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

[Bold Seagull]

Because he has until tomorrow to respond, presumably to try and present something mitigating.

Again: all my interpretation, however.

I I was on a panel, my immediate question would be, why didn't you acknowledge you'd stepped on the player immediately after it happened? Presumably as an accident, the standing on his leg would have surprised you, but you neither looked surprised nor attempted to acknowledge or apologise to the player.

Doesn't look good for Tomer I'm afraid, this is really a hammer blow given the form he is in.

 

[Munchkin]

He's gone for three games. These things are never overturned.

Is the correct answer.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Amazing how quickly the Blazers can act when they want to.
All other times they either ignore or bury their heads in the sand.

 

[The Large One]

Not sure what you're saying. My view of the sequencing is this...

1. Panel reviewed footage.
2. FA found all panel members agreed on 'guilt'.
3. Charge issued.

To follow.

4. Hemed has chance to respond.
5. Ban issued / not issued depending on response. (I can't see how a ban won't be issued in this case)

My point is that in law, presented with the evidence against you, you are charged, and you have a chance to defend yourself, THEN you are handed a verdict.

If this affects someone's working life, I'm not sure how sport could be immune to the law.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

My point is that in law, presented with the evidence against you, you are charged, and you have a chance to defend yourself, THEN you are handed a verdict.

If this affects someone's working life, I'm not sure how sport could be immune to the law.

Joey Barton would be in Parkhurst for 10 years if that was the case.

 

[clippedgull]

I think two things will decide his fate.

1: the earlier incident where he briefly squared up to Yedlin after being fouled

2: the failure to apologise immediately after the 'accidental stamp' on the same player, maybe will be seen as retribution.

Can't see anything other than a 3 match ban.

 

[stss30]

Hold your horses, he hasn't been given a 3 game ban yet- http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/155..._charged_after_Newcastle_incident/?ref=twtrec

"Off the ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees.

Each panel member will review the video footage independently to decide whether they consider it a red card offence.

For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous.

If Hemed is found guilty he faces a three-match ban, ruling him out of Sunday's trip to Arsenal, the home game against Everton on October 15 and the trip to West Ham five days later."

So the panel haven't even reviewed this yet.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Surely the albion just have to show Barton's stamp on Kayal, which was much worse, and this gets thrown out ?

 

[Bozza]

It they had agreed he would found guilty not charged?
They just have evidence to send to trial. You can be charged for murder but that does not imply guilt.

He has been found guilty and charged, read the full FA announcement (bold emphasis my own):

"Tomer Hemed has been charged for an alleged act of violent conduct which was not seen by the match officials but caught on video," a statement from The FA read.

"The Brighton & Hove Albion player was involved in an incident with Newcastle United’s DeAndre Yedlin in the 88th minute of the game on Sunday (September 24 2017).

"He has until 6pm on Tuesday [26 September 2017] to respond to the charge.

"Off the ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees.

"Each referee panel member will review the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it a sending-off offence.

"For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous."​

You are only charged after the evidence has been reviewed and a decision of guilt [unanimous view of the three person panel] reached.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Laughable when you think what Joey Barton got away with on Kayal.

Sorry did not see your post.
He said on Talksport this morning that it was accidental, I nearly drove my van into a hedge.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I I was on a panel, my immediate question would be, why didn't you acknowledge you'd stepped on the player immediately after it happened? Presumably as an accident, the standing on his leg would have surprised you, but you neither looked surprised nor attempted to acknowledge or apologise to the player.

Doesn't look good for Tomer I'm afraid, this is really a hammer blow given the form he is in.

Exactly my thoughts on the matter. If it wasn't deliberate then surely the natural reaction to realising that you'd just stepped on someone's leg by accident would be to turn and say "oh shit, sorry mate", wouldn't it? His demeanour after the incident was as if nothing had happened. I don't believe he wouldn't have realised that he'd trodden on the guys' leg...

Not looking good. Bugger; he's been playing really well.

 

[The Large One]

Hold your horses, he hasn't been given a 3 game ban yet- http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/155..._charged_after_Newcastle_incident/?ref=twtrec

"Off the ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees.

Each panel member will review the video footage independently to decide whether they consider it a red card offence.

For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous.

If Hemed is found guilty he faces a three-match ban, ruling him out of Sunday's trip to Arsenal, the home game against Everton on October 15 and the trip to West Ham five days later."

So the panel haven't even reviewed this yet.

But an FA charge has followed, implying that the referees are unanimous.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If this affects someone's working life, I'm not sure how sport could be immune to the law.

Whether you're a park player on a Sunday, or Premier League, when you sign your registration forms, you're agreeing to a set of rules to participate. The player's employment contract is with the club, not the FA. The FA are simply stating he won't be able to participate in 3 matches - this has no reference to his employment contract, and so the law doesn't come into it, because the parties sign up to abide by those rules.

 

[Bozza]

Hold your horses, he hasn't been given a 3 game ban yet- http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/155..._charged_after_Newcastle_incident/?ref=twtrec

"Off the ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees.

Each panel member will review the video footage independently to decide whether they consider it a red card offence.

For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous.

If Hemed is found guilty he faces a three-match ban, ruling him out of Sunday's trip to Arsenal, the home game against Everton on October 15 and the trip to West Ham five days later."

So the panel haven't even reviewed this yet.

They have. He has been charged already. Those last three lines are explaining how the charge came about.

 

[Bozza]

The quote only says charged. It never once says found guilty. That HAS to be after the trial.

I'm giving up after this post.

The panel have found him guilty, that's why he's been charged. There is no "trial" on the conventional sense.

He can appeal. You suspect he will if the club believe there is any chance at all of it being over-turned, but only if a spurious appeal could not lead to a longer ban (of that, I have no idea).

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Please don't tell me Graham Poll is one of the ex refs.
He can't even count to 3.

 

[The Large One]

Whether you're a park player on a Sunday, or Premier League, when you sign your registration forms, you're agreeing to a set of rules to participate. The player's employment contract is with the club, not the FA. The FA are simply stating he won't be able to participate in 3 matches - this has no reference to his employment contract, and so the law doesn't come into it, because the parties sign up to abide by those rules.

Marc Bosman also signed his registration forms to play professional football, and ultimately took the football authorities to court over working practices. And won.

Every law is there, if felt unfair, to be tested.

 

[Hungry Joe]

I'm giving up after this post.

The panel have found him guilty, that's why he's been charged. There is no "trial" on the conventional sense.

He can appeal. You suspect he will if the club believe there is any chance at all of it being over-turned, but only if a spurious appeal could not lead to a longer ban (of that, I have no idea).

Aye, I think he / the club are going to have to suck this one up as the chances of this being overturned are minuscule.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

So basically what’s happened is Hemed, obviously, decided to stamp on Yedlin to break his leg in two places, but stupidly mistimed his stamp so that Yedlin hardly felt any contact, but will rightfully get punished with a three match ban, all the same, because Sky, in their omnipotence, have decided there is a need to generate headlines and controversy from one of their low category games, knowing that they have the FA in their pocket. I will not be visiting the optician anytime soon to get my blue and white striped eyes tested.

 

[stss30]

They have. He has been charged already. Those last three lines are explaining how the charge came about.

What is the difference between being charged and being found guilty then? He's charged ie all the refs think he has committed violent conduct, he is found guilty after he is allowed to respond?