Lyle Taylor ban stands, Finley charged, their GK's ban is dropped
Comments
-
Agree broadly with this. The FA's primary objective is not to serve justice, nor give a logical decision but to protect the feelings of the poor officials. It is obvious that the 4 of them missed so much and letting both players off their red cards would compound their mistakes - if at all possible it wasn't going to be allowed to happen.CatAddick said:Bit of an umpire's call situation for me. Maybe a bit soft for a red, but too much contact to justify overturning it.
Very surprised that Sykes hasn't been called to book too as well as the onslaught after the penalty award. Methinks the FA is protecting the referee too much. Overturning multiple cards and calling 3/4 players in suggests a failing on the refs part. I wonder if they (unconsciously) just corrected the two most obvious mistakes...
If the red card was for 'kicking' then how does that fit with this definition in the Cambridge Dictionary "kick definition: 1. to hit someone or something with the foot, or to move the feet and legs suddenly and violently" ?1 -
Olly Groome tweeted yesterday that he was stunned at the decision considering the footage that had been submitted. I presume this has not been made publicAddickFC81 said:The original TV gantry pics look less obvious. The club with hindsight probably should have not provided the new angle and destroyed that bit of film. But it's done now I guess.
0 -
More than probablyclb74 said:We only appealed because it was Taylor
0 -
But that is probably where we need some sort of propeer jury. Like players from other leagues and likewise manages. An ex pro maybe. Not just officials alone. It would allow a fairier hearing and if then it's rejected, fair do.Henry Irving said:
But that is all conjecture with some Charlton bias thrown in.JamesSeed said:
I think the point that several lifers have made is that they have to see substantial evidence to overturn an on-field decision, and they don't like doing it. So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't. Even if they thought that on reflection a yellow card would have been fair, they still won't overrule the red. The question they ask isn't 'Is it a red', it's more 'Is they enough evidence to overturn the red, which is slightly different.thenewbie said:
Which means that yes they DID think it was a red card. That's exactly what it means. And by the letter of the law, it was.JamesSeed said:
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.Henry Irving said:
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.JamesSeed said:
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.paulie8290 said:At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
But I'm only really going on what others have said.
In this instance the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, so there might be something wrong with the system.
They do overturn decisions ie the AS keeper and the Pompey player.
As for "So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't." is just a flawed argument.
He did move a muscle, he did kick out, he did make contact so why would they rescind it when there was no "obvious error" which is the criteria used by the panel.
It's not a jury in the high court, it's a football disciplinary panel. He kicked out, he's apologised, we have to cope without him for three games after which he should be fit and rested.0 -
I know you so I don't want to be over critical.AddickFC81 said:The original TV gantry pics look less obvious. The club with hindsight probably should have not provided the new angle and destroyed that bit of film. But it's done now I guess.
But you have gone from calling them bastards for not over turning the decsion, to now suggesting that Charlton should have destroyed the evidence showing Taylor's guilt !
You gotta love football fans.4 -
The referee saw something that he deemed to be violent conduct, which is a red card offence. The video clearly shows something that COULD be interpreted as violent conduct, so they will back the referee's judgment. If it had been a different player entirely, or he had lay there supine not moving, then they may have overturned it but I think the surprise/outrage over the decision is purely and simply due to his being ''one of ours."5
-
I posted in another thread that Taylor needs to remove this from his game. In recent weeks, he has caused 2 goals to be disallowed and a sending off. Imagine how people would be reacting if we had lost both those games?3
-
Flawed argument, me, y’er avin’ a laugh!Henry Irving said:
But that is all conjecture with some Charlton bias thrown in.JamesSeed said:
I think the point that several lifers have made is that they have to see substantial evidence to overturn an on-field decision, and they don't like doing it. So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't. Even if they thought that on reflection a yellow card would have been fair, they still won't overrule the red. The question they ask isn't 'Is it a red', it's more 'Is they enough evidence to overturn the red, which is slightly different.thenewbie said:
Which means that yes they DID think it was a red card. That's exactly what it means. And by the letter of the law, it was.JamesSeed said:
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.Henry Irving said:
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.JamesSeed said:
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.paulie8290 said:At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
But I'm only really going on what others have said.
In this instance the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, so there might be something wrong with the system.
They do overturn decisions ie the AS keeper and the Pompey player.
As for "So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't." is just a flawed argument.
He did move a muscle, he did kick out, he did make contact so why would they rescind it when there was no "obvious error" which is the criteria used by the panel.
It's not a jury in the high court, it's a football disciplinary panel. He kicked out, he's apologised, we have to cope without him for three games after which he should be fit and rested.
All that really matters is how we cope on Saturday. I think we have the players to do ok as it happens.0 -
Quite right. He pushed rather than kicked. Probably shouldn’t have done though.Hex said:
Agree broadly with this. The FA's primary objective is not to serve justice, nor give a logical decision but to protect the feelings of the poor officials. It is obvious that the 4 of them missed so much and letting both players off their red cards would compound their mistakes - if at all possible it wasn't going to be allowed to happen.CatAddick said:Bit of an umpire's call situation for me. Maybe a bit soft for a red, but too much contact to justify overturning it.
Very surprised that Sykes hasn't been called to book too as well as the onslaught after the penalty award. Methinks the FA is protecting the referee too much. Overturning multiple cards and calling 3/4 players in suggests a failing on the refs part. I wonder if they (unconsciously) just corrected the two most obvious mistakes...
If the red card was for 'kicking' then how does that fit with this definition in the Cambridge Dictionary "kick definition: 1. to hit someone or something with the foot, or to move the feet and legs suddenly and violently" ?
Perhaps he could try a different tactic at corners, like going for a header?
In fact, maybe he should be the bloke to stick on the near post, for those underhit ones.0 -
There are double standards as rugby players do not get away with the abuse footballers give officialsHenry Irving said:
1. Double standard then as "it's a man's game" when rugger types do itpalarsehater said:
few thingsFishCostaFortune said:
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.palarsehater said:issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
1.) this isn't rugby
2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo
3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
2. No way is it GBH or ABH. Assult at best https://www.iydl.co.uk/legal-blog/offence-against-person-common-assault-assault-pc-abh-and-gbh
3. Agree, no need for it and quite rightly he's been charged.0 - Sponsored links:
-
That’s a red card unfortunately. Lyle knew he was in the wrong and in hindsight, the proof of that came when he posted his twitter apology a day or so ahead of the verdict to uphold the suspension.0
-
He posted his apology after the verdict (unless I'm mistaken).Callumcafc said:That’s a red card unfortunately. Lyle knew he was in the wrong and in hindsight, the proof of that came when he posted his twitter apology a day or so ahead of the verdict to uphold the suspension.
5 -
It was after the verdict I think but yes, I think he realised that whether or not it should have been a red card it was close enough that he can’t complain more and will have to have a think about how to avoid getting more yellows/sent off without taking the niggle out of his game completely.0
-
Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.12 -
Fair enough! Thought it was ahead of the verdict but having looked back at it he directly references the failed appeal in his apology tweets.Covered End said:
He posted his apology after the verdict (unless I'm mistaken).Callumcafc said:That’s a red card unfortunately. Lyle knew he was in the wrong and in hindsight, the proof of that came when he posted his twitter apology a day or so ahead of the verdict to uphold the suspension.
0 -
Accrington could say it should be 9 v 9 with another player of ours sent off for the shove in the back which leads to one of thiers on the floorCallumcafc said:Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.0 -
Still a pen though and there could have been more sent off for the disgraceful behaviour in your face of the awful lino who just became our new bestie.Callumcafc said:Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.2 -
Yeah rememinded me of when another clown of a ref, Andy D'urso gave a penalty against Manchester United and virtually the whole United team were pushing him back.Alwaysneil said:
Still a pen though and there could have been more sent off for the disgraceful behaviour in your face of the awful lino who just became our new bestie.Callumcafc said:Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.0 -
Three of those are wrong I think. But it’s just an opinionCallumcafc said:Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.1 -
Correct on all accounts.Callumcafc said:Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.4 - Sponsored links:
-
How is 'pushing with your foot' not kicking.
Some serious rose tinted posts on this thread, or trolling for attention in one case.5 -
Has it been stated what Taylir’s Red card was for ?
PWR fully reading all the previous posts - maybe it’s just me, but when I kept looking at the club footage, which would have not been a million miles away from what the linesman was seeing, it looks like the offence by Taylor was not kicking when on the floor but before that when the goalkeeper went for the ball and Taylor’s actions seemed to cause the goalkeeper to fall awkwardly and what was probably the cause for the push by the keeper. It may have been that which warranted the red card and not a kick (which I can’t actually see) when on the floor.1 -
spoke to my mate and showed him the footage who is a ref, does the line for conference prem and middle of park the leagues below, in his mind it was a red as he has kicked out, but 2 stanley players should of gone and he should spotted all the other shit going on.
i said but its hardly a kick - he said its the motion as if you got to head butt someone but dont you will still get sent off as it is seen as violent conduct.4 -
..0
-
No, it’s the FA’s policy never to ifffucakky any of their decisions.letthegoodtimesroll said:Has it been ifffucakky after what Taylir’s Red card was for ?
PWR fully reading all the previous posts - maybe it’s just me, but when I kept looking at the club footage, which would have not been a million miles away from what the linesman was seeing, it looks like the offence by Taylor was not kicking when on the floor but before that when the goalkeeper went for the ball and Taylor’s actions seemed to cause the goalkeeper to fall awkwardly and what was probably the cause for the push by the keeper. It may have been that which warranted the red card and not a kick (which I can’t actually see) when on the floor.
3 -
There’s the problem then....AshBurton said:
No, it’s the FA’s policy never to ifffucakky any of their decisions.letthegoodtimesroll said:Has it been ifffucakky after what Taylir’s Red card was for ?
PWR fully reading all the previous posts - maybe it’s just me, but when I kept looking at the club footage, which would have not been a million miles away from what the linesman was seeing, it looks like the offence by Taylor was not kicking when on the floor but before that when the goalkeeper went for the ball and Taylor’s actions seemed to cause the goalkeeper to fall awkwardly and what was probably the cause for the push by the keeper. It may have been that which warranted the red card and not a kick (which I can’t actually see) when on the floor.
and that predictive text is getting worse.
0 -
I think what’s meant is it’s not a stamp, which you associate with a red.Stu_of_Kunming said:How is 'pushing with your foot' not kicking.
Some serious rose tinted posts on this thread, or trolling for attention in one case.
Anyway, as has been said, it’s done now. Every side has to deal with suspensions over the course of a season, even to top players. This one stings more because Taylor won’t be leading the line at Peterborough in front of a packed away end.
Just got to get on with it.
Williams, Reeves and Grant up top for me with Cullen, Pratley and Beilik in midfield.
Sarr up front if we’re chasing the game late on with Beliek at centre back in a 442.0 -
Sorry but if a simple shove in the back is a red card offence then we're going to see Red Cards every game and thats just for what goes on when players are trying to create space at cornersclb74 said:
Accrington could say it should be 9 v 9 with another player of ours sent off for the shove in the back which leads to one of thiers on the floorCallumcafc said:Right to disallow the goal.
Right to send off Taylor.
Wrong to send off their keeper. Right to overturn his suspension.
Wrong to let 14 stay on the pitch. Right to give a retrospective ban.
Wrong to let 15 get away with his kicks at Taylor while he’s on the floor. Wrong to not look at giving a retrospective ban.
It should’ve been a free kick to Stanley and the game resumed 10v9 with Taylor, #14 and #15 being sent off.1 -
I think that if you look at the definition again you will see there are actually two definitions. Either of them separately describe a kick. You do not need to satisfy both definitions.Hex said:
Agree broadly with this. The FA's primary objective is not to serve justice, nor give a logical decision but to protect the feelings of the poor officials. It is obvious that the 4 of them missed so much and letting both players off their red cards would compound their mistakes - if at all possible it wasn't going to be allowed to happen.CatAddick said:Bit of an umpire's call situation for me. Maybe a bit soft for a red, but too much contact to justify overturning it.
Very surprised that Sykes hasn't been called to book too as well as the onslaught after the penalty award. Methinks the FA is protecting the referee too much. Overturning multiple cards and calling 3/4 players in suggests a failing on the refs part. I wonder if they (unconsciously) just corrected the two most obvious mistakes...
If the red card was for 'kicking' then how does that fit with this definition in the Cambridge Dictionary "kick definition: 1. to hit someone or something with the foot, or to move the feet and legs suddenly and violently" ?
1) “To hit someone or something with the foot”. That is what Taylor did and therefore qualifies as a kick.0 -
I think its worse because Taylor goes in with his studs... the way he pushes away is similar to how a player would go in two footed in a tackle and so get themselves sent off
There probably isnt much force in his action but Google the results of what marks a set of studs can leave on an opposing player1
