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

[Triggaaar]

Why? It wasn't even a foul. If he gets a ban then we know the FA and/or FL are clueless.

We already know they're clueless, don't you remember Murphy's red card? We all know we've been wronged, and even a 1 game ban is adding insult to injury, but fans have no faith in the FA/FL, so some would still take a 1 game ban as it's better than a 3.

 

[Acker79]

My post on a similar thread from the weekend

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/more/rules-of-the-association - The relevant PDF is 'Disciplinary Procedures Section A, B and C: Field Offences...'

Quote Originally Posted by Kazenga <3
Is it true that you can appeal for reduction of suspension rather than complete rescinding... but not both? Seem to remember something like this for the Murphy red earlier in the season where the appeal was not upheld and he served a 3 game ban but there was suggestion that asking for a reduced suspension to one game may have been successful?

That confused me, because that was what was said, but around that same time Arsenal were appealing something and it was said the regulations had changed this year and you could appeal both. I can only assume that it's a change for premier league, but not the football league? The PDF I mention above seems to suggest the reduction of bans is saved for exceptional circumstances, but my eyes were starting to glaze over before I could find anything about whether it was either/or, or you could apply for both.

There was also something recently where a decision was overturned on a majority decision, not a unanimous one (which is different to the MLS, but again, was a premier league decision), which came in for some criticism from journalists, because it was felt there was a case to answer, but I can't remember specifically to which incident it related.

Originally Posted by sparkie
Does the albion present a case with evidence and testimony etc., or do they just say 'we appeal' and leave it at that ?

They provide a written statement of facts and a dvd/video. The panel looks at that and the referee's match report. Neither the ref nor the player or clubs representative is present. (according to the pdf linked above)

 

[Gwylan]

Your response actually captures the reason why they probably won't accept the appeal.

It could lead to a legal challenge as that match virtually determined who went up to the premiership and the wealth that goes with that. It probably wouldn't but they won't want to open the door for even a debate on it

I've seen this mentioned before and I don't think it's true.

Courts are really loath to get involved in sporting disputes unless there's a cast-iron case for doing so. For this to be the case, there'd have to be a clear demonstration that a dismissal automatically (or nearly automatically) means a side loses and we all know that isn't the case (hell, in the past, we've lost a game when the opposition had TWO men dismissed).

I can't see any legal action from Brighton if we got this rescinded, it's not on the agenda

 

[KingstonSeagull]

Appeals against a red card can only be made on the basis of mistaken identity.

 

[Triggaaar]

Your response actually captures the reason why they probably won't accept the appeal.

It could lead to a legal challenge as that match virtually determined who went up to the premiership and the wealth that goes with that.

That's nonsense, you could apply that logic to all games. Of course that one game was a decider for promotion, but let's not pretend there aren't countless other games that decide who goes up, down, into the CL, etc etc every year.

Since you're talking about a legal challenge, you could do that without the FA cancelling the ban. Your lawyers don't need them to admit their mistake in order to start a claim. But no one makes claims like this, because it's understood that you get mistakes in football, and you move on. Like when England scored against Germany, and it wasn't given - everyone knew it was wrong, but there wasn't even a request for a replay let alone a legal challenge, because that's football.

There are mistakes in every game. This hearing is to prevent further punishment resulting from a referee's mistake.

 

[graz126]

Your response actually captures the reason why they probably won't accept the appeal.

It could lead to a legal challenge as that match virtually determined who went up to the premiership and the wealth that goes with that. It probably wouldn't but they won't want to open the door for even a debate on it

my response is uncorrupt and correct. if the fa don't do the right thing then they are only proving they are corrupt. if the quash the ban as a mistake a gentlemans agreement to not pursue any further legal action could be set. if they don't do the the right thing what is to stop us taking it to uefa or whoever until someone admits it was wrong to brandish a red card. everyone is accountable for the actions. as I was when a linesman I threatened to shove my flag up a refs jacksy.

 

[graz126]

also we cannot prove we would have got promoted without the red card. people should stand for what is correct. not settle for a lesser punishment after commiting no crime

 

[fleet]

This legal action stuff is nonsense - the decision was wrong, but that is just the way things go. One decision doesn't decide who gets promotion. There is no reason at all not to just overturn the decision - which was made without the help of replays - and we move on to Friday - but just do it now as I can't take the wait.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

How long does it take The FA to get the Match Officials' report? Nothing showing on the website.

 

[graz126]

if you didn't commit murder but got locked up for the night you would be happy enough to be released in the morning yes. would ya be happy if they said ok we aint sure so we will lock you up for a further year instead of 5?

 

[JonnyComeEarly]

Why? It wasn't even a foul. If he gets a ban then we know the FA and/or FL are clueless.

Why? Becuase what 'should' happen (it gets over ruled) probably wont. So a 1 game ban is much better than 3

 

[Triggaaar]

if you didn't commit murder but got locked up for the night you would be happy enough to be released in the morning yes. would ya be happy if they said ok we aint sure so we will lock you up for a further year instead of 5?

But we live in a free country and we expect justice. The FA/FL isn't free, it's a dictatorship. If you lived in a dictatorship and you were arrested after being accused of moving your eyes, you'd probably be relieved if they later told you you'd serve one day in jail.

 

[Swillis]

How long does it take The FA to get the Match Officials' report? Nothing showing on the website.

For some strange reason it only shows up if you do not add 'Brighton and Hove Albion'

 

[Smiley Miley]

There is here though...

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/suspensions

 

[brightonrock]

I see the Derby lad Thorne had his leg broken in a tackle for which his opponent wasn't even booked. Now I've not seen that tackle but if refs are saying it's a red for the severity of injury caused then I assume they'll retrospectively ban the Ipswich player?

And next time two players clash heads and one ends up bleeding, that'll be a red too? "Look at his head, look at his head!", to paraphrase Mike Dean.

One rule for one...

It's infuriating that the FA/FL won't apply common sense, listen to reason or admit fault. They won't be consistent across the board. They won't let The Mike Dean Show succumb to poor reviews. They'll just close ranks and prove AGAIN that the game is rotten from top to bottom. I'm not saying we would have won against Boro with 11 on the pitch. Maybe in an alternative universe he shows a yellow and we get beaten anyway. But that shambles of a red, influenced by their player, the occasion and the atmosphere, robbed us of the level playing field to try.

It's weeks like this that make me question why I shell out hundreds of quid a year to be patronised and aggravated by a closed shop of boundless, unrepentantly corrupt ********s.

 

[Triggaaar]

I see the Derby lad Thorne had his leg broken in a tackle for which his opponent wasn't even booked. Now I've not seen that tackle but if refs are saying it's a red for the severity of injury caused then I assume they'll retrospectively ban the Ipswich player?

And next time two players clash heads and one ends up bleeding, that'll be a red too? "Look at his head, look at his head!", to paraphrase Mike Dean.

Exactly, is this really that difficult to grasp? It's just one of those moments where you just stand there open mouthed, looking around you to see if everyone else can see that the world's gone ****ing mad.

 

[aolstudios]

I see the Derby lad Thorne had his leg broken in a tackle for which his opponent wasn't even booked. Now I've not seen that tackle but if refs are saying it's a red for the severity of injury caused then I assume they'll retrospectively ban the Ipswich player?

And next time two players clash heads and one ends up bleeding, that'll be a red too? "Look at his head, look at his head!", to paraphrase Mike Dean.

One rule for one...

It's infuriating that the FA/FL won't apply common sense, listen to reason or admit fault. They won't be consistent across the board. They won't let The Mike Dean Show succumb to poor reviews. They'll just close ranks and prove AGAIN that the game is rotten from top to bottom. I'm not saying we would have won against Boro with 11 on the pitch. Maybe in an alternative universe he shows a yellow and we get beaten anyway. But that shambles of a red, influenced by their player, the occasion and the atmosphere, robbed us of the level playing field to try.

It's weeks like this that make me question why I shell out hundreds of quid a year to be patronised and aggravated by a closed shop of boundless, unrepentantly corrupt ********s.

Spot. the ****. On...

 

[Arthritic Toe]

I think the queen is allowed to issue a pardon.

 

[Bwian]

We already know they're clueless, don't you remember Murphy's red card? We all know we've been wronged, and even a 1 game ban is adding insult to injury, but fans have no faith in the FA/FL, so some would still take a 1 game ban as it's better than a 3.

I see the logic but hate how we could be without what was one of better players at Boro. Even 1 game puts us at a disadvantage-that would be 2 key players missing from a very important away leg.

 

[Gazwag]

I see the Derby lad Thorne had his leg broken in a tackle for which his opponent wasn't even booked. Now I've not seen that tackle but if refs are saying it's a red for the severity of injury caused then I assume they'll retrospectively ban the Ipswich player?

And next time two players clash heads and one ends up bleeding, that'll be a red too? "Look at his head, look at his head!", to paraphrase Mike Dean.

One rule for one...

It's infuriating that the FA/FL won't apply common sense, listen to reason or admit fault. They won't be consistent across the board. They won't let The Mike Dean Show succumb to poor reviews. They'll just close ranks and prove AGAIN that the game is rotten from top to bottom. I'm not saying we would have won against Boro with 11 on the pitch. Maybe in an alternative universe he shows a yellow and we get beaten anyway. But that shambles of a red, influenced by their player, the occasion and the atmosphere, robbed us of the level playing field to try.

It's weeks like this that make me question why I shell out hundreds of quid a year to be patronised and aggravated by a closed shop of boundless, unrepentantly corrupt ********s.

Wasn't Rosenior's injury at the Amex very similar which put him out for a few months which is a bit more than a Mr Bump plaster could treat. That wasn't even a free kick.