FA to investigate ref's report

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

According to Sky news, the FA are now reviewing the referees report.

Maybe Domagalla's card is rescinded and Lambert faces a 6 match ban 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I'd like to see if Chambers can get done for his part in the antics. He wades in on our coaches before retreating hastily when Hanley steps in and then he indecently assaults Godfrey. 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Amazing that they can investigate this handbag spat but not the Mings thuggery.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

Quite agree Nutty but in the case of Mings the ref did not see it so no retrospective action to be taken apparently. Looks like yesterday our ref was watching the dugouts and not the game maybe ?  🤔

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I thought it was the other way around Til. The ref did see the Mings thing so he can;t be done for it. But retrospective action can be taken for things the ref didn;t see so i suspect they will be looking at the footage to see if there were people who did things who should have been booked/red carded?

[TIL 1010 4,737]

Rather confusing Jim because if he did see the Mings incident and take into consideration the time it took to get NO off the pitch covered in blood it was not mentioned in his report.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

It's just hiding behind words. Typical FA. Live on Sky may have produced a different outcome..

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

The Mings/Nelson incident was see by the ref and in his report. Which is why the FA couldn’t make retrospective punishment. 

I guess with the with the derby they are reviewing the decision. The same way a red card for a player can be reviewed. Domagalla wasn’t involved and should be absolved, it was Ed Wooton who was the Norwich man involved. I also expect they are reviewing whether to fine the clubs for failing to keep their players under control - expect a 5 figure fine for both teams.

Not sure if manager reds have a ban or not though. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Rather confusing Jim because if he did see the Mings incident and take into consideration the time it took to get NO off the pitch covered in blood it was not mentioned in his report.

As you say confusing. i always thought the rule was that if the ref sees something and gives a free kick/yellow card etc then it can;t be revisited whereas if they missed it then it can but maybe i've got that wrong.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Just now, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

The Mings/Nelson incident was see by the ref and in his report. Which is why the FA couldn’t make retrospective punishment. 

I guess with the with the derby they are reviewing the decision. The same way a red card for a player can be reviewed. Domagalla wasn’t involved and should be absolved, it was Ed Wooton who was the Norwich man involved. I also expect they are reviewing whether to fine the clubs for failing to keep their players under control - expect a 5 figure fine for both teams.

Not sure if manager reds have a ban or not though. 

can they ban Chambers for sexually assaulting our player then Bethnal?

[nutty nigel 7,528]

15 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

The Mings/Nelson incident was see by the ref and in his report. Which is why the FA couldn’t make retrospective punishment. 

I guess with the with the derby they are reviewing the decision. The same way a red card for a player can be reviewed. Domagalla wasn’t involved and should be absolved, it was Ed Wooton who was the Norwich man involved. I also expect they are reviewing whether to fine the clubs for failing to keep their players under control - expect a 5 figure fine for both teams.

Not sure if manager reds have a ban or not though. 

What if the player later died of his injuries?

Surely by your words Beth, Villa can be fined for not controlling their player.

No wonder there's zero respect for the football authorities...

 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

58 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

What if the player later died of his injuries?

Surely by your words Beth, Villa can be fined for not controlling their player.

No wonder there's zero respect for the football authorities...

 

If people don’t respect the FA because they don’t understand the rules, that is hardly the FA’s fault. 

 

[JF 694]

Perhaps I Missed something but all I saw was a few hot headed people wanting to be held back! Literally nothing happened! A five figure fine for pointing some fingers? ****ing pathetic especially in the same week that a player has been deliberately scared for life and lucky not to have been blinded.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

I re

2 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

If people don’t respect the FA because they don’t understand the rules, that is hardly the FA’s fault. 

 

Have the rules changed since the Ben Thatcher elbow incident? Vaguely remember he was punished additionally to the referee's response at the time.

[ricardo 7,384]

7 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

If people don’t respect the FA because they don’t understand the rules, that is hardly the FA’s fault. 

 

If the FA's rules prevent them taking retrospective action for what clearly looks like a deliberate foul then there is something wrong with the rules.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

4 minutes ago, Fr. Chewy Louie said:

I re

Have the rules changed since the Ben Thatcher elbow incident? Vaguely remember he was punished additionally to the referee's response at the time.

The FA had a clause that said they could intervene under ‘exceptional circumstances’ and they did then. They then reviewed that clause and removed it as it open a Pandora’s Box over what is an ‘exceptional circumstance’. 

I believe that stepped in the as there was a threat of a law suit which would have opened a can of worms also. 

The Thatcher incident was very clearly down with intent as well. 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

If the FA's rules prevent them taking retrospective action for what clearly looks like a deliberate foul then there is something wrong with the rules.

The FA did a study to see if they should change the rules and they decided against it as they eatimated they would have to review around 50 decisions most weekends. It would also overrule the ref’s authority. There are also considerations as only grounds with multiple camera positions would be able to really make a clear judgement. 

There is no perfect system, but the one in place seems the most preferential to most. 

The ban associated with reds is changeable as it effects other games. But the empathise in on proving the ref made a clear mistake by providing new evidence. 

[sonyc 5,510]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I'd like to see if Chambers can get done for his part in the antics. He wades in on our coaches before retreating hastily when Hanley steps in and then he indecently assaults Godfrey. 

And that tackle by Nolan was bad. It was halfway up Aarons' shins. 

As for Lambert saying it was a "nothing tackle" was a disgrace.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

The introduction this season of red and yellow cards for managers and backroom staff says that 4 yellows will result in a 1 match ban but i cannot see any punishment for a red card.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I think the idea is that if a ref had missed something altogether it’s ok to punish it later. If he’s spotted it and decided what action to take then if they impose further punishments later that would undermine the ref’s authority and people would want decisions second guessed the whole time.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

For the Aarons tackle even the sky commentator who was distinctly pro-Binner conceded their player was fortunate not to get a straight red.

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

47 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The introduction this season of red and yellow cards for managers and backroom staff says that 4 yellows will result in a 1 match ban but i cannot see any punishment for a red card.

Lambert will have to remain with Ipswich. Seems a bit harsh for a bit of handbags but there you go...

[splendidrush 700]

2 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

I also expect they are reviewing whether to fine the clubs for failing to keep their players under control - expect a 5 figure fine for both teams.

 

I wonder if 1p5wich will be able to pay it,  or whether they'll pay St John's first. 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

2 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

If people don’t respect the FA because they don’t understand the rules, that is hardly the FA’s fault. 

 

That's the cross us thickos have to bear I guess Beth.

Of course had Mings had been red carded for what he did. And then in an appeal the FA overturned that red card. Overruling the ref's authority would be just fine....

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

6 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

The introduction this season of red and yellow cards for managers and backroom staff says that 4 yellows will result in a 1 match ban but i cannot see any punishment for a red card.

Red cards for management has not been very well explained by the FA. However, according to the EADT:

"Lambert’s red card does not carry any added punishment in itself and he does not automatically face a touchline ban, with any action against the Ipswich Town boss needing to come retrospectively."

Not that that helps very much except that it appears that any touchline ban is not automatic and any further punishment is up to the discretion of the FA.

Seems a bit doolally to me - a red card should have the same effect for the bench management as it does to players! But that's probably too simple for the FA to contemplate!

[ron obvious 1,502]

 

What about Lambert giving them a half time team talk? Isn't that against the red card rule as well?

 

[king canary 7,602]

The problem with the Mings situation is it all depends on intent and it is pretty difficult to prove either way if he meant it.

[SwindonCanary 455]

Lambert is complaining about his treatment from our stewards !

[Woodman 92]

I'd like to think that Lambert will face further action for his comments in the press conference after the game about disregarding whether he should've been allowed into the dressing room, saying that he didn't regret what he'd done and would do it again.

Equally, I don't understand why he was allowed to communicate by mobile phone with Matt Gill all through the second half while sat up in the Director's box.  Lost of managers used to watch the game from there anyway, so I don't see any punishment.  Fat lot of good it did them though!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think it was expected. The ref could hardly say he saw the incident on Sunday and was happy with the outcome. He was a pretty poor referee despite his Prem status and although he appeared cool I think he had lost it. He couldn't have seen or heard every incident.

I assume we said something about the Nolan tackle and the opposition overreacted. No doubt those involved will have to make reports and probably in the end justice will prevail? and they will fine both teams. Typical FA really.