Dale Stephens' appeal [Update: appeal rejected, 3 game ban stands]

[sir albion]

They should show some dignity in doing the right thing instead of making them look stupid because it was a massive game.

Fact is it wasn't even a yellow card offence as Stephens got there first and won the ball.I would be very disappointed if it wasn't overturned as it was a very poor decision end of.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

If it was an assault charge it would be laughed out of court.

 

[Bad Ash]

Some accusations of inappropriate touching are called for.

 

[Triggaaar]

Guy sounds like a grade a ****

He normally seems very likeable, but FFS man, don't be a ****!

 

[virtual22]

If they don't rescind it it is setting a precedent for complete carnage next season. Every injury will need to be inspected by the referee before the card is awarded and knocking cards out of referees hands will be seen to be totally acceptable. I would hope the FA would take this into account before making a decision.

 

[kevo]

If they don't rescind it it is setting a precedent for complete carnage next season. Every injury will need to be inspected by the referee before the card is awarded and knocking cards out of referees hands will be seen to be totally acceptable. I would hope the FA would take this into account before making a decision.

They won't.

 

[kevo]

Does anyone remember this challenge by Mane that got overturned? I see the appeal was dealt with on a Tuesday, so it could be tomorrow for Stephens.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/15/southampton-saido-mane-appeal-red-card


This is interesting - What a red card appeal really means (seems they are not interested in whether it was the correct decision, just if the suspension is fair):

In two parts:

https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/06/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-one/

https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/07/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-two/

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

Does anyone remember this challenge by Mane that got overturned? I see the appeal was dealt with on a Tuesday, so it could be tomorrow for Stephens.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/15/southampton-saido-mane-appeal-red-card


This is interesting - What a red card appeal really means (seems they are not interested in whether it was the correct decision, just if the suspension is fair):

In two parts:

https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/06/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-one/

https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/07/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-two/

So the commission has to decide whether the loss of Stephens for the 3 play-off matches is fair and just punishment for that tackle [wasn't a tackle anyway].
Will very obviously be quashed and he'll start on Friday.

Hmmmm, we'll see .....

 

[atomised]

Fair and just opens up a whole different can of worms in a match of such magnitude. Do they have to look at whether the suspension is fair and just on the club as a whole which could if successful earn that club £170 million.

 

[peterward]

If they don't rescind it it is setting a precedent for complete carnage next season. Every injury will need to be inspected by the referee before the card is awarded and knocking cards out of referees hands will be seen to be totally acceptable. I would hope the FA would take this into account before making a decision.

We may as well put COG to use in his final year, send him out without shinpads and wearing ballerina shoes and tell him to just go for 50/50's with the oppositions best players, sure fire way to the odd graze, cut or swollen toe, get one sent off, then we sub COG and win

its easy this management lark

 

[peterward]

Fair and just opens up a whole different can of worms in a match of such magnitude. Do they have to look at whether the suspension is fair and just on the club as a whole which could if successful earn that club £170 million.

from those red card appeal info pages, the match and the reward of the match (against boro) have no bearing, that is done and dusted. Just whether a 3 match ban is appropriate and who ultimately made the decision and was it correct?

The club have said Dean told players it was because of the cut, but he told Hughton it was on advice of a linesman? If it was the latter, i reckon we have a chance as Dean is 5 yards away with a clear view and had intended to give yellow. If some Berk 40 yards away said something different that swayed him, that could only work in our favour. If Dean himself made the decision without anyone else based on reckless or dangerous play (after seeing cut) and that's how he saw it without linesman involvement I reckon the FA will uphold the ban. I have no idea whether they will factor inn Gastons lack of shin pads, which if he had been wearing may have avoided the cut, and without the cut Dean may have stuck to yellow?

 

[Machiavelli]

Does anyone remember this challenge by Mane that got overturned? I see the appeal was dealt with on a Tuesday, so it could be tomorrow for Stephens.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/15/southampton-saido-mane-appeal-red-card


This is interesting - What a red card appeal really means (seems they are not interested in whether it was the correct decision, just if the suspension is fair):

In two parts:

https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/06/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-one/

https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/07/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-two/

A few things:
-- evidence is submitted on a Monday, considered on a Tuesday but, apparently, the decision is not communicated until the Thursday. I'm wondering why the time lag and, given the circumstances, whether the announcement will be brought forward
-- the Mane decision was won because Southampton's defence was that he always had his eye on the ball. From what I can see, Stephens has a similar focus (do challenge this, if appropriate)
-- the Rose/Carroll comparison indicates the importance of the position of the referee. Does anyone have a shot -- or, better, video clip -- of where Dean was when the challenge was made? I suppose on this, if it was the assistant referee/linesman that overturned Dean's decision, then his view also needs to be taken into account.
-- it also indicates that what other players do is not taken into account when evaluating the ban decision, merely the action of the culprit. This ought to work in our favour, as it seemed to be the actions of Ramirez that informed Dean's decision on the day.

 

[tinycowboy]

Also, a point that bothers me is that part of Mike Dean's reasoning (backed up by his "look at his leg" comments to players) seems to be that the extent of the injury influences the colour of the card. His action on Saturday implies that, if a player is not wearing appropriate guards on his shins (or elsewhere, as appropriate), the responsibility for this lies not with the player himself, but with his opponent - surely a dangerous precedent to set?

 

[Taybha]

The shinpad question is only relevant if he was'nt wearing them , there is no law as far as i know that they must be of a certain size , just that they must be worn and made of certain materials , looking at the video it seems he was wearing some form of protection , probably ala JT's idea of health and safety .

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It seems possible that the red card is upheld but it could be a one match ban instead of three. That way Dean doesn't lose face but the 'punishment' isn't as severe?

 

[clippedgull]

It seems possible that the red card is upheld but it could be a one match ban instead of three. That way Dean doesn't lose face but the 'punishment' isn't as severe?

Before I read this.. I just sent my mate a text with the EXACT same thinking!!

 

[fleet]

So it was going to be yesterday, then certain today and now I am seeing posts that it will be Thursday - it needs to be today so that I can get some work done!

 

[Simster]

It seems possible that the red card is upheld but it could be a one match ban instead of three. That way Dean doesn't lose face but the 'punishment' isn't as severe?

This thought has occurred to me, and honestly is the outcome I am expecting if it is within the rules. Until you mentioned it, I had assumed it wasn't.

 

[LamieRobertson]

It seems possible that the red card is upheld but it could be a one match ban instead of three. That way Dean doesn't lose face but the 'punishment' isn't as severe?

I'm more hopeful for this decision than anything else

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

A few things:
-- evidence is submitted on a Monday, considered on a Tuesday but, apparently, the decision is not communicated until the Thursday. I'm wondering why the time lag and, given the circumstances, whether the announcement will be brought forward
-- the Mane decision was won because Southampton's defence was that he always had his eye on the ball. From what I can see, Stephens has a similar focus (do challenge this, if appropriate)
-- the Rose/Carroll comparison indicates the importance of the position of the referee. Does anyone have a shot -- or, better, video clip -- of where Dean was when the challenge was made? I suppose on this, if it was the assistant referee/linesman that overturned Dean's decision, then his view also needs to be taken into account.
-- it also indicates that what other players do is not taken into account when evaluating the ban decision, merely the action of the culprit. This ought to work in our favour, as it seemed to be the actions of Ramirez that informed Dean's decision on the day.

But the assistant referee/linesman doesn't overturn anything; it is totally the referee's decision. Hypothetically, if the linesman were to have advised the referee that from his vantage point Stephens's play was, in his view, reckless/dangerous then it's totally up to Mike Dean whether and how he reacts to that opinion.