|
Post by WoodbineWright2@ on Jan 4, 2016 22:58:44 GMT
The ex-manager will let this one roll as it was against us and he'd do anything to turn us over to prove some fucked up point in his own tiny mind. When they do it against someone else the hypocritical toe rag will come out and have a pop at his players. The bloke is an A1 shite house. It makes you realize where all the bile & bitterness aimed at him in the media came from during his time here. We knew he liked to have his teams disrupt & annoy the opposition, but against us, he's stepped it up a couple of notches. He really is one horrible, two faced, hypocritical bastard !!
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Jan 4, 2016 23:02:11 GMT
The vast majority of managers, if not all of them, talk the anti cheating rhetotric and then when one or more of their own players cheat they say nothing or claim they didn't see the incidents. Pulis is no different to the rest of them, it's simply that when he was our manager we listened more intently to his comments so we can quote them now as evidence against him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 23:04:57 GMT
The vast majority of managers, if not all of them, talk the anti cheating rhetotric and then when one or more of their own players cheat they say nothing or claim they didn't see the incidents. Pulis is no different to the rest of them, it's simply that when he was our manager we listened more intently to his comments so we can quote them now as evidence against him. Hes just a lying shithouse though. "i didn't see it....I'll have to see it again....he slapped him on the neck or something" Oh fuck off. You saw it, we all fucking saw it. Stop being a cunt.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 4, 2016 23:08:53 GMT
Totally agree. Their judgement implies it was an obvious mistake. As the ref was looking at the incident the reason for the obvious mistake must have been the actions of Yacob. This must be a almost the perfect case where this could be applied (especially since it wouldn't mean challenging Man U, Chelsea, Citeh, Arse) It’s also important to note that, while it’s not directly mentioned in the documentation, it’s widely reported that the Commission doesn’t take other players’ reactions into account when making their decision. So, if I take a swing at another player and miss, the fact that the other player dives and draws the card does not affect the Commission’s decision. They’re only concerned with whether I intended to hit him. That’s the basics of how the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process works. Next, we’ll talk about the two most important features of the process: the Commission’s role in the decision, and the concept of “obvious error.” playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/06/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-one/Whilst that is generally a good summary, it was produced in Feb 14 and therefore pre-dates the change introduced this season which I mentioned above, namely that exaggeration or feigning injury which deceives the referee in cases where a player is dismissed for violent conduct may lead to an FA charge.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 4, 2016 23:20:59 GMT
That used to be the system but it isn't anymore. When an appeal is lodged the match ref. is not involved at all in the proceedings. The commission looks at the refs. written report on why the player was dismissed, which is produced after the game for all dismissals; it looks at the submitted written grounds of appeal and, most crucially, at the video evidence which can be from various camera angles, and is watched in slomo as many times as the Commission feels it needs to watch it to reach a decision. The commission first hears from a former ref. who reminds the commission of exactly what the relevant law of the game and the guidance on how to interpret it say, and answers any questions on that from Commission members. Once that is complete, the former ref takes no part in the decision. Despite what is sometimes said on this Board and elsewhere, in my experience it is a fair and thorough procedure. Malcolm do you know what the actual process is for the punishment to be awarded to the player who exaggerates/feigns injury as per your post earlier? Do Stoke City have to appeal any further to get the process moving? Cheers Since my earlier reply, I have now looked up the process for this, Paul. This case is eligible for consideration under the new process because an appeal against dismissal for violent conduct has been successful. If such a charge is laid by the FA it will normally be done within 3 working days of the incident and the player then has 3 days to respond. In other words, the issue is not determined by the commission hearing which overturned the dismissal, and it is still possible that the FA could charge the WBA player, based on the evidence they have. We will all have to wait and see whether or not that occurs in this case.
|
|
baddo
Youth Player
Posts: 455
|
Post by baddo on Jan 4, 2016 23:21:33 GMT
I think WBA at home next season may make for an interesting atmosphere. The actions of certain WBA players this season against us will add further spice to an already tasty fixture.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jan 4, 2016 23:25:38 GMT
Football is like politics Pugs, if you want to survive and win you almost certainly have to be an A1 shite house, as you call it. So, like many before you, you agree that he's an A1 shite house. Glad we've got that one sorted. Carry on... OS.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 4, 2016 23:39:17 GMT
Malcolm do you know what the actual process is for the punishment to be awarded to the player who exaggerates/feigns injury as per your post earlier? Do Stoke City have to appeal any further to get the process moving? Cheers Since my earlier reply, I have now looked up the process for this, Paul. This case is eligible for consideration under the new process because an appeal against dismissal for violent conduct has been successful. If such a charge is laid by the FA it will normally be done within 3 working days of the incident and the player then has 3 days to respond. In other words, the issue is not determined by the commission hearing which overturned the dismissal, and it is still possible that the FA could charge the WBA player, based on the evidence they have. We will all have to wait and see whether or not that occurs in this case. Thanks for this Malcolm. But surely somebody, somewhere will need to take the initiative and put the wheels in motion on this ... Just because an appeal against dismissal for violent conduct has been successful, doesn't then mean that that successful appeal in itself will AUTOMATICALLY trigger an investigation into whether a player involved in the incident exaggerated or feigned injury? Why would it, the two things are completely separate areas for investigation? What SPECIFICALLY has to happen for Yacob's actions to now fall under any sort of scrutiny from the FA? Surely they won't look at it unless they are prompted to do so? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 5:19:21 GMT
Massive boost for us that it has now been overturned, things really looking good for tonight, both for us, and against the dippers...Goooooaaaarrrrrnnnnnnnnn Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Jan 5, 2016 5:34:58 GMT
I still think we should have a rule where if you fake an injury it gets done to you after the game. I'd volunteer to go get the bat for that whining gobshite Yacob.
I hope Tone chewed his ear off. Maybe a punch in the shower?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 5:36:20 GMT
The vast majority of managers, if not all of them, talk the anti cheating rhetotric and then when one or more of their own players cheat they say nothing or claim they didn't see the incidents. Pulis is no different to the rest of them, it's simply that when he was our manager we listened more intently to his comments so we can quote them now as evidence against him. Bilious spew.
|
|
|
Post by stokemanusa on Jan 5, 2016 5:57:48 GMT
So glad the dirty WBA players couldn't spurn our chances at silverware. Good for the overturning of a dubious effort to send off a competing player. Scum part of the game, diving... faking injury and malicious fouls... ruins the beautiful game.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Jan 5, 2016 8:55:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jan 5, 2016 9:07:55 GMT
Wow!
Genuinely and pleasantly surprised at this being overturned!!!
Definitely couldn't see it myself being rescinded but very impressed at the decision.
Disappointed in Pulis if he chooses not to make any comment on his player's behaviour.....poor judgement on his part IMO.
Great to have the boost of Cameron available tonight!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 9:10:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by j3st3r on Jan 5, 2016 9:27:10 GMT
Very happy.. but a little bemused.. I think this just brings more ambiguity into the raising of the hands rule... (if there even is such a rule ) Does anyone know for sure what the actual wording is.?
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Jan 5, 2016 9:39:19 GMT
great that it has been rescinded - but it still cost us the game, there's no compensation for that.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 5, 2016 10:08:49 GMT
Since my earlier reply, I have now looked up the process for this, Paul. This case is eligible for consideration under the new process because an appeal against dismissal for violent conduct has been successful. If such a charge is laid by the FA it will normally be done within 3 working days of the incident and the player then has 3 days to respond. In other words, the issue is not determined by the commission hearing which overturned the dismissal, and it is still possible that the FA could charge the WBA player, based on the evidence they have. We will all have to wait and see whether or not that occurs in this case. Thanks for this Malcolm. But surely somebody, somewhere will need to take the initiative and put the wheels in motion on this ... Just because an appeal against dismissal for violent conduct has been successful, doesn't then mean that that successful appeal in itself will AUTOMATICALLY trigger an investigation into whether a player involved in the incident exaggerated or feigned injury? Why would it, the two things are completely separate areas for investigation? What SPECIFICALLY has to happen for Yacob's actions to now fall under any sort of scrutiny from the FA? Surely they won't look at it unless they are prompted to do so? Cheers Paul, there is a 'prosecuting' department within the FA (which is at arms length from the independent regulatory commissions which hear the cases). They decide to 'prosecute' based on information which they become aware of, by whatever means (including TV coverage). You can be 100% sure they will be aware of all the circumstances of this incident, because of course Cameron was charged ( which is automatic for a straight red card) and his case was considered by a Commission. They will decide whether or not to charge the WBA player based on all the information they have (which of course is more than the 'public' have, for example, they have the referees written report and will probably have seen video of the incident from more angles than was shown on TV).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jan 5, 2016 10:33:35 GMT
Thanks for this Malcolm. But surely somebody, somewhere will need to take the initiative and put the wheels in motion on this ... Just because an appeal against dismissal for violent conduct has been successful, doesn't then mean that that successful appeal in itself will AUTOMATICALLY trigger an investigation into whether a player involved in the incident exaggerated or feigned injury? Why would it, the two things are completely separate areas for investigation? What SPECIFICALLY has to happen for Yacob's actions to now fall under any sort of scrutiny from the FA? Surely they won't look at it unless they are prompted to do so? Cheers Paul, there is a 'prosecuting' department within the FA (which is at arms length from the independent regulatory commissions which hear the cases). They decide to 'prosecute' based on information which they become aware of, by whatever means (including TV coverage). You can be 100% sure they will be aware of all the circumstances of this incident, because of course Cameron was charged ( which is automatic for a straight red card) and his case was considered by a Commission. They will decide whether or not to charge the WBA player based on all the information they have (which of course is more than the 'public' have, for example, they have the referees written report and will probably have seen video of the incident from more angles than was shown on TV). Thanks Malcolm
|
|
|
Post by meirparkpotter on Jan 5, 2016 10:40:31 GMT
Very happy.. but a little bemused.. I think this just brings more ambiguity into the raising of the hands rule... (if there even is such a rule ) Does anyone know for sure what the actual wording is.? The interpretation for referee's to follow is: " Rule 12: 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 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."There doesn't appear to be any wording around simply raising a hand, I think this is a common misconception and I have no idea where this comes from, but maybe from our understanding of criminal law, whereby raising a hand can be seen as assault?... In this case I think the decision to rescind is right. Whilst Geoff's behaviour was unsporting (which is only a cautionable offence), it certainly wasn't violent or malicious. Yacob's behaviour after the incident is also a cautionable offence under Rule 12 ("attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)" and I think this will have added weight to our appeal
|
|
|
Post by j3st3r on Jan 5, 2016 10:58:24 GMT
Very happy.. but a little bemused.. I think this just brings more ambiguity into the raising of the hands rule... (if there even is such a rule ) Does anyone know for sure what the actual wording is.? The interpretation for referee's to follow is: " Rule 12: 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 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."There doesn't appear to be any wording around simply raising a hand, I think this is a common misconception and I have no idea where this comes from, but maybe from our understanding of criminal law, whereby raising a hand can be seen as assault?... In this case I think the decision to rescind is right. Whilst Geoff's behaviour was unsporting (which is only a cautionable offence), it certainly wasn't violent or malicious. Yacob's behaviour after the incident is also a cautionable offence under Rule 12 ("attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)" and I think this will have added weight to our appeal Top work... that's very interesting... especially the "when not challenging for the ball" bit.. almost as though you can use violence when challenging (although I'm sure there is another rule that covers that). I always suspected the raising of hands was a misconception, but its one that is frequently used by pundits to justify a straight red.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Jan 5, 2016 11:39:09 GMT
So, from what Malcolm has said above the FA have until tomorrow (3 working days) to decide whether to level a charge against Yacob. If they do this no doubt it will be made public, if nothing else to demonstrate the FA's commitment to come down hard on divers/cheats. But if it's decided not to charge him, will that be made public along with the reasons why not, or will it be just left to lie I wonder
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jan 5, 2016 12:19:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jan 5, 2016 12:30:16 GMT
Are they really that stupid that they think the FA would've rescinded Cameron's ban if he'd struck Yacob on the head? Christ almighty.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Jan 5, 2016 12:33:54 GMT
To be honest the 2 points they stole as a result should be more than enough compensation for them, they just need to pinch themselves about their good fortune and move on.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jan 5, 2016 12:45:45 GMT
The ex-manager will let this one roll as it was against us and he'd do anything to turn us over to prove some fucked up point in his own tiny mind. When they do it against someone else the hypocritical toe rag will come out and have a pop at his players. The bloke is an A1 shite house. It makes you realize where all the bile & bitterness aimed at him in the media came from during his time here. We knew he liked to have his teams disrupt & annoy the opposition, but against us, he's stepped it up a couple of notches. He really is one horrible, two faced, hypocritical bastard !! TP had nothing whatsoever to do with the red card!
|
|
|
Post by superpej on Jan 5, 2016 13:00:03 GMT
FA sees sense shock
Cameron was never "violent" in my book.
This "raised his hands" is a load of pundits bollocks like "had the right to go down".
This is supposed to be a contact sport/man's game where refs have to distinguish leading with the elbow with the intention of damaging someone's face or head or a two foot challenge designed to do physical damage or a deliberate swing of the fist from a mild push to the back of the head or chest.
Obvious at the time that the ref had been conned now I await justice to be called on the WBA player for play acting
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Jan 5, 2016 13:14:29 GMT
Lads and lasses, I saw a photo on here yesterday of the cheating bastard peeping whilst he was on the ground holding his head...
Can't seem to find it today, could anyone repost it please? I want to send it to a BongBong fan
|
|
|
Post by Onneravineet on Jan 5, 2016 13:15:21 GMT
Lads and lasses, I saw a photo on here yesterday of the cheating bastard peeping whilst he was on the ground holding his head...
Can't seem to find it today, could anyone repost it please? I want to send it to a BongBong fan
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 13:16:53 GMT
Wow! Genuinely and pleasantly surprised at this being overturned!!! Definitely couldn't see it myself being rescinded but very impressed at the decision. Disappointed in Pulis if he chooses not to make any comment on his player's behaviour.....poor judgement on his part IMO. Great to have the boost of Cameron available tonight!! Thought we might have seen a reduction as Affelay's was but didn't expect it to be completely successful!
|
|