Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Hemed stamp [Charged, appealed, banned for 3 games]



S'hampton Seagull

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2003
6,809
Southampton
Accidental, move on. I don't think we will hear anything more about this.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 






LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
46,675
SHOREHAM BY SEA
So not tangled then? Off balance maybe.

I just showed Mrs B who said she didn't think it was deliberate, and said "he wasn't looking at the Newcastle player".

In her favour is she's not had anything to drink, unlike me. Against her, is she's seen about 3 games of football ever.

Mrs B has proven to be a good judge ..get her to join the forum!
 


Normski1989

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2015
751
Hove
From one angle, I'm convinced that it was accidental. He was looking away and off balance. But then I see it from the reverse angle in slow motion and I think it's deliberate. I think it looks a lot worse when it's slowed down. Could go either way.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 


Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,416
You started a thread calling somebody who commited suicide a selfish w**nker. When people called you out on you acting like a c*nt you doubled down and called them an a*rsehole instead. Then when you were unbanned you came back on here and completely ignored your pathetic little tantrum and didn't even have the balls to hold your hands up and admit you'd been a bellend.

So actually, I'd say no class was being polite. I think the layman's terms for someone like you is much worse than that.
Not that I give a shit what you think but a family member of mine commited suicide so I have every right to say what I f***ing like on the subject, it's tossers like you getting offended on other people's behalf that do my head in

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
 




SeagullinExile

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2010
5,695
London
Just watched some more highlights, certainly looks worse in slow motion. Might get away with it.
 




DJ NOBO

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2004
6,334
Wiltshire
Oh dear. That's a ban, isn't it.
Out of character but crazily stupid
 




spence

British and Proud
Oct 15, 2014
9,814
Crawley
Oh dear. That's a ban, isn't it.
Out of character but crazily stupid

I thought the same at first. Have another look though at it. Hemed never looks at the blokes leg.

If this goes to disciplinary then he will lose. We don't get much luck from them
 


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Patron
Jul 23, 2003
34,127
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
People saying it's a ban should look at the highlights thread with its different angle and commentary. This is Sky creating a controversy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Whitechapel

Famous Last Words
Jul 19, 2014
4,071
Not in Whitechapel
I'll send you my address and you can come around with spence and say that to my face:)
But neither of you will - shame:moo:


Let me get this straight, you came on to this thread and called two people c*nts for literally no reason, but somebody turns the tables and has a pop at you and it turns in to an invitation to "say it to your face" :lolol:

EMOTIONAL.

Not that I give a shit what you think but a family member of mine commited suicide so I have every right to say what I f***ing like on the subject, it's tossers like you getting offended on other people's behalf that do my head in

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Credit where credit is due, you're consistently an a*sehole on the subject. Congratulations.
 




Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,719
Back in Sussex
Struggling to find much stuff on respective reviews. The most detail I can find is a Boro paper on an incident involving Stuani >>> http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/...w-retrospective-refereeing-work-what-11173785

Sounds like a decision has to be unanimous for retrospective action to be taken, and the discussion on here suggests a unanimous decision is unlikely, even if it is reviewed. Fingers crossed anyway...
 




Wrong-Direction

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2013
13,416
Let me get this straight, you came on to this thread and called two people c*nts for literally no reason, but somebody turns the tables and has a pop at you and it turns in to an invitation to "say it to your face" [emoji38]ol:

EMOTIONAL.



Credit where credit is due, you're consistently an a*sehole on the subject. Congratulations.
Well if we're giving out credit, you're consistently a moron so looks like it's a double celebration [emoji106] [emoji482]

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk
 




Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,719
Back in Sussex
People saying it's a ban should look at the highlights thread with its different angle and commentary. This is Sky creating a controversy

I'm not, nor was I, saying it's a ban. But I could see how a red card could be issued for that and I do believe if it had been the other way round, 80-90% of Albion fans would be saying "disgrace".

Anyway, from that article above:

"The higher the league, the more cameras there are at a game. And for live matches there can be dozens of cameras so an incident at a high-profile game is far more likely to be seen from a variety of angles than at a run-of the-mill lower league clash.

And, for a big game, incidents are far more likely to be flagged up by analysts, pundits and managers in their post match comments and often the narrative around a game is framed by broadcasters who have a vested interest in driving a post match “controversy”.

That leads to an uneven application of the process with nasty tackles going unnoticed outside of the magic bubble of the Sky Sports coverage.

And it can be frustrating for clubs and players to be on the receiving end of an incident that should possibly be reviewed retrospectively only to find the spotlight is elsewhere.

Just last week at QPR Ben Gibson suffered what looked like a clear cut stamp from Sebastian Polter that was missed by the officials but caught on camera - yet the post match inquest was into a “ball over the line” incident.

Similarly at Brighton the following day, all the focus after the whistle was on slow-motion replays of a wrongly disallowed Burnley goal while Joey Barton appears to have escaped after a stamp of his own.

There is a sense that broadcasters are getting to pick-and-choose which incidents get the full “controversy” treatment and that often the coverage is arbitrary."
 




SIMMO SAYS

Well-known member
Jul 31, 2012
11,715
Incommunicado
Let me get this straight, you came on to this thread and called two people c*nts for literally no reason, but somebody turns the tables and has a pop at you and it turns in to an invitation to "say it to your face" :lolol:

EMOTIONAL.



Credit where credit is due, you're consistently an a*sehole on the subject. Congratulations.

OK send your address
 








LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
46,675
SHOREHAM BY SEA
People saying it's a ban should look at the highlights thread with its different angle and commentary. This is Sky creating a controversy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly ..and Souness saying he had a good look ..when it’s clear that Hemed wasn’t looking at the player at all!

Souness also can’t seem to grasp that CH gives an honest answer

..just to balance that slightly he was also full of praise for TH’s performance and Brighton
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here