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

[Bold Seagull]

#

Not signing another striker.

Is that now being pinned solely on PB? Incredible.

TB, with such huge sums involved and the importance, would have determined or at the very least been a key part of the 'better value & more strikers become available at the end of August' theory.

PB on the Albion Roar goes through all this, and it is difficult to question his honesty in reflecting on events during the window.

Let us also remember TB sets the wage structure and the club have to work within that structure. There is a belief that a fair wage structure engenders a strong team spirit, and I'd have to say since Hughton arrived, it would be hard to disagree.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Any player who stamps on an opponent deserves a ban and perhaps an extra game for idiocy if they think it won't be picked up by a camera.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Is that now being pinned solely on PB? Incredible.

TB, with such huge sums involved and the importance, would have determined or at the very least been a key part of the 'better value & more strikers become available at the end of August' theory.

Not to mention Paul Winstanley and the recruitment team. No, it's all Paul Barber's fault, every bit of it.

 

[1066familyman]

The extra game is added on if the FA consider it's frivolous, or a silly reason why it has been appealed. The club felt they had a good reason to appeal by stating it was accidental rather than deliberate.
That was rejected, so the 3 match ban still applies, with nothing extra.

Ok, thanks.

 

[cjd]

Does this mean he is banned for three games as from now ?

Or 3 games after Glen Murray is declared fit ?

Or three games of our choosing ?

Or three games immediately after 1st January ?

Or can it be postponed until we have signed another striker ?

Or maybe after Hemed retires ?

What if he changes his name by deed poll ?

Or wears a disguise ?




I think that covers most of my questions.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Yes he did it, yes he should be punished.
But the sooner they change the rule of 'unseen by the ref' the better. If a player does anything that warrents a ban, regardless of whether the ref thought it was just a foul, the better.

This purely a British rule. I don't believe there is any Fifa directive that says you can't punish a player retrospectively if a referee has acted during a game.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Can't complain - as I already said I think it looks deliberate.

However, this one from last season is a lot more obvious, but no ban followed:

Barton's was worse too, as we know, and he also escaped.

No consistency.

All depends on whether the referee has seen it or not. These retrospective bans only take place if the referee hasn't seen it. In the case of Rojo, if he gives a foul for the challenge on Hazard and has seen the challenge, then the panel wouldn't review the stamp.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Tough.... IMHO one cannot judge intent in a close contact tackle like that. The 'Castle player tackled him.. they tangled and momentum carried him forward to put his foot down. But then , I am an Albion fan.......

Frankly, for Sunday's game I would rather be short of attackers than defenders. Let's see who is available after yet another International Break.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/155...pts_FA_ban___but_can_t_agree_with_it/?ref=mac


In a message released via social media, the Israel striker wrote: “I accept the decision against me but do not agree with it and I am devastated to miss three matches.
“I would never go out to injure a fellow professional on purpose, and those of my friends and team-mates who know me, know that this is not in my nature.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Any player who stamps on an opponent deserves a ban and perhaps an extra game for idiocy if they think it won't be picked up by a camera.

It's not thought through though is it? It's a red mist reaction where rational thought processes are overridden and cameras or consequences don't enter the mental equation whatsoever.

 

[Questions]

I'm struggling to keep up with events.



I thought an unsuccessful appeal resulted in an additional 1 game ban, or is the additional game only if the appeal is seen as 'frivolous'?

If the latter, it then begs the question... What is their definition of 'frivolous' and who decides whether it's frivolous or not?

]

Frivolous can mean silly, light hearted and even whimsical. I think therefore, it is included to stop players appealing wearing rotating bow ties, clip on red noses or flowers on their lapel which can be made to squirt water over you If you try to smell them.

 

[portlock seagull]

Fans as well as players ought to remember the eyes of the world are on them in the PL...! Wanna be an infamous viral and potentially lose your job...? Amex is the place to do it and be more than a retrospective 3 game ban, you could be ducked for life!

 

[Wrong-Direction]

How about we just forget about it now it's done?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[BensGrandad]

At least he can take his family back home for a few days rest especially if they have a home international match.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

How about we just forget about it now it's done?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

I had forgotten all about it until you bounced this thread.

 

[GT49er]

Still feels like a 'result' for Sky to me. Tangle of legs, and a three game ban for putting a foot down when off-balance as a result.............. The authorities never seem to do us any favours - oh well, time to move on.

 

[b.w.2.]

Bollox


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

[yt]https://youtu.be/WTr1M7DwLkc[/yt]

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I want Bong up front just for the giggles.

 

[dangull]

Lets be honest he was guilty as hell. Well done to CH and the club to try to defend an employee as best they could.

It reminded me of the hopeless OJ Simpson case. There was no way a person could get away with that?