chamakh off !!

[daz 135]

anyone else watching special online links !?! should have been an EASY red but mike dean choked .and gave wes a card too !... and people wonder why players go mad about inconsistency !

[stoke canary 0]

https://t.co/NnOXUxMIiq

[Mello Yello 2,571]

The ref will see that incident sometime, he''ll realise what a thrungebucket he''s been.....and I hope the referee''s assessor gives him a de-merit.

[daz 135]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]The ref will see that incident sometime, he''ll realise what a thrungebucket he''s been.....and I hope the referee''s assessor gives him a de-merit.[/quote]

exactly !

[crispeduk 282]

If he saw it it''s a red if he didn''t see it what on earth is he doing dishing out yellow cards? Mr Dean ought to be doing some explaining - but I think we all know what will happen now.

[Herman 11,135]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]The ref will see that incident sometime, he''ll realise what a thrungebucket he''s been.....and I hope the referee''s assessor gives him a de-merit.[/quote]

[Y]

Like the use of thrungebucket.

 

[crispeduk 282]

Having slept on it and seen it again on the MoTD rerun am even more hacked off, not less so as usually happens when witnessing this kind of nonsense. It''s even worse than I realised - if Mr Dean missed Wes possibly impacting Chamakh''s hand with a part of his upper body, an argument for the two yellows (and not a very good argument at that I would suggest), might have been that he saw two men looking at each other. But surely there was plenty of time for someone to notice Chamakh seemingly going on to pull Wes towards him with a hand around the back of his head during the resulting melee. Mr Dean rightly gave himself a bit of time to decide - in that time surely someone more professional than me, watching the camera angles, could have told him what had gone on? Is a fourth official allowed to help in that way? (honestly I don''t know, but this is surely a case for it). The officials'' response to the incident may or may not have influenced the outcome of this particular match but how can any clubs be comfortable about their futures being potentially influenced in such a way? - there''s a lot at stake. And if the clubs aren''t interested in putting it right supporters surely should be. Refs have a tough job and Mr Dean''s view could well have been limited and distracted by distance and the movement of players between himself and the incident, as well as by those rushing to the scene. So this is not a Mike Dean issue or a ref bashing issue, nor is it is not an NCFC issue, it is an issue for all of football, the integrity of the game rests with justice being seen to be done - supporters have eyes, the authorities need to demonstrate that they are using theirs and acting on what they can see.

[Tetteys Jig 851]

I just think he missed it, paniced and gave a yellow, like a parent would with two squabbling kids.

[Highland Canary 78]

It was a red although at the match we didn''t have a clear view. However, from the Hull away game we learnt that we are tactically incapable of capitalising on an offensive opportunity. As regards Hull at home, it is of course a ''defining'' match but presumably Hull are a bogey team, or it''s a bogey month, or there''s an R in the month, so not winning would still be justified by many as a good outcome.

[crispeduk 282]

Fair point JS

[spencer 1970 214]

Did you see Wes walk over to him BEFORE Mike Dean cautioned them and shake his hand. If it would have been a ManUre, Chelski, or "add big(?) club here", player in Wessi''s position he would have rolled around on the floor holding his face and would have got Chamkhead sent off, (who wouldnt have got that corner 2 mins later thus, pen, yellow, and equaliser.

Although part of me applauds the wee mans sporting behaviour the other doesn''t want us to be the most sporting team in the championship next season. Modern football is what it is...lil'' old Norwich arent going to change that, so time to get a tad more shrewd ala Tierney (V Bolton A 2011), BJ ( V QPR 2012?).

[GJP 79]

Just extremely poor refereeing whatever way he came to the decision.

[lake district canary 4,813]

What are the linesmen and fourth official for?    Four officials, all presumably looking on,  fail to see a man shoved to the ground with a hand to the neck?   Why do they all wear little microphones?   Don''t they talk to each other?  Sometimes I think refs and officials only see what they want to see...........a bit like all of us......but the difference is they are paid for it and between the four officials, they should be able to come up with the right answers more often.    But Wes maybe was too honest.   Gamesmanship gets you decisions these days, rightly or wrongly.   If he had stayed down, it would have made the ref and his three weakling cohorts, make a decision. 

[Tetteys Jig 851]

And he won''t face retrospective action either because he''s ''already been punished.'' nonsense i think. Who cares if it compromises the refs judgement, he''s clearly assaulted Hoolahan and should be banned and fined for violent conduct.

Mind you, no ban will help us really, so it matters little now.

Also, the difference between that incident and Hull is that we were 1-0 up already and Palace were chasing the game. It would have made it 1000x harder for them if Chamakh had walked.

[oldone 0]

That decision changed the result. IF he had been given a red we would have been in a far better position, probably would not have conceded the penalty and Fer would more than likely received only one yellow.

The blame for this result is more to do with the ref''s decisions rather than blaming Hughton. Why should Wez have to lower himself to exaggeration - it is ruining the game and football could do with a lot more players with his attitude.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]And he won''t face retrospective action either because he''s ''already been punished.'' .[/quote]The FA changed this rule in Nov 2013.

Football Association tightens retrospective punishment ruling

Players guilty of violent conduct or involved in off-the-ball

incidents will be punished retrospectively even if match officials saw

the incident.

Prior to this season, subsequent action could not be

taken if a match official had seen an incident - no matter how poor

their view of it was.

The FA tried to address this by adopting a rule change in the summer.

Continue reading the main story

“It is sometimes difficult for

officials to see such incidents, as they are often concentrating solely

on the challenge for possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this”

Darren Bailey

FA director of governance

But new changes, which come into force on 22 November, will further tighten the FA''s disciplinary regulations.

It will mean the FA can take retrospective action for

violent conduct and off-the-ball incidents regardless of whether they

are seen by match officials.

Fulham''s

Sascha Riether was the first player charged

retrospectively under the initial changes to regulations governing ''not seen'' incidents.

However Chelsea striker Fernando Torres

escaped punishment

for scratching the face of Tottenham defender Jan Vertonghen in

September''s 1-1 draw

at White Hart Lane.

The latest changes 

cover "acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a

challenge for the ball" and "in off-the-ball incidents where one or more

match official did see the players coming together, but the match

officials'' view was such that none of them had the opportunity to make a

decision on an act of misconduct that took place within that coming

together".

FA director of governance Darren Bailey said: "This

enables the FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a

stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball or coming

together of players.

"It is sometimes difficult for officials to see such

incidents, as they are often concentrating solely on the challenge for

possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this.

"Also, where off-the-ball incidents are concerned, the

policy adjustment will allow action to be taken where an act of

misconduct could not have been seen by the match officials, even though

they may have seen some part of the players coming together.

"This is an important step forward for the game and

provides an appropriate level of discretion for The FA to consider

action.

"However, we remain of the view that the best outcome

for all is that referees are able to make correct judgements on the day

to benefit the teams involved."

FA chairman Greg Dyke

expressed his dissatisfaction

with the current rules in October. He said: "It is understandably baffling to everyone and must be addressed.

"As FA chairman I don''t like being in a position where I can''t explain why we can''t take action."