|
Post by GallysGuitar on Sept 2, 2015 15:33:43 GMT
twitter.com/FA"A claim by Stoke City that the standard punishment for the red card for Ibrahim Afellay was excessive has been upheld following an Independent Regulatory Commission hearing. Afellay was sent off for violent conduct against West Bromwich Albion on 29 August 2015. His suspension has been reduced from three matches to two matches with immediate effect."
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2015 15:34:39 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along?
Since when has it been 2 games for that?
Very odd!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 2, 2015 15:36:27 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? Since when has it been 2 games for that? Very odd! Wasn't it reduced for a Chelsea player last season? So, some precedent for leniency?
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Sept 2, 2015 15:36:22 GMT
'Well we fucked up not sending Gardner off too so we'll knock off a game if you don't kick up a fuss about that. Thanks. Bye"
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 2, 2015 15:37:11 GMT
Surely by the letter of the law it was three? Bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 15:37:38 GMT
Just wow.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 2, 2015 15:38:13 GMT
Do they make it up as they go along? Since when has it been 2 games for that? Very odd! Wasn't it reduced for a Chelsea player last season? So, some precedent for leniency? No idea tbh!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 2, 2015 15:41:35 GMT
Maybe offence downgraded from violent conduct
|
|
|
Post by trigger on Sept 2, 2015 15:46:43 GMT
So its really an additional one game ban if you punch the cheating twat straight in his pan, I'd go for a upper cut next time Affellay itd be worth it for the entertainment value and the most you've contributed since you've been at the club.
|
|
|
Post by luciani on Sept 2, 2015 15:47:19 GMT
By this criteria, Charlie Adam should have his ban reduced too. He didn't 'stamp' on Dawson's leg, he trod on it. Oliver only sent him off because the linesman said "he stamped on his leg really hard".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 15:47:39 GMT
I see continuity isn't just a sticking point for matchday officials.
Still, it's something at least. Could be useful for the Bournemouth game.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 2, 2015 15:50:27 GMT
I see continuity isn't just a sticking point for matchday officials. Still, it's something at least. Could be useful for the Bournemouth game. He'd have played against Bournemouth anyway. He's now free to play at Fulham.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Sept 2, 2015 15:50:34 GMT
I see continuity isn't just a sticking point for matchday officials. Still, it's something at least. Could be useful for the Bournemouth game. Depend who the officials are? Seriously I do hope that he has learnt from this and comes back stronger - he's a very good player
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 15:52:11 GMT
I see continuity isn't just a sticking point for matchday officials. Still, it's something at least. Could be useful for the Bournemouth game. He'd have played against Bournemouth anyway. He's now free to play at Fulham. Ah, of course - thanks for clarifying
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Sept 2, 2015 15:51:55 GMT
I see continuity isn't just a sticking point for matchday officials. Still, it's something at least. Could be useful for the Bournemouth game. Yes it is. They are continually shite.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 2, 2015 16:00:20 GMT
Maybe offence downgraded from violent conduct I can see why the rules say it is a red card for "raising your hands to another player" but there should be some agreement over when it is or is not violent conduct. No way was either Gardner's or Afellay's "laying on of hands" violent conduct. personally, if the ref can't see common sense and give them a yellow or a talking to then the offence should only be a one game ban - they were about as unviolent as you could get. They were so unviolent as to be pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Sept 2, 2015 16:03:53 GMT
Maybe offence downgraded from violent conduct I understand what you are saying but if it wasn't violent conduct why was he sent off? Seems to be grades from very violent, violent to just a naughty boy. If anyone thinks they know how it works please write it down and put it in the nearest waste bin.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Sept 2, 2015 16:04:44 GMT
The ref should now be suspended!
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Sept 2, 2015 16:07:30 GMT
Maybe offence downgraded from violent conduct I can see why the rules say it is a red card for "raising your hands to another player" but there should be some agreement over when it is or is not violent conduct. No way was either Gardner's or Afellay's "laying on of hands" violent conduct. personally, if the ref can't see common sense and give them a yellow or a talking to then the offence should only be a one game ban - they were about as unviolent as you could get. They were so unviolent as to be pathetic. no such rule though. see 'Raising Your Hands' and other misconceptions There are numerous misconceptions about the laws of the game and it is only fair to point these out here. 1) “If you raise your hands, you’re going to get sent off” This is simply not a rule. If you ‘raise your hand’ and punch someone it is going to be considered violent conduct and you will be sent off. If you ‘raise your hand’ to appeal for offside you have not committed an offense and no action will be taken. It may sound petty but the fact is, no-one is sent off for raising their hands; they are sent off for violent conduct. The upshot being that if you push someone or put your hand on their face it may not necessarily be a red card although many commentators will say it should be, repeating the above phrase. The determining factor is whether the referee considers the conduct to be violent. flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/raising-your-hands-and-other.htmlIt has to be deemed "violent" Sending-off offencesA player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: •serious foul play •violent conduct •spitting at an opponent or any other person •denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) •denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick •using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures •receiving a second caution in the same match www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspx
|
|
|
Post by luciani on Sept 2, 2015 16:14:18 GMT
I can see why the rules say it is a red card for "raising your hands to another player" but there should be some agreement over when it is or is not violent conduct. No way was either Gardner's or Afellay's "laying on of hands" violent conduct. personally, if the ref can't see common sense and give them a yellow or a talking to then the offence should only be a one game ban - they were about as unviolent as you could get. They were so unviolent as to be pathetic. no such rule though. see 'Raising Your Hands' and other misconceptions There are numerous misconceptions about the laws of the game and it is only fair to point these out here. 1) “If you raise your hands, you’re going to get sent off” This is simply not a rule. If you ‘raise your hand’ and punch someone it is going to be considered violent conduct and you will be sent off. If you ‘raise your hand’ to appeal for offside you have not committed an offense and no action will be taken. It may sound petty but the fact is, no-one is sent off for raising their hands; they are sent off for violent conduct. The upshot being that if you push someone or put your hand on their face it may not necessarily be a red card although many commentators will say it should be, repeating the above phrase. The determining factor is whether the referee considers the conduct to be violent. flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/raising-your-hands-and-other.htmlIt has to be deemed "violent" Sending-off offencesA player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: •serious foul play •violent conduct •spitting at an opponent or any other person •denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) •denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick •using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures •receiving a second caution in the same match www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspxSo to go back to the Adam incident, I assume he was sent off for violent conduct on the say-so of the linesman. Whether you believe what he did was deliberate or not, it wasn't really violent conduct was it?
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Sept 2, 2015 16:19:29 GMT
no such rule though. see 'Raising Your Hands' and other misconceptions There are numerous misconceptions about the laws of the game and it is only fair to point these out here. 1) “If you raise your hands, you’re going to get sent off” This is simply not a rule. If you ‘raise your hand’ and punch someone it is going to be considered violent conduct and you will be sent off. If you ‘raise your hand’ to appeal for offside you have not committed an offense and no action will be taken. It may sound petty but the fact is, no-one is sent off for raising their hands; they are sent off for violent conduct. The upshot being that if you push someone or put your hand on their face it may not necessarily be a red card although many commentators will say it should be, repeating the above phrase. The determining factor is whether the referee considers the conduct to be violent. flawsofthegame.blogspot.co.uk/p/raising-your-hands-and-other.htmlIt has to be deemed "violent" Sending-off offencesA player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: •serious foul play •violent conduct •spitting at an opponent or any other person •denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) •denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick •using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures •receiving a second caution in the same match www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct.aspxSo to go back to the Adam incident, I assume he was sent off for violent conduct on the say-so of the linesman. Whether you believe what he did was deliberate or not, it wasn't really violent conduct was it? Sadly it doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't on a factual basis, if the referee believes it is (as told to him by the linesman) it is a sending off offence. It is a very subjective judgement as are most of the controversial rules. I am not sure whether he intended it or not but it didn't look that violent to me, however the referee understandably relied on what the linesman told him. The Affeley one was no more than handbags.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 16:25:40 GMT
Only the oatcake can moan about the FA reducing our player's ban, christ alive
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 2, 2015 16:26:26 GMT
Decent enough.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 2, 2015 16:56:21 GMT
Mark noble correctly gets his red rescinded but the FA Charge West Ham for failing to control their players in the aftermath of a very poor decision by the officials.
FA, fuck off
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 17:02:14 GMT
Happy with that, to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 17:24:25 GMT
Mark noble correctly gets his red rescinded but the FA Charge West Ham for failing to control their players in the aftermath of a very poor decision by the officials. FA, fuck off Talk about a Kangaroo court.
|
|
|
Post by 58Potter on Sept 2, 2015 17:31:23 GMT
And he said it whilst holding his crotch and jumping up and down frantically waving his little flag high above his head, oooooh he was excited bless him
|
|
|
Post by Roy Cropper on Sept 2, 2015 17:36:11 GMT
Only the oatcake can moan about the FA reducing our player's ban, christ alive Not really, if it was Rooney I'd be going mental. Slapping someone round the face is a three match ban, like someone else says it seems like a bit of a compromise by the FA.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 18:04:21 GMT
Only the oatcake can moan about the FA reducing our player's ban, christ alive Not really, if it was Rooney I'd be going mental. Slapping someone round the face is a three match ban, like someone else says it seems like a bit of a compromise by the FA. I swear the main complaint I hear about the FA is their bias towards the big teams. Here we are, little old Stoke, getting our ban reduced thanks to the FA and everyone still has a fucking moan.
|
|
|
Post by drjeffsdiscobarge on Sept 2, 2015 18:24:05 GMT
Violent conduct - 3 games Bitch slapping - 2 games Mild goosing (absence of deep heat on goosing finger) - 1 game
Simple really.
|
|