“Handling the ball involves a DELIBERATE act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm."
The point about yesterday is that it was a decision that had to be made and I think the fact the hand moved to the ball and was in a blocking position did for the player, but it is a decision that could have gone either way IMO.
A bit difficult to work out what was going through the AS players mind - probably something not very pleasant if the rest are anything to go by - so in the absence of psychic officials knowing whether it was deliberate ( as opposed to a reflex reaction) or not is pretty impossible: so I think the correct thing is to look for hand to ball movement or just an idiot going in with their hands in a silly position.
Are coaches usually on first name terms with the ref?
I wonder if the ref really said that. I suspect he’s more likely to have said he didn’t see it. If he genuinely didn’t think it was a penalty he would have over-ruled the Lino wouldn’t he?
I thought that, there is no way a ref would say to assistant or coach whatever he is that he didnt think it was a pen.
Personally, I think it was a 70:30 not a penalty. The hand was a bit high and moved to the ball ......
That's the key point, Muttley.
Hand to ball, it's specified in the Laws of the game.
It looks to me though as if he was trying to move his arm away from the ball?
Only after his hand made contact with the ball.
Before that in slo-mo video and in Oohaah's photos above, you can see his arm was low by his side as Reeves prepares to shoot, and the hand was high at the contact with the ball - so his hand is moving towards the ball at the time.
Are coaches usually on first name terms with the ref?
I wonder if the ref really said that. I suspect he’s more likely to have said he didn’t see it. If he genuinely didn’t think it was a penalty he would have over-ruled the Lino wouldn’t he?
I thought that, there is no way a ref would say to assistant or coach whatever he is that he didnt think it was a pen.
Personally, I think it was a 70:30 not a penalty. The hand was a bit high and moved to the ball ......
That's the key point, Muttley.
Hand to ball, it's specified in the Laws of the game.
It looks to me though as if he was trying to move his arm away from the ball?
But his arm shouldn't have been out at 90 degrees and he moved it too late. What if players in a wall stood there with their arms raised and then couldn't move their arms down quick enough ?
A typical game is full of contentious decisions and it doesn't help that you have both sides questioning your ability to make the right ones. You also don't have long to make the decision and I'm sure an inexperienced ref may dwell on some and suspect he may have got them wrong. Teams try to play on this to get decisions their way. Experienced refs will not dwell on decision and think about paying people back but the pressure of situations and decisions can get to many of them IMO because they are human.
Perhaps the lino wanted to get back at the referee for not protecting him from the
Are coaches usually on first name terms with the ref?
I wonder if the ref really said that. I suspect he’s more likely to have said he didn’t see it. If he genuinely didn’t think it was a penalty he would have over-ruled the Lino wouldn’t he?
I thought that, there is no way a ref would say to assistant or coach whatever he is that he didnt think it was a pen.
Personally, I think it was a 70:30 not a penalty. The hand was a bit high and moved to the ball ......
That's the key point, Muttley.
Hand to ball, it's specified in the Laws of the game.
It looks to me though as if he was trying to move his arm away from the ball?
But his arm shouldn't have been out at 90 degrees and he moved it too late. What if players in a wall stood there with their arms raised and then couldn't move their arms down quick enough ?
that would be deliberate but not hand to ball - which suggests that Rule 12 means either deliberate or hand to ball, otherwise reflex reactions would also not result in hand balls. What if a goalie made a mistake as to where his area was and handled outside the area - that wouldn't meet the dictionary definition of deliberate would it?
The referee was a pain in the are long before the end. His constant stopping of the game disrupted the flow and we just never built up any momentum.
The 2 save from Phillips were crucial and turning the 1 point into 3 was massive and has opened up a nice gap between 7th place and keeps us well within touch of those above us.
I was talking on the phone with my Dad last night and whilst I wont be surprised if I'm wrong I'll be even less surprised if I'm right
When you compare this season with last it felt as though anyone from 5th down to 9th could have gotten into the Play-Offs whilst Rotherham in fourth were never really that far away had we won just a few more games
This season though it almost feels as though the top six is pretty much confirmed (Peterborough or Doncaster the only change that might happen at the moment?) and its just a matter of deciding which order those six will finish, of course though we're still only in January so still a good chance for another team to come out of no where really.
This season there aren't really any surprise packages fighting for promotion, the top 7 are pretty much the clubs most people would expect to be up there, when you look at their resources
A typical game is full of contentious decisions and it doesn't help that you have both sides questioning your ability to make the right ones. You also don't have long to make the decision and I'm sure an inexperienced ref may dwell on some and suspect he may have got them wrong. Teams try to play on this to get decisions their way. Experienced refs will not dwell on decision and think about paying people back but the pressure of situations and decisions can get to many of them IMO because they are human.
Which is of course why players get in the officials face - if they cannot overturn a particular decision they want to try and influence the next one. If the officials want to stop it they can do so by booking for dissent very early on, but the coward on Saturday bottled it.
Are coaches usually on first name terms with the ref?
I wonder if the ref really said that. I suspect he’s more likely to have said he didn’t see it. If he genuinely didn’t think it was a penalty he would have over-ruled the Lino wouldn’t he?
I thought that, there is no way a ref would say to assistant or coach whatever he is that he didnt think it was a pen.
Personally, I think it was a 70:30 not a penalty. The hand was a bit high and moved to the ball ......
That's the key point, Muttley.
Hand to ball, it's specified in the Laws of the game.
It looks to me though as if he was trying to move his arm away from the ball?
But his arm shouldn't have been out at 90 degrees and he moved it too late. What if players in a wall stood there with their arms raised and then couldn't move their arms down quick enough ?
Fair point - it was one of those decisions that go 50-50 depending on the ref. Think we've all seen them, from the Premiership down. Be interesting if VAR had been available.
Are coaches usually on first name terms with the ref?
I wonder if the ref really said that. I suspect he’s more likely to have said he didn’t see it. If he genuinely didn’t think it was a penalty he would have over-ruled the Lino wouldn’t he?
I thought that, there is no way a ref would say to assistant or coach whatever he is that he didnt think it was a pen.
Personally, I think it was a 70:30 not a penalty. The hand was a bit high and moved to the ball ......
That's the key point, Muttley.
Hand to ball, it's specified in the Laws of the game.
It looks to me though as if he was trying to move his arm away from the ball?
But his arm shouldn't have been out at 90 degrees and he moved it too late. What if players in a wall stood there with their arms raised and then couldn't move their arms down quick enough ?
Fair point - it was one of those decisions that go 50-50 depending on the ref. Think we've all seen them, from the Premiership down. Be interesting if VAR had been available.
Not sure VAR would or indeed should overturn such a decision as it wasn't a factual error where the ball had struck him on the head or shoulder.
It's like bad tackles which could be a lenient yellow or a harsh red, a lot comes down to the opinion of the referee.
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission. The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission. The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
Taylor does flick his foot towards the keeper. Softly, but he does. So be interesting to see what the outcome is.
I do know there have been a few overturned this season. I was genuinely surprised the Pompey one against us was overturned in all honesty which should give us some hope.
The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?"
So if the refs written report say "Charlton player punched the AS Keeper" when he didn't then that is an obvious error IF the video shows that.
The club have appealed and submitted evidence so either they think the film clears Taylor or they are chancing their arm.
It comes down to what the lino told the ref and what the ref put in his report.
a game that shows we can now mix it with the nastiest of sides, come out even at worst and are getting better at it .. pity it took this long, BUT of course, better now than never
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission. The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
Is there a summary of why Osei Sankofa’s appeal was considered frivolous?
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission. The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
Is there a summary of why Osei Sankofa’s appeal was considered frivolous?
Because Charlton had the temerity to be playing in The Premier League against the mighty Arsenal and we should just shut up and get on with it.
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission. The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
Is there a summary of why Osei Sankofa’s appeal was considered frivolous?
Because Charlton had the temerity to be playing in The Premier League against the mighty Arsenal and we should just shut up and get on with it.
Followed by Chelsea providing a beach to play on.
Yeah, obviously. But seriously, is there an actual summary as to why it was deemed frivolous? I’ve never quite understood how that happened.
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission. The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
Taylor does flick his foot towards the keeper. Softly, but he does. So be interesting to see what the outcome is.
Comments
Before that in slo-mo video and in Oohaah's photos above, you can see his arm was low by his side as Reeves prepares to shoot, and the hand was high at the contact with the ball - so his hand is moving towards the ball at the time.
See our resident ref Peter Gage's earlier post.
Unlike us Sunderland hardly ever lose - 2 losses versus 8 - but on the flip side they draw an awful lot of games - 11 versus 5.
It's like bad tackles which could be a lenient yellow or a harsh red, a lot comes down to the opinion of the referee.
If only Lyle were Alan Shearer it would have been rescinded on Saturday night along with a handwritten letter of apology from the ref.
From 2014 but best I could find @PeterGage might know more
"In this two-part series, we’ll start with the Wrongful Dismissal Claims process itself and then talk about the reasons why some claims are successful and most aren’t.
Wrongful Dismissal
This process was designed by FA to “allow a Player and his Club to seek to limit the disciplinary consequences of the dismissal of a Player from the Field of Play.”
Read that sentence carefully, because we’ll come back to it. Long and short: It’s not about ‘overturning’ any card. It’s about being sure the collateral damage of a straight red card – the suspension – is fair.
Here are the basics of lodging a claim:
It was a straight sending off – You can’t appeal a sending off that comes from receiving two cautions in the same match.
Clubs must lodge the complaint for the player and in a timely manner – They have until 1pm the next working day to do so.
Clubs pay for the privilege – Premier League clubs pay £1500 to lodge the claim. Lower league clubs pay progressively less. If they lose their appeal, they don’t get the fee back.
Only written and video (DVD) evidence is allowed – Neither the clubs nor the referees can address the Commission in person.
A three-person Commission is convened – The FA confirms that everything is in order, and then hands the case over to this commission.
The Commission’s ruling is absolute – There are no appeals allowed after a Commission has decided.
If the Commission upholds the punishment, they then consider whether or not to increase it – If the Commission decides that the claim had no prospect of success or could be considered abuse of the system, they can add additional matches to the suspension, up to the maximum given (so, three, in standard cases). This is used quite rarely, obviously, due to how controversial it could prove to be.
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.”
When clubs or the media talk about “overturning a red card”, that’s really not accurate. The red card stands, as do all the in-game consequences. The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.
It’s a fine line, but an important one.
The Wrongful Dismissal process isn’t designed to be used to prove the refs wrong or punish “bad” refs. In fact, it could be argued that the process is in place as much to protect referees as anything else.
Whatever fans may say about them at the weekend, these referees are – pretty much to a man – good men who want to do a good job. I doubt there are many who enjoy going home, turning on the telly and watching themselves make a mistake that costs a team and a player. In those cases, the Wrongful Dismissal process is a way to mitigate something that can’t be eliminated from the game: human error.
Because, you know…it’s played and refereed by humans.
Obvious Error
The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?
Keeping those two things in mind then, let’s look at the two latest Wrongful Dismissal appeals.
Tottenham’s Danny Rose: Appeal Successful
In the Tottenham match, Andre Marriner was behind Rose and Dzeko when the former tackled the latter, so his view could be considered obstructed. Even so, he started to signal for a corner, but stopped when he was advised by his linesman that it was denial of a goal scoring opportunity. Replays showed definitively that Marriner’s first instinct was right, and the linesman was wrong, so that constituted an obvious error. Rose’s ban was lifted.
West Ham’s Andy Carroll: Appeal Unsuccessful
By contrast, in the West Ham match, Howard Webb had a clear view (despite what Sam Allardyce claimed, video replay shows Webb was minimally impeded by other players, if at all). He was waving off the players as they tussled, and signaled immediately when he saw Carroll – who’d just forcibly pushed Flores off him – swing his arm. You can say that it was a harsh sending off. You can say that Chico Flores was playacting. But that’s not the Commission’s role and they don’t take either of those things into account. So, no obvious error, and Carroll’s suspension is upheld.
You can also read the FA’s memorandum on dismissals and appeals yourself if you’d like. (And why wouldn’t you? Because it’s not at all dry and boring and soul-sucking.)
"Obvious Error
The most critical piece of information the Commission weighs is whether or not there was an “obvious error” that led to the sending off. This is, again, pretty important and a high bar, which is why most claims are rejected. This isn’t just about a team disagreeing with the call. The Commission isn’t deciding whether or not they agree with the referee’s interpretation of the rules, whether they think he was overly harsh or whether Chico Flores is a cheating bum. (He is.)
The only question they ask is: Did the referee make a real, live, honest to goodness mistake?"
So if the refs written report say "Charlton player punched the AS Keeper" when he didn't then that is an obvious error IF the video shows that.
The club have appealed and submitted evidence so either they think the film clears Taylor or they are chancing their arm.
It comes down to what the lino told the ref and what the ref put in his report.
Explains clearly the way the procedure works.
Followed by Chelsea providing a beach to play on.
But seriously, is there an actual summary as to why it was deemed frivolous? I’ve never quite understood how that happened.