Club appeal Solly red (unsuccessfully)

Leuth

Never a red? That is as clear a red as there's been against us in a while. It was absolutely idiotic 

harveys_gardener

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.

LargeAddick

Athletico Charlton said:

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.

Athletico Charlton

harveys_gardener said:

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

PeterGage

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 

AddickFC81

PeterGage said:

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?

CatAddick

Seeing it from refs angle, difficult to see it being rescinded and I think we’ll be lucky to get away without a frivolous increase.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 

colthe3rd

Personally I don't think it's a red but I do not think it'll be overturned as it looks like the tackle was made out of frustration. 

AddickFC81

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.

Siv_in_Norfolk

Ummmmmm...... 

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 

AddickFC81

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

Ummmmmm...... 

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 

That has crossed my mind. Playing the system to make sure we get Anfernee and Purrington fit again.

ct_addick

Disappointing that none of our boys helped Solly out when their big defender was pushing him around ! Looks a valid red to me he was late

soapboxsam

It looked like serious foul play by Solly, the same as the Luton keeper did to Igor.

MartinCAFC

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.

SexyDave

Don't think that is a red, I don't think it will be overturned either. 

CatAddick

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

Ummmmmm...... 

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.

clb74

CatAddick said:

Siv_in_Norfolk said:

Ummmmmm...... 

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.

They will do if they read this thread

StigThundercock

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 🤪

PeterGage

AddickFC81 said:

PeterGage said:

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 

PeterGage said:

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 

PeterGage

StigThundercock said:

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.

East_Stand_Loopy

Talal said:

When did we last get a red overturned? 

Scott Parker, 4-1 win against Wolves in the Premier League...

Hex

PeterGage said:

StigThundercock said:

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.

Off_it

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.

Covered End

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.

sam3110

Covered End said:

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

harveys_gardener

But the player jumped up as soon as Solly was carded. A sure sign of lack of contact. Fell over Solly's legs.

redman

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. 

Covered End

harveys_gardener said:

But the player jumped up as soon as Solly was carded. A sure sign of lack of contact. Fell over Solly's legs.

It's very rare that I agree with anything you say, so I shouldn't be surprised that you feel that he fell over Solly's leg.

Covered End

It's a bit like someone getting run over and a witness saying the pedestrian fell over the car.

harveys_gardener

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.