Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Shelvey had a red card overturned, just last season.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Hemed stamp [Charged, appealed, banned for 3 games]
- Thread starter tiotom92
- Start date
Shelvey had a red card overturned, just last season.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,834
The Keys/Gray/Curbs/McCoist show wasn't Sky was it, surely? I thought that ship had sailed ages ago? I've not seen the Sky stuff, but there was no mention of it on MOTD2, the BBC Live text or anything else. I did see about three of the back pages leading with it, which probably didn't help...
Was it an intentional stamp? We'll probably never know – you could probably argue both points. However, there's no point dwelling on it or arguing the toss – just gotta hope that Muzza gets fit and whoever replaces Tomar steps up...
Was it an intentional stamp? We'll probably never know – you could probably argue both points. However, there's no point dwelling on it or arguing the toss – just gotta hope that Muzza gets fit and whoever replaces Tomar steps up...
Agreed. As much as I don't like the international breaks - they just disrupt the flow of the season - this one is well timed for us.
The current prognosis on Murray may also influence whether we appeal the decision or not. I have no information, but I'm suspecting we won't, as the risk of extending the ban is too great, even if Murray is not believed to be far away.
Farehamseagull
Solly March Fan Club
Rightly so for that incident but he also received a 5 game ban for alleged racism as well as the three game ban this season. Barton has had many bans and his career ended by the FA so to say they don't get banned is laughable. Both are horrible individuals who have usually been rightly punished when needed (Kayal incident aside).
We need to get over this poor little victimised Brighton attitude, the FA are generally inept but most bans they dish out are fair and Hemed has put himself in this position.
c0lz
North East Stand.
SeafordBHA
New member
- Aug 13, 2011
- 410
For those questioning why he didn't turn around and apologise/help him up, would you still have said the same at the time, when we're desperately trying to hold onto a 1-0 lead and on a rare counter attack to relieve pressure. Ridiculous suggestion.
'Yeah don't worry about the game Tomer, just turn round and make sure that poor lad who fell over after little contact is ok. Result doesn't matter at the end of the day, as long as you've apologised.'
'Yeah don't worry about the game Tomer, just turn round and make sure that poor lad who fell over after little contact is ok. Result doesn't matter at the end of the day, as long as you've apologised.'
grubbyhands
Well-known member
Looks deliberate to me having just seen it on MOTD2.I hope Tomer regrets that, silly boy.
I would imagine the club would announce if they are appealing or not, sometime ahead of 6pm. If they don't announce that, I'd assume they haven't and the ban will stand.
Can anyone recall the specifics of what happened with the Barton/Kayal thing?
I can completely understand why people draw parallels between the two incidents, but I don't recall Barton ever being "cleared" as some are saying. My recollection, which may be off, is that the match referee saw the incident (the ball is in shot of all the photos of the stamp) so it would NOT have been referred to subsequent review.
If the referee sees the incident and takes no action, then it can not be looked at again, under current rules.
Given this, I don't think they're the same at all although, again, I get why people are mentioning it.
I can completely understand why people draw parallels between the two incidents, but I don't recall Barton ever being "cleared" as some are saying. My recollection, which may be off, is that the match referee saw the incident (the ball is in shot of all the photos of the stamp) so it would NOT have been referred to subsequent review.
If the referee sees the incident and takes no action, then it can not be looked at again, under current rules.
Given this, I don't think they're the same at all although, again, I get why people are mentioning it.
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Correct, they don't like to undermine referees authority that's why they only deal with stuff the match day referee admits he hasn't seen.
No point in challenging this one if it goes against Hemed in my opinion - it made no difference in the Dale Stephens red card case so I can't see why this'd be any different.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Yes - of course, that was how it happened wasn't it. Daft rule, because of course the referee can't have seen the incident properly, or he'd have sent him off. So the ref is basically saying, yes I saw the incident, and Barton didn't tread on him. And the FA says, fine, no problem, clearly your eyes are right and all the video evidence is faulty
This incident might be good for us, to teach everyone that the world is looking and you just can't do all the little niggles and kicks and so on that we got away with in the champonship.
If Yedlin had spent more time on his feet and less time rolling about on the Amex turf he wouldn’t have been trodden on.
Not guilty.
Not guilty.
Southern Scouse
Well-known member
- Jul 21, 2011
- 2,023
Guilty. No question.
Stupid decision on what was a great day for him and the team. Hopefully we can manage the next three games without a striker......
Stupid decision on what was a great day for him and the team. Hopefully we can manage the next three games without a striker......
Yes, but equally the ref's usual cop out is to deny seeing it.
Re Hemed, I'm staggered the 4th official didn't see it.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk