Agree with FC81. Solly got ball and the guy challenging fell over his out-stretched legs. The guy rolling on the floor I think, wasn't the guy tackled but one who collided with his teammate who tripped over Solly. Recinded. Not even a yellow for me. He got there first.
Never a red. Parker should have shot before instead of laying it to Solly. Decent striker and it would have been 2-2, instead it was 2-1 and we were down to 10 men
Right about Parker. We’d have done better signing Lady Penelope.
Agree with FC81. Solly got ball and the guy challenging fell over his out-stretched legs. The guy rolling on the floor I think, wasn't the guy tackled but one who collided with his teammate who tripped over Solly. Recinded. Not even a yellow for me. He got there first.
The guy on the floor popped up to his feet without any sign of hurt a few seconds after the ref showed the red
The narrative supporting "Serious Foul Play", ie a red card, is "Using excess force". There is no doubt that Solly's tackle meets that definition
Best of luck on appealing against that one
So if a player wins the ball, doesn't touch a player, uses one foot and doesn't leave the ground without studs showing but uses force can that still be deamed a straight red card?
Seeing it from refs angle, difficult to see it being rescinded and I think we’ll be lucky to get away without a frivolous increase. Mind you, similar to Pompeys one and I thought they were mad to appeal that, so fingers crossed
Basically it's one those that down to human interpritation of the laws of it. Because there is a difference of opinion in this post between supporters. And there would be difference of opinions between refs and video refs and those that oversee the appeals system as they would all have a different interpritation of the laws of it.
Sorry but sometimes it feels like as a club we over-react to every red card issued out, if we keep appealing these red cards one of these days i'm sure they will extend someone's ban by a game to teach us a lesson appealing for every red card we get. I hope it's not Solly who gets it.
has everyone read the posts that point out that by appealing we get Solly available for Monday and that this is probably why we have appealed it?
its weird because most posts since those comments were made have ignored the point
Blindingly obvious to me. Don’t think we have a chance of it being rescinded. I’m afraid the league will see straight through it and slap some more on the ban.
has everyone read the posts that point out that by appealing we get Solly available for Monday and that this is probably why we have appealed it?
its weird because most posts since those comments were made have ignored the point
Blindingly obvious to me. Don’t think we have a chance of it being rescinded. I’m afraid the league will see straight through it and slap some more on the ban.
There is no chance the red will be rescinded and at least a 50% chance the ban will be extended. Whatever the stated aims in practice is there primarily to back up referees. Only mistaken identity is reliably corrected and only then if the guilty party fesses up. In Solly’s case There was contact ergo it could be a foul challenge thus the panel will not question Drysdale’s interpretation, they never do. The league continues to engage preening show pony helmets like Drysdale in spite of his risible performances - they’re not about to start messing with his decisions. As for Little Charlton’s record of upstart petulant quibbling with cards we can rest assured the ban will be extended to put us in our place. The tumescent crooks will probably convene the hearing on Monday to ensure Solly’s ban starts immediately too. Nice try tho LB no chance tho. Don’t worry about it we don’t need many defenders - relentless all out attack is the way forward 🤪
The narrative supporting "Serious Foul Play", ie a red card, is "Using excess force". There is no doubt that Solly's tackle meets that definition
Best of luck on appealing against that one
So if a player wins the ball, doesn't touch a player, uses one foot and doesn't leave the ground without studs showing but uses force can that still be deamed a straight red card?
Solly did make contact with the player in a forceful way (you csn decide for yourself if you thought it was, or was not "using excessive force". Not leaving the ground does not negate the excessive force definition, but it does threngthen the case if done
There is no chance the red will be rescinded and at least a 50% chance the ban will be extended. Whatever the stated aims in practice is there primarily to back up referees. Only mistaken identity is reliably corrected and only then if the guilty party fesses up. In Solly’s case There was contact ergo it could be a foul challenge thus the panel will not question Drysdale’s interpretation, they never do. The league continues to engage preening show pony helmets like Drysdale in spite of his risible performances - they’re not about to start messing with his decisions. As for Little Charlton’s record of upstart petulant quibbling with cards we can rest assured the ban will be extended to put us in our place. The tumescent crooks will probably convene the hearing on Monday to ensure Solly’s ban starts immediately too. Nice try tho LB no chance tho. Don’t worry about it we don’t need many defenders - relentless all out attack is the way forward 🤪
I may be wrong, but doesn't the Appeals Committee consist of a chairman who is an independent lawyer and two members, one of whom is an ex footballer and the other an ex referee. That formation being to ensure transparency and independence. As I say, I may be wrong.
There is no chance the red will be rescinded and at least a 50% chance the ban will be extended. Whatever the stated aims in practice is there primarily to back up referees. Only mistaken identity is reliably corrected and only then if the guilty party fesses up. In Solly’s case There was contact ergo it could be a foul challenge thus the panel will not question Drysdale’s interpretation, they never do. The league continues to engage preening show pony helmets like Drysdale in spite of his risible performances - they’re not about to start messing with his decisions. As for Little Charlton’s record of upstart petulant quibbling with cards we can rest assured the ban will be extended to put us in our place. The tumescent crooks will probably convene the hearing on Monday to ensure Solly’s ban starts immediately too. Nice try tho LB no chance tho. Don’t worry about it we don’t need many defenders - relentless all out attack is the way forward 🤪
I may be wrong, but doesn't the Appeals Committee consist of a chairman who is an independent lawyer and two members, one of whom is an ex footballer and the other an ex referee. That formation being to ensure transparency and independence. As I say, I may be wrong.
Really ? Are appeals committee members named - I don't believe so. What are their terms of reference ? Have they ever been published ? My guess is they are not there to ensure justice for the player but merely to find any possible way that the decision stands. Transparency and independence - never !
I recall that a Charlton appeal quite a few years ago where it was leaked that all the panel had was a small portable TV and a video recorder that had no slow-mo.
I love the conviction on this thread. "No doubt". "Absolutely clear". "No chance", etc.
If you read the thread without watching the clip and you could be forgiven for thinking that people are talking about two completely different incidents.
A couple of posters on this thread better get their eyes tested. How anyone can claim that Solly won the ball and didn't touch their player is utterly incredulous. Solly lost his temper, flew in with excessive force and smashed their player. He could have broke his leg challenging like that.
A couple of posters on this thread better get their eyes tested. How anyone can claim that Solly won the ball and didn't touch their player is utterly incredulous. Solly lost his temper, flew in with excessive force and smashed their player. He could have broke his leg challenging like that.
Some people's glasses are so rose tinted they can only see red and white
Personally thought it was harsh under the definitions. However not the sort that usually get overturned. Having said that can we use Thompson's in the Pompey game as an example of ones that get overturned!
Seems strange we may think it more important to have Solly available for Monday rather than the 2nd leg of the play off.
If Solly had made first contact, his leg would have gone towards where Solly's foot was pointed and he'd fall backwards. As it was he fell head first towards the touchline. Chris may have brushed him on follow-through but got there first. Also a potential handball penalty from Solly's shot.
Comments
Best of luck on appealing against that one
has everyone read the posts that point out that by appealing we get Solly available for Monday and that this is probably why we have appealed it?
its weird because most posts since those comments were made have ignored the point
I love the conviction on this thread. "No doubt". "Absolutely clear". "No chance", etc.
If you read the thread without watching the clip and you could be forgiven for thinking that people are talking about two completely different incidents.
How anyone can claim that Solly won the ball and didn't touch their player is utterly incredulous.
Solly lost his temper, flew in with excessive force and smashed their player.
He could have broke his leg challenging like that.
Seems strange we may think it more important to have Solly available for Monday rather than the 2nd leg of the play off.