|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 29, 2020 15:13:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 29, 2020 15:14:40 GMT
Odd. Surely it was 3 or none?
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 29, 2020 15:15:30 GMT
Odd. Surely it was 3 or none? Exactly |
|
|
|
Post by Billybigbollox on Sept 29, 2020 15:16:00 GMT
Odd. Surely it was 3 or none? Yes very strange. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 29, 2020 15:16:47 GMT
Odd. Surely it was 3 or none? Exactly It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. |
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 29, 2020 15:18:55 GMT
It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. Not as far as I know it doesn’t🤔One game bans are normally for 2 bookings or being the last man in a sending off aren’t they? |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 29, 2020 15:26:58 GMT
It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. Not as far as I know it doesn’t🤔One game bans are normally for 2 bookings or being the last man in a sending off aren’t they? As far as I'm aware yeah. Very strange. |
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on Sept 29, 2020 15:31:36 GMT
It was either a red or it wasn’t. I think what they’ve done here is decided it was an orange...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 15:44:27 GMT
Probably wanted to rescind but decided not to just to piss Neil off......
|
|
|
|
Post by sheds1862 on Sept 29, 2020 15:50:37 GMT
Obviously on this occasion ( for once ) it went for us.
I find the rescinding all too much of the horse has bolted scenario.
I realise it means that the player is available to play quicker but the damage is already done to numerous teams by the original decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 29, 2020 15:59:25 GMT
It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. Not as far as I know it doesn’t🤔One game bans are normally for 2 bookings or being the last man in a sending off aren’t they? There's definitely a one-game option for red cards. Three is for violent conduct maybe? But they basically almost always decide reds are violent conduct. Something like that. |
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Sept 29, 2020 16:10:44 GMT
one match ban for a professional foul or two bookings. Two for dissent and three for violent conduct. I'm not quite sure how that could be classed as a professional foul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 29, 2020 16:11:58 GMT
Fudged it
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 29, 2020 16:13:55 GMT
one match ban for a professional foul or two bookings. Two for dissent and three for violent conduct. I'm not quite sure how that could be classed as a professional foul. They aren't the only options for a one-match ban. Serious foul play or use of excessive force can be one match as well, and each case is examined on its merits. |
|
|
|
Post by pmjh on Sept 29, 2020 16:18:50 GMT
one match ban for a professional foul or two bookings. Two for dissent and three for violent conduct. I'm not quite sure how that could be classed as a professional foul. They aren't the only options for a one-match ban. Serious foul play or use of excessive force can be one match as well, and each case is examined on its merits. yes you're right I didn't read that bit. " each case is examined based on it's own merits and bans may be reduced or extended" |
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on Sept 29, 2020 16:38:41 GMT
Correct decision, in my opinion he slipped and it was accidental but was dangerous to Fox, thus not intentional. Even a PNE fan i spoke to today thought it was a red and would not be rescinded.
|
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Sept 29, 2020 16:57:56 GMT
Probably wanted to rescind but decided not to just to piss Neil off...... Was about to post something similar.They probably thought the cunt will moan whatever we do so here's something to moan at Alex. |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 29, 2020 17:03:26 GMT
It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. I actually think there should be a punishment between the 2 extremes of 0 and 3 games, this is a good sign imo. They extend 3 game bans so why not reduce them? I'm not saying whether the judgement in this case is right. |
|
|
|
Post by mattador78 on Sept 29, 2020 17:14:38 GMT
Correct decision, in my opinion he slipped and it was accidental but was dangerous to Fox, thus not intentional. Even a PNE fan i spoke to today thought it was a red and would not be rescinded. That was my opinion the fact he tried to pull out of it then slipped was what made it dangerous. If he had been committed knowing our luck Fox would have been the one walking not him |
|
|
|
Post by blackpoolred on Sept 29, 2020 17:43:45 GMT
What a load of bollox - the ref fecked up - admit it - remove the ban completely and move on
|
|
|
|
Post by Caerwrangonpotter on Sept 29, 2020 17:50:14 GMT
If it had been Stoke City appealing it would have gone up to a 5 game ban for being cheeky feckers
|
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Sept 29, 2020 17:53:59 GMT
They aren't the only options for a one-match ban. Serious foul play or use of excessive force can be one match as well, and each case is examined on its merits. yes you're right I didn't read that bit. " each case is examined based on it's own merits and bans may be reduced or extended" ...which suggests that the "go to" position is a 3 game ban, and without the appeal that would have stood? Why don't they do the "examination" first, then announce the length of the ban? Then why do the FA do all sorts of odd things...  |
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Sept 29, 2020 19:41:19 GMT
I sit on FA disciplinary panels ( never involving Stoke City of course). There is provision for upholding the dismissal but reducing the sanction under the fast track 5 procedure, which I reproduce below. I think its use is relative rare, probably because of the "truly exceptional" requirement, which is a high threshold.
This Fast Track 5 sets out the process where a Player or their Club seeks to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of the Player from the field of play by demonstrating that the circumstances of the dismissal were truly exceptional such that the standard punishment, set out in Part D: On-Field Regulations, would be clearly excessive. It shall apply to Players of Clubs in Categories 1, 2 and 3.
2 The ability to claim under this Fast Track 5 is provided only so exceptional cases may be rectified. It is not intended to lead to the systematic, regular review of standard punishments. Regulatory Commissions should approach such cases with these principles in mind and it is envisaged that, in the vast majority of dismissals, the standard punishments will be appropriate and will be applied.
3 The Regulatory Commission that considers a claim of this type is concerned with only the question of whether the standard punishment should not be imposed in view of the truly exceptional facts of the case. This role is not to usurp the role of the Referee nor to scrutinise the correctness of the dismissal from the field of play, which shall remain on the record of the Club and the Player, will remain the subject of the administration fee and will accrue the appropriate number of penalty points for a first team sending-off.
4 Claims under this Fast Track 5 may only be lodged in relation on-field offences which result in a dismissal for offensive or insulting or abusive language / gestures, serious foul play, violent conduct, or spitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by RF10 on Sept 29, 2020 20:16:41 GMT
For as much as I don't like it if VAR had been involved he wouldn't have been sent off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 23:54:59 GMT
For as much as I don't like it if VAR had been involved he wouldn't have been sent off. although previous meetings would have worked in reverse for them Still not sure, Was he out of control? Maybe both feet raised ? Yes Worse than say Huth v Sunderland ? yes for me We know how sneaky PNE are so only the player knows if deliberate or not. He didn't protest |
|
|
|
Post by Sfance on Sept 30, 2020 0:12:20 GMT
I think the fact that he didn't protest speaks volumes, in fact, it's almost unheard of.
|
|
|
|
Post by s7oke on Sept 30, 2020 2:59:30 GMT
It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. Fuckwittery I love that word ! |
|
|
|
Post by rickyfullerbeer on Sept 30, 2020 10:33:18 GMT
It doesnt fit any rule does it? I mean I think it should have been rescinded but that's a bollocks fence sitting piece of fuckwittery from the FA right there. Fits the 'we're just making it up as we go along' narrative well. |
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 30, 2020 17:15:16 GMT
Odd. Surely it was 3 or none? No it can be 1,2 or 3 in an appeal depending on the perceived severity. Assume the fact he slipped helped him |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 30, 2020 17:17:01 GMT
Odd. Surely it was 3 or none? No it can be 1,2 or 3 in an appeal depending on the perceived severity. Assume the fact he slipped helped him But in a game you would get sent off for that for a violent/excessive force/whatever the word is tackle and that's a 3 game ban. If you think they slip then you don't get sent off surely? |
|
.
.
.
.
