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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
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.
Read this article. The Premier League backed Charlton. The FA said it was frivolous, but according to this, they never explained why.
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.
Read this article. The Premier League backed Charlton. The FA said it was frivolous, but according to this, they never explained why.
Thanks @Covered End Never seen that before. Odd that since then it seems it just got forgotten about without any explanation. Unless anyone on here who’s in touch with Peter Varney can find out if there was a conclusion to this?
Richard Cawley's report on the match. Charlton Athletic have tunnel cameras but the footage from Saturday’s skirmish with Accrington Stanley is never likely to see the light of day.
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
Violent conduct
Eh?
For those that need clarification re a sending off for Violent Conduct, the terminology used in The Laws of the Game is "Using excessive force". Not being at the game, I cannot offer my personal view on the specific Taylor incident.
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
Violent conduct
Eh?
There are not "degrees" of violent conduct. A kick is violent conduct whether it is a light flick or trying to break a leg. Same as raising the hands gets the same punishment as a punch to the face.
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
Violent conduct
Eh?
There are not "degrees" of violent conduct. A kick is violent conduct whether it is a light flick or trying to break a leg. Same as raising the hands gets the same punishment as a punch to the face.
Not strickly true. It is true that Violent Conduct will incur a minimum of a 3 match ban, regardless of the level of force used, providing the force used is considered to be excessive by the match referee.
A player who raises his hand but is not thought by the referee to do so to strike the opponent, will not be sent off. "Striking" in this case could include grabbing the throat of the opponent or pushing your flat hand the face of the opponent.
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
Violent conduct
Eh?
There are not "degrees" of violent conduct. A kick is violent conduct whether it is a light flick or trying to break a leg. Same as raising the hands gets the same punishment as a punch to the face.
Not strickly true. It is true that Violent Conduct will incur a minimum of a 3 match ban, regardless of the level of force used, providing the force used is considered to be excessive by the match referee.
A player who raises his hand but is not thought by the referee to do so to strike the opponent, will not be sent off. "Striking" in this case could include grabbing the throat of the opponent or pushing your flat hand the face of the opponent.
Is that the basis of our appeal? We may be claiming that the referee was incorrect in his decision that excessive force was used, meaning it wasn’t enough to justify a sending off. That would make sense to me. If there was video evidence that it was a light flick after he was pushed over, rather than excessive force, then we might be in with a chance.
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
Violent conduct
Eh?
For those that need clarification re a sending off for Violent Conduct, the terminology used in The Laws of the Game is "Using excessive force". Not being at the game, I cannot offer my personal view on the specific Taylor incident.
I don't think many who were at the game can either. I certainly can't. It wasn't easy to see if it happened.
According to the Stanley website, their keeper has had his red card overturned. Strange that his appeal has been heard, yet Taylor's won't be heard until Thursday.
According to the Stanley website, their keeper has had his red card overturned. Strange that his appeal has been heard, yet Taylor's won't be heard until Thursday.
I believe I read somewhere that the appeal will be heard by Thursday ..... meaning any time up until.
According to the Stanley website, their keeper has had his red card overturned. Strange that his appeal has been heard, yet Taylor's won't be heard until Thursday.
I believe I read somewhere that the appeal will be heard by Thursday ..... meaning any time up until.
I fail to see why Ross Sykes has not been charged for the same offence. But I'm afraid nothing surprises me any longer from an organisation that regards Duchatelet and Abramovich as fit and proper.
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.
In which case the appeal is doomed to fail.
I think they can reduce the severity of the punishment if they believe it is out of proportion to the crime. A foot flick might be considered pretty mild. Might get a one match ban.
He was sent off for violent conduct and that comes with a 3 match ban. Only thing we can get is him off completely, there is no reduction in the number of games
It didn’t look very violent to me. Even flicking a leg out a bit is hardly violent. So perhaps that’ll help the appeal? Isn’t violent conduct the two footed studs up type of challenge?
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
Violent conduct
Eh?
There are not "degrees" of violent conduct. A kick is violent conduct whether it is a light flick or trying to break a leg. Same as raising the hands gets the same punishment as a punch to the face.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/charlton_athletic/6253597.stm
Never seen that before. Odd that since then it seems it just got forgotten about without any explanation. Unless anyone on here who’s in touch with Peter Varney can find out if there was a conclusion to this?
Charlton Athletic have tunnel cameras but the footage from Saturday’s skirmish with Accrington Stanley is never likely to see the light of day.
There is every chance that further disciplinary charges will follow this week after a quite remarkable finish to Saturday’s match.
https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-athletic-put-more-pressure-on-league-one-top-two-after-tempers-fray-in-frantic-valley-finale/
What do you get for ‘slightly niggly’ conduct?
A player who raises his hand but is not thought by the referee to do so to strike the opponent, will not be sent off. "Striking" in this case could include grabbing the throat of the opponent or pushing your flat hand the face of the opponent.
That would make sense to me. If there was video evidence that it was a light flick after he was pushed over, rather than excessive force, then we might be in with a chance.
COYA.