Forgot your password?
pete, February 4, 2014 in Main Discussion - Norwich City
[quote user="Matt Juler"]I''ve not actually seen the incident and can''t find a link online that will stream at the office. Do West Ham have any case at all?[/quote]
Very much so - would be personally pretty annoyed if it was a Norwich player. He didn''t make any contact with Chico (apart from maybe his pony tail) and the case is very much based around ''intent''. Carroll wasn''t looking at the player when he moved his arm and it could quite easily be a natural movement to maintain balance.
As a Norwich fan I hope the FA dismiss the appeal again and then slap on the extra match ban for wasting everyone''s time.
The way appeals work is the red card is assumed to be correct and West Ham have to prove a mistake has been made - if they can''t produce strong enough evidence then the ban is kept. The onus is on the club - so the FA don''t have to justify the red card. This is the reason that most appeals don''t result in successful results, especially when arguing matters of intent - the club can''t prove the player didn''t have intent.
[quote user="ThorpeCanary"]Well lets hope the FA stick to their original decision then. You could even argue Carroll has a little dig with his right hand before the arm swinging incident[/quote]
The FA aren''t looking at the decision again, this the FA tribunal not the Discsplinary Panel. What they are looking at is whether the correct procedure was taken to make the decision - West Ham are arguing that the Panel didn''t follow the correct methods (and therefore the decision isn''t valid).
I''m not sure whether the Tribunal can clear the ban or just force the Disciplinary Panel to look at it again. In a legal situation a ''miss trial'' could be called and the accused would get off all charges, but the FA may work things a little differently - also with the difference that in criminal cases you are presumed innocent but with the FA you are presumed guilty.
[quote user="ThorpeCanary"]My apologies... The bbc article I read earlier wasn''t what it is now.[/quote]
Yeah, a lot of media outlets jumped on this before really understanding what is actually happening. The BBC article seems to have been editted a couple of times already. The workings of the FA are fairly impossible to understand - even for those that are working there or running the panels (hence the regular foul-ups).
[quote user="Jim Smith"]My take on this is that it is all a strategy to get the matter re-heard but presumably pending the re-hearing he will be free to play. They probably accept that he will get some form of ban but are taking the view that its worth all this hassle if it means he can play in the next 2 or 3 games they have. No doubt he''ll then serve his suspension for games away at Man City and Arsenal or something when they will probably lose anyway![/quote]
I don''t think that is the case - even if the tribunal calls for the case to be heard again that would happen early next week. Carroll would be able to face Villa away rather than Everton away. It''s hardly a massive gain for a ploy that could incure the wrath of the FA making the ban 4 games for making frivolous appeals
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Already have an account? Sign in here.