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

[Thunder Bolt]

I don't think that's true. Yes Barton escaped the Kayal incident but both him and Shelvey have had numerous bans from the FA, Shelvey this season for a similar incident.

I do think we're being a bit precious on this thread, the more I look at it, the more I think it's deliberate and he's only got himself to blame.

Our recruitment department have a lot to answer for again also, something like this was ALWAYS going to happen with our lack of strike force.

Shelvey had a red card overturned, just last season.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Oh well. Three weeks before any game that matters so Murray can get himself fit for a couple of games.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The Keys/Gray/Curbs/McCoist show wasn't Sky was it, surely? I thought that ship had sailed ages ago? I've not seen the Sky stuff, but there was no mention of it on MOTD2, the BBC Live text or anything else. I did see about three of the back pages leading with it, which probably didn't help...

Was it an intentional stamp? We'll probably never know – you could probably argue both points. However, there's no point dwelling on it or arguing the toss – just gotta hope that Muzza gets fit and whoever replaces Tomar steps up...

 

[Bozza]

Oh well. Three weeks before any game that matters so Murray can get himself fit for a couple of games.

Agreed. As much as I don't like the international breaks - they just disrupt the flow of the season - this one is well timed for us.

The current prognosis on Murray may also influence whether we appeal the decision or not. I have no information, but I'm suspecting we won't, as the risk of extending the ban is too great, even if Murray is not believed to be far away.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Shelvey had a red card overturned, just last season.

Rightly so for that incident but he also received a 5 game ban for alleged racism as well as the three game ban this season. Barton has had many bans and his career ended by the FA so to say they don't get banned is laughable. Both are horrible individuals who have usually been rightly punished when needed (Kayal incident aside).

We need to get over this poor little victimised Brighton attitude, the FA are generally inept but most bans they dish out are fair and Hemed has put himself in this position.

 

[c0lz]

 

[SeafordBHA]

For those questioning why he didn't turn around and apologise/help him up, would you still have said the same at the time, when we're desperately trying to hold onto a 1-0 lead and on a rare counter attack to relieve pressure. Ridiculous suggestion.

'Yeah don't worry about the game Tomer, just turn round and make sure that poor lad who fell over after little contact is ok. Result doesn't matter at the end of the day, as long as you've apologised.'

 

[grubbyhands]

Looks deliberate to me having just seen it on MOTD2.I hope Tomer regrets that, silly boy.

 

[Mellotron]

When's the decision announced?

 

[Husty]

Well the 3 referees on the panel have to unanimously agree it was deliberate. Hopefully at least 1 of them will have doubts and Hemed won't get a ban.

Keep up at the back

 

[Bozza]

When's the decision announced?

I would imagine the club would announce if they are appealing or not, sometime ahead of 6pm. If they don't announce that, I'd assume they haven't and the ban will stand.

 

[Bozza]

Can anyone recall the specifics of what happened with the Barton/Kayal thing?

I can completely understand why people draw parallels between the two incidents, but I don't recall Barton ever being "cleared" as some are saying. My recollection, which may be off, is that the match referee saw the incident (the ball is in shot of all the photos of the stamp) so it would NOT have been referred to subsequent review.

If the referee sees the incident and takes no action, then it can not be looked at again, under current rules.

Given this, I don't think they're the same at all although, again, I get why people are mentioning it.

 

[perseus]

Yedlin was dogshit and you wouldn't step in that on purpose. Not guilty.

 

[Curious Orange]

Can anyone recall the specifics of what happened with the Barton/Kayal thing?

I can completely understand why people draw parallels between the two incidents, but I don't recall Barton ever being "cleared" as some are saying. My recollection, which may be off, is that the match referee saw the incident (the ball is in shot of all the photos of the stamp) so it would NOT have been referred to subsequent review.

If the referee sees the incident and takes no action, then it can not be looked at again, under current rules.

Given this, I don't think they're the same at all although, again, I get why people are mentioning it.

Correct, they don't like to undermine referees authority that's why they only deal with stuff the match day referee admits he hasn't seen.

No point in challenging this one if it goes against Hemed in my opinion - it made no difference in the Dale Stephens red card case so I can't see why this'd be any different.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Can anyone recall the specifics of what happened with the Barton/Kayal thing?

I can completely understand why people draw parallels between the two incidents, but I don't recall Barton ever being "cleared" as some are saying. My recollection, which may be off, is that the match referee saw the incident (the ball is in shot of all the photos of the stamp) so it would NOT have been referred to subsequent review.

If the referee sees the incident and takes no action, then it can not be looked at again, under current rules.

Given this, I don't think they're the same at all although, again, I get why people are mentioning it.

Yes - of course, that was how it happened wasn't it. Daft rule, because of course the referee can't have seen the incident properly, or he'd have sent him off. So the ref is basically saying, yes I saw the incident, and Barton didn't tread on him. And the FA says, fine, no problem, clearly your eyes are right and all the video evidence is faulty


This incident might be good for us, to teach everyone that the world is looking and you just can't do all the little niggles and kicks and so on that we got away with in the champonship.

 

[Driver8]

If Yedlin had spent more time on his feet and less time rolling about on the Amex turf he wouldn’t have been trodden on.

Not guilty.

 

[dingodan]

Hemed was with me all of Sunday afternoon.

Not guilty.

 

[Southern Scouse]

Guilty. No question.
Stupid decision on what was a great day for him and the team. Hopefully we can manage the next three games without a striker......

 

[_mark_]

All this "his eyes were on the ball" is total nonsense imo, as is the FA/Sky picking on Brighton.

Professional athletes train on working on their peripheral vision. He knew exactly what he was doing and got caught. Take the ban on the chin and learn.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Can anyone recall the specifics of what happened with the Barton/Kayal thing?

I can completely understand why people draw parallels between the two incidents, but I don't recall Barton ever being "cleared" as some are saying. My recollection, which may be off, is that the match referee saw the incident (the ball is in shot of all the photos of the stamp) so it would NOT have been referred to subsequent review.

If the referee sees the incident and takes no action, then it can not be looked at again, under current rules.

Given this, I don't think they're the same at all although, again, I get why people are mentioning it.

Yes, but equally the ref's usual cop out is to deny seeing it.

Re Hemed, I'm staggered the 4th official didn't see it.....





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk