What's done is done, you learn from it by making sure it doesn't happen again because you don't want to be banned again. Try a little harder to avoid the bloke's leg next time? Apologise straight after? Just ideas, but both of those MIGHT have saved him.
The outcome most of us fully expected, but the club had to give it a go. It's what all our rivals would have done in the same situation given a hint of doubt, and we have all seen worse not punished - but in the final analysis Hemed has now got to take responsibility, learn from it, and...
If you're being accused of a stamp - which he is, under the broader umbrella term - then surely intent is vital? Otherwise it is an accidental contact, like a no-fault clash of heads. For other fouls, handballs, intent isn't so important.
I think the club and Hemed's best chance is the panel worrying about precedent and looking beyond this specific incident.
Because if they do Hemed, they are going to have to do a lot more players in the future - it would be significantly moving things away from 'obvious stamp' to 'maybe he...
He can be charged. But he hasn't been banned already, as The Sun stated in the headline. The charge triggers the hearing, at which Hemed could either plead guilty, or throw the kitchen sink at defending himself, which I am sure and trust the club will do. There are plenty of opportunities to...
Graham Poll: "Andre Marriner appeared to miss the alleged stamp when Tomer Hemed clashed with DeAndre Yedlin.
There was contact on Yedlin's ankle but my first thought was Hemed tried to avoid his opponent.
The FA will look at it but the level of intent is hard to determine.
Chris Hughton...
Inconclusive, but the club have to throw everything at defending him if charged and they have stuff to work with. There is no stamping action, certainly doubts over intent and whether possible to avoid it. Plus the 'he"s not that type of player,' though that's less relevant than the incident...