pete_norw 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="pete"]3 match ban[/quote]Today West Ham say they are taking it to court, Mick Dennis sort of laugh at the thought, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zak Van Burger 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="pete"]3 match ban[/quote]Today West Ham say they are taking it to court, Mick Dennis sort of laugh at the thought,[/quote]Just seen that on the BBC , I also laughed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CJ 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Sorry but i do think this is ridiculous . The referee thought it was a red card the panel of three officials presumably qualified ex referees etc said yes meritted red card how can a legal case overturn these experts unless they can prove the FA did not follow correct procedure, and to be honest knowing most legal cases decide that before ban is over! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoareyou? 0 Posted February 7, 2014 If West Ham win on a legal appeal on this one, how long before a club wants a match replayed because they lost due to a poor referees decision? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted February 7, 2014 Which is why this will not end in West Hams favour, How can carroline say it was not intended Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted February 7, 2014 Don''t like the way this is going with this supposed arbitration today. I hope Mcnally is watching and has the lawyers ready to go. In my view they are clearly trying to get the FA to re hear the matter, presumably leaving him free to play in their 3 crucial games in the meantime. They must not be allowed to do this.Odious club. Conveniently forget they were allowed to retain their premier league status by the same system following the most significant breach of the rules I can remember in recent times. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stewfil 10 Posted February 7, 2014 What would be the outcome if the decision was put on hold until after arbitration and West Ham won games with him and then he lost the decision? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dicky 0 Posted February 7, 2014 Totally trying to get him available for next 3 games. West Ham are a club that have no sense of fair play. Cannot be allowed to happen otherwise clubs will resort to legal action at will for suspensions depending on their fixture list. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted February 7, 2014 Surely the FA will read into this exactly what the rest of the footballing bodies see, they are a team run by Crooks and thugs, they should be hit with an extra couple of match ban for wasting time. who do they think they are Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThorpeCanary 71 Posted February 7, 2014 FA now reconsidering red card with west ham saying they will accept the decision made decision. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicko 0 Posted February 7, 2014 Last I heard he could play against us and Villa while its being sorted out. If its the case, I hope we take legal action as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Juler 148 Posted February 7, 2014 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted February 7, 2014 [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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted February 7, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][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.[/quote]I completely disagree with your view of the sending off incident but then that in a way shows why the decision should not be overturned because it is ultimately the decision of the referee that matters and there is no evidence to show he got it wrong.If you look at Carroll''s face and the way he accelerates the swing of his arm then in my view there was clear intent there. He may have thought he was going to hit him in the chest and Chico may make a meal of it once contact is made but he forcefully swings his arm with the intention of hitting Chico.That''s what the referee saw. The replays do not show that to be an incorrect interpretation of events. That is why the red card has not been overturned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted February 7, 2014 I wonder if the FA can introduce video footage at this arbitration hearing of the other occasion during the match where Carroll elbowed Chico in the face and the ref didn;t give it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThorpeCanary 71 Posted February 7, 2014 [quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][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.[/quote]GIFI can only assume the FA felt his arm didn''t need to be raised as he spun around? not sure i''d agree with that though.Neither do I agree with the FA deciding to look into it again after being threatened with legal action, where will this end? Injuries etc.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted February 7, 2014 [quote user="ThorpeCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][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.[/quote]GIFI can only assume the FA felt his arm didn''t need to be raised as he spun around? not sure i''d agree with that though.Neither do I agree with the FA deciding to look into it again after being threatened with legal action, where will this end? Injuries etc....[/quote] 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoots 0 Posted February 7, 2014 [quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][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.[/quote]I completely disagree with your view of the sending off incident but then that in a way shows why the decision should not be overturned because it is ultimately the decision of the referee that matters and there is no evidence to show he got it wrong.If you look at Carroll''s face and the way he accelerates the swing of his arm then in my view there was clear intent there. He may have thought he was going to hit him in the chest and Chico may make a meal of it once contact is made but he forcefully swings his arm with the intention of hitting Chico.That''s what the referee saw. The replays do not show that to be an incorrect interpretation of events. That is why the red card has not been overturned.[/quote]I completely agree with this assessment. This is how I saw the incident when it happened and I haven''t changed my view since. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThorpeCanary 71 Posted February 7, 2014 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted February 7, 2014 [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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThorpeCanary 71 Posted February 7, 2014 My apologies... The bbc article I read earlier wasn''t what it is now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted February 7, 2014 [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). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted February 7, 2014 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! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted February 7, 2014 [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]Jim, if this was us and Hooper or van Wolfswinkel (OK, possibly not if it was RvW[;)]) and we didn''t try to pull the same trick at West Ham then posters would really start to get worried that McNally had gone soft...[:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beefy is a legend 224 Posted February 7, 2014 My understanding Jim is that the arbitration panel will be meeting today to make a swift decision so I''m not sure that''s the case. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted February 7, 2014 [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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoots 0 Posted February 7, 2014 Big Fat Sam''s view ...... there is no other ! :-"My reaction to Andy''s red card was one of injustice. Unfortunately the panel has not seen it as they should have. If there''s a decision today hopefully it''s a positive one." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Juler 148 Posted February 7, 2014 [quote user="ThorpeCanary"]GIF[/quote]Thanks - I''d certainly be annoyed if this was concerning a City player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tetteys Jig 830 Posted February 7, 2014 I think it still looks harsh. He''s unfortunately for him though, got a bit of a past, so it might have worked against him. (Maybe not but I get a sneaky feeling it might have).In a nutshell though, is there any chance he''ll face us? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites