offences, specifically here violent conduct -

Violent conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match offi cial 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. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play.

Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention.
A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off.
Thank you, that was my understanding.

Also, the ban rescinded to 1 game only now, so well worth the appeal.
[quote][p][bold]Rambo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Tii[/bold] wrote: Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .[/p][/quote]No its not. It never has been. I would challenge them on the basis that as they were sent off for "violent conduct" none of the below rules were broken. From the FA's and FIFA's own websites regarding sending off offences, specifically here violent conduct - Violent conduct A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match offi cial 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. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play. Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention. A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off.[/p][/quote]Thank you, that was my understanding. Also, the ban rescinded to 1 game only now, so well worth the appeal. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 3

4:55pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Freddy says...

*
WHOSE Mr. TII---?. Sounds like a Teacher or mis-guided referee.
*
Delighted City appealed. The ban reduction being fair--They must back the referee's decision too. I wonder if The Preston Player's Club have, or will now appeal??.
*
Well Played --'PARKY--& Co. '.
*
* WHOSE Mr. TII---?. Sounds like a Teacher or mis-guided referee. * Delighted City appealed. The ban reduction being fair--They must back the referee's decision too. I wonder if The Preston Player's Club have, or will now appeal??. * Well Played --'PARKY--& Co. '. * Freddy
  • Score: 5

4:56pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Rambo says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Rambo wrote:
Mr Tii wrote:
Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .
No its not. It never has been.

I would challenge them on the basis that as they were sent off for "violent conduct" none of the below rules were broken. From the FA's and FIFA's own websites regarding sending off offences, specifically here violent conduct -

Violent conduct
A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when not challenging for the ball.

He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match offi cial 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. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play.

Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention.
A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off.
Thank you, that was my understanding.

Also, the ban rescinded to 1 game only now, so well worth the appeal.
Cheers for the update.

Its one those vague concepts 'pundits' have forced on us in recent years, such as the other one where they can justify a player diving if they draw the foul in.

It beyond embarrassing as grown men to watch other grown men flop around at any sign of contact, and to class what happened the other night as violent conduct or over-physical… Jesus. I'm in more aggressive contact with other people on a packed train in a morning.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rambo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Tii[/bold] wrote: Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .[/p][/quote]No its not. It never has been. I would challenge them on the basis that as they were sent off for "violent conduct" none of the below rules were broken. From the FA's and FIFA's own websites regarding sending off offences, specifically here violent conduct - Violent conduct A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a teammate, spectator, match offi cial 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. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play. Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention. A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off.[/p][/quote]Thank you, that was my understanding. Also, the ban rescinded to 1 game only now, so well worth the appeal.[/p][/quote]Cheers for the update. Its one those vague concepts 'pundits' have forced on us in recent years, such as the other one where they can justify a player diving if they draw the foul in. It beyond embarrassing as grown men to watch other grown men flop around at any sign of contact, and to class what happened the other night as violent conduct or over-physical… Jesus. I'm in more aggressive contact with other people on a packed train in a morning. Rambo
  • Score: 3

4:58pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Rambo says...

Ive just read the article as it was updated during my last post.

Some kudos to the FA for showing some common sense in this case.
Ive just read the article as it was updated during my last post. Some kudos to the FA for showing some common sense in this case. Rambo
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Rambo says...

Actually, no I take that back completely.

Kilkenny has had his red card completely overturned.
Actually, no I take that back completely. Kilkenny has had his red card completely overturned. Rambo
  • Score: 2

5:01pm Thu 30 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!!
Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!! bcfc1903
  • Score: 3

5:10pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Olivermac says...

Mr Tii wrote:
Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .
Has the rule changed, I was under the impression that striking an opponent is the key to the sending off with both these players which is violent conduct raising your arms does not mean it is violent conduct and both Bennett and Kilkenny did not strike each other, Attwell has got it wrong and it is not the first time he has got it wrong he allowed a goal in the Prem Div that was never in the net that's why he has not refereed a Prem game since and to be honest he would be better back in the armature game.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Tii[/bold] wrote: Raise your hands towards an opponent is the rule , I know it was a pathetic reaction but they are the rules .[/p][/quote]Has the rule changed, I was under the impression that striking an opponent is the key to the sending off with both these players which is violent conduct raising your arms does not mean it is violent conduct and both Bennett and Kilkenny did not strike each other, Attwell has got it wrong and it is not the first time he has got it wrong he allowed a goal in the Prem Div that was never in the net that's why he has not refereed a Prem game since and to be honest he would be better back in the armature game. Olivermac
  • Score: 4

5:17pm Thu 30 Jan 14

minkiebantam says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!!
Preston North End midfielder Neil Kilkenny has had his red card from Tuesday night’s draw over Bradford City overturned.At a FA panel hearing on Thursday afternoon, the three match ban for violent conduct handed out to Kilkenny was rescinded with immediate effect.


The Lilywhites’ No.37 will now be free to face Notts County on Saturday.

From Preston NE Website
"Preston submitted an appeal to the FA on Wednesday, which contained video evidence and a written submission to the effect that Kilkenny did not raise his hand to the head/neck area of Kyle Bennett who was also shown a straight red card.
And after a panel meeting in London, the FA have upheld North End’s appeal"
So why has Kilkennys been fully recinded and Bennetts only reduced!!??
They did exactly the same thing to each other, if anything Kilkenny was worse for simulating he had been punched in the head!!?
W.F.T!!!
I was going to congratulate the FA for seeing reason, but yet again they have shot themselves in the foot with a silly ruling! UMBELIEVABLE!!
CTID!!
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!![/p][/quote]Preston North End midfielder Neil Kilkenny has had his red card from Tuesday night’s draw over Bradford City overturned.At a FA panel hearing on Thursday afternoon, the three match ban for violent conduct handed out to Kilkenny was rescinded with immediate effect. The Lilywhites’ No.37 will now be free to face Notts County on Saturday. From Preston NE Website "Preston submitted an appeal to the FA on Wednesday, which contained video evidence and a written submission to the effect that Kilkenny did not raise his hand to the head/neck area of Kyle Bennett who was also shown a straight red card. And after a panel meeting in London, the FA have upheld North End’s appeal" So why has Kilkennys been fully recinded and Bennetts only reduced!!?? They did exactly the same thing to each other, if anything Kilkenny was worse for simulating he had been punched in the head!!? W.F.T!!! I was going to congratulate the FA for seeing reason, but yet again they have shot themselves in the foot with a silly ruling! UMBELIEVABLE!! CTID!! minkiebantam
  • Score: 2

5:19pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Olivermac says...

bcfc1903 wrote:
Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!!
Agree why don't they take action against these substandard refferees they are worse than Kilkenny.
[quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!![/p][/quote]Agree why don't they take action against these substandard refferees they are worse than Kilkenny. Olivermac
  • Score: 1

5:19pm Thu 30 Jan 14

minkiebantam says...

minkiebantam wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote: Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!!
Preston North End midfielder Neil Kilkenny has had his red card from Tuesday night’s draw over Bradford City overturned.At a FA panel hearing on Thursday afternoon, the three match ban for violent conduct handed out to Kilkenny was rescinded with immediate effect. The Lilywhites’ No.37 will now be free to face Notts County on Saturday. From Preston NE Website "Preston submitted an appeal to the FA on Wednesday, which contained video evidence and a written submission to the effect that Kilkenny did not raise his hand to the head/neck area of Kyle Bennett who was also shown a straight red card. And after a panel meeting in London, the FA have upheld North End’s appeal" So why has Kilkennys been fully recinded and Bennetts only reduced!!?? They did exactly the same thing to each other, if anything Kilkenny was worse for simulating he had been punched in the head!!? W.F.T!!! I was going to congratulate the FA for seeing reason, but yet again they have shot themselves in the foot with a silly ruling! UMBELIEVABLE!! CTID!!
Sorry, i meant
W.T.F!!! LOL
CTID!
[quote][p][bold]minkiebantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!![/p][/quote]Preston North End midfielder Neil Kilkenny has had his red card from Tuesday night’s draw over Bradford City overturned.At a FA panel hearing on Thursday afternoon, the three match ban for violent conduct handed out to Kilkenny was rescinded with immediate effect. The Lilywhites’ No.37 will now be free to face Notts County on Saturday. From Preston NE Website "Preston submitted an appeal to the FA on Wednesday, which contained video evidence and a written submission to the effect that Kilkenny did not raise his hand to the head/neck area of Kyle Bennett who was also shown a straight red card. And after a panel meeting in London, the FA have upheld North End’s appeal" So why has Kilkennys been fully recinded and Bennetts only reduced!!?? They did exactly the same thing to each other, if anything Kilkenny was worse for simulating he had been punched in the head!!? W.F.T!!! I was going to congratulate the FA for seeing reason, but yet again they have shot themselves in the foot with a silly ruling! UMBELIEVABLE!! CTID!![/p][/quote]Sorry, i meant W.T.F!!! LOL CTID! minkiebantam
  • Score: 1

5:32pm Thu 30 Jan 14

silverbantam says...

Bennett has a one match ban for doing what exactly ?
Bennett has a one match ban for doing what exactly ? silverbantam
  • Score: 1

5:45pm Thu 30 Jan 14

GenieBantam says...

I DISPAIR!!!

Read the first part of the article and about to commend the FA for using commonsense for a change...only to read further down that Kilkenny has got off scot free!

Another hucking joke decision by the FA!!!

No faith in them at all - CORRUPT IMO
I DISPAIR!!! Read the first part of the article and about to commend the FA for using commonsense for a change...only to read further down that Kilkenny has got off scot free! Another hucking joke decision by the FA!!! No faith in them at all - CORRUPT IMO GenieBantam
  • Score: 2

6:01pm Thu 30 Jan 14

tyker2 says...

sub standard referes not being supported mens only one thing for them back to minor league football where they will be equally bad
sub standard referes not being supported mens only one thing for them back to minor league football where they will be equally bad tyker2
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Thu 30 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Olivermac wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!!
Agree why don't they take action against these substandard refferees they are worse than Kilkenny.
Although I agree about sub standard Referees, I actually thought Attwell had a decent game which was marred by the red card decision he made.

Can't for the life of me understand the FA's decision regarding Kilkenny, truly bizarre.
[quote][p][bold]Olivermac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!![/p][/quote]Agree why don't they take action against these substandard refferees they are worse than Kilkenny.[/p][/quote]Although I agree about sub standard Referees, I actually thought Attwell had a decent game which was marred by the red card decision he made. Can't for the life of me understand the FA's decision regarding Kilkenny, truly bizarre. bcfc1903
  • Score: 4

7:05pm Thu 30 Jan 14

bcfc1903 says...

Olivermac wrote:
bcfc1903 wrote:
Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!!
Agree why don't they take action against these substandard refferees they are worse than Kilkenny.
Although I agree about sub standard Referees, I actually thought Attwell had a decent game which was marred by the red card decision he made.

Can't for the life of me understand the FA's decision regarding Kilkenny, truly bizarre.
[quote][p][bold]Olivermac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bcfc1903[/bold] wrote: Don't know if this is 100% right but Kilkenny has had his ban rescinded, incredible decision if true. It's the FA green light for play acting and feigning injury, joke decision if true. Glad Bennett got his ban reduced but he shouldn't actually be banned at all. Strange goings on at FA towers!!![/p][/quote]Agree why don't they take action against these substandard refferees they are worse than Kilkenny.[/p][/quote]Although I agree about sub standard Referees, I actually thought Attwell had a decent game which was marred by the red card decision he made. Can't for the life of me understand the FA's decision regarding Kilkenny, truly bizarre. bcfc1903
  • Score: 3

7:20pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Mr Tii says...

Thought Freddy was a chocolate bar or is that a Freddo , neither a teacher or referee you clown .
Thought Freddy was a chocolate bar or is that a Freddo , neither a teacher or referee you clown . Mr Tii
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Scargutt2 says...

Typical FA fairness. They're so full of their own importance they can't see how silly they look.
Typical FA fairness. They're so full of their own importance they can't see how silly they look. Scargutt2
  • Score: 1

8:45pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Tecnotronic says...

Just watched it in slow mo and Kilkenny touched or hit Bennett first.Hope Gary Jones gave Kilkenny a right earful.Am posting a link if anyone wants to watch it.
http://www1.skysport
s.com/watch/video/sp
orts/football/teams/
bradford-city/914058
6/bradford-0-0-prest
on
Just watched it in slow mo and Kilkenny touched or hit Bennett first.Hope Gary Jones gave Kilkenny a right earful.Am posting a link if anyone wants to watch it. http://www1.skysport s.com/watch/video/sp orts/football/teams/ bradford-city/914058 6/bradford-0-0-prest on Tecnotronic
  • Score: 0

1:32am Fri 31 Jan 14

Waynus1971 says...

So City decided to take the lesser gamble over Bennett and the decision has backfired. PNE opted to contest the card itself whilst we opted to appeal against the length of the ban. Kilkenny gets his rescinded as requested and Bennett's is reduced, as we had requested...!

I still think Kilkenny should have had a punishment for his theatrics. It was disgraceful, but what do you expect from a dirty Leeds tw@t
So City decided to take the lesser gamble over Bennett and the decision has backfired. PNE opted to contest the card itself whilst we opted to appeal against the length of the ban. Kilkenny gets his rescinded as requested and Bennett's is reduced, as we had requested...! I still think Kilkenny should have had a punishment for his theatrics. It was disgraceful, but what do you expect from a dirty Leeds tw@t Waynus1971
  • Score: 2

6:50am Fri 31 Jan 14

allannicho says...

Feel sorry for Kyle to miss the Wolves game, bet he is
really disappointed.
Feel sorry for Kyle to miss the Wolves game, bet he is really disappointed. allannicho
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree