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

[dingodan]

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.

On the one hand I can imagine it was totally unintentional, but on the other hand the above is exactly what went through my mind too. I was expecting to see Tomer immediately turn around to Yedlin and apologise/acknowledge what had happened. But with it being so quick, and since Hemed definately did not place weight on it, he may have not even realized that he had hurt him.

Usually when this happens deliberately the player will place all their weight on that foot, and Tomer definately did not do that.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

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

Sounds reasonable.

Being charged doesn't come with automatic guilt.

 

[Stat Brother]

Dunno why everyone is getting so titsy.

The club must have a plethora of strikers it can call upon, having been handed a cheque for £120m just 3 months ago.

 

[middletoenail]

Disappointed in Hemed, because I feel that he could have avoided this if he really wanted to.

As someone who is out of contract, our main striker (at present), who is performing very well in arguably the best league in the world, smacks of pure stupidity.

Sent from my SM-G9350 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugrat]

Not sure if this has been posted already, interesting discussion on this here:

Panel divided 2/2.

When we have a 'next Manager' poll I'm definitely not voting for Curbishley

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

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

But his column today stated that he Poll thought it was an accident

 

[bhanutz]

Izzy Brown up front it is then!

 

[Gazz15]

Once charged by the FA you are already guilty.

John Terry was. even cleared in a proper Court of law, yet still found guilty of the same alleged offence by the FA Kangaroo court afterwards.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

If he has already been found guilty, why are they still calling it an alleged act of violent conduct? Surely the statement would say, he has been charged with violent conduct?

 

[Bozza]

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?

There is no difference in this case. Guilty = charged.

I guess the response bit here is similar to appealing in conventional law.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

But his column today stated that he Poll thought it was an accident

I didn't think he was capable of seeing any foul as an accident.
Knowing our luck General Melchett will be there as well. Behrrrrrr.

 

[Bozza]

If he has already been found guilty, why are they still calling it an alleged act of violent conduct? Surely the statement would say, he has been charged with violent conduct?

Dunno. But the FAs own wording says that a charge only follows a review and a unanimous decision.

 

[LANGDON SEAGULL]

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

The three are Ron Challis, Kelvin Morton and Mike Dean


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kosh]

Oh great. Jamie Murphy up top against the gunners.

Slick.

 

[Notters]

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).

Naylor seems to suggest that it hasn't gone to panel yet.

 

[Gazz15]

Langdon Seagull,

Ron Challis you say, my dad went to the FA Cup 2nd replay v Crystal Palace at Stamford Bridge I think it was, never seen him so angry about a football match in 50 years, he could hardly talk about it the next day.

Ron Challis - a never forgotten cheat!

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

The three are Ron Challis, Kelvin Morton and Mike Dean


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh no! Roll on two.

 

[blockhseagull]

Naylor seems to suggest that it hasn't gone to panel yet.

Yeah that article he is written is shocking

 

[Kosh]

Oooohhhh the reminds me of that Alanis Morrisette song Ironic.

A thousand wingers when all you need is a ****ing striker.

Not ironic but very, very and annoyingly true.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Never in doubt, sky all over it, picked up a Daily mirror when I stopped for fuel today and the 'stamp' was the whole of the back page.

Have we ever had a positive result from the disciplinary committee ?