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

[Mellotron]

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. The ref (Pawson?) confirmed he saw the deliberate stamp and decided it was FINE.

 

[Gully Forever]

I'm afraid that's where I disagree. For me, the action can very easily be interpreted as a stamp. .

If this does get interpreted as a stamp its extremely petty, and a knee jerk reaction from all the media shite.
Even a 12 year old girl can do damage if STAMPED on your leg. he lost his balance and stepped on his leg, resulting in NO injury whatsoever.

I still remain to CH's view that it was NOT intentional.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Well the ref had already given a free kick for the foul before the stamp. I didn't think he commented on the stamp, I thought it was looked at afterwards, as I thought we were expecting him to be banned, but I could easily be mistaken.

I can't see a reference to the review online, so I guess the idiot ref said he saw it and it was great.

 

[Napper]

If Hughton doesn't play Brown as NO 9 (providing Murray out) , then will be bloody annoying.

 

[Surf's Up]

No chance of the FA changing their mind, irrespective of how wrong they are. Hughton would not ordinarily have made a change but the enforced one could work in our favour if Brown comes good.

 

[Bold Seagull]

If Hughton doesn't play Brown as NO 9 (providing Murray out) , then will be bloody annoying.

Hughton will play whomever he feels will be most effective. The only annoying thing will be a lack of options, not Hughton's decision making imho.

 

[BhafcBlues]

Can we just remember this went unpunished ... https://vine.co/v/ijH5gKpK9aF/
I can not believe this is is the same catergory! And yet hemed was found guilty ... Ridiculousb

 

[Munkfish]

To be honest, Its a clear stamp and he is guilty.

Take your blue and white specs off, if you look at Liverpool and Mane a few weeks back they can feel a little hard done by as Matt Richie got away with the same thing a day later, however both should have been red cards.

This clearly seems harsh, however he has stomped, stepped on the player clearly, he could have easily got out of the way of player even if he had to fall over himself.

The bigger worry is who will replace him, if it is Jamie Murphy we are ****ed, he was completely inaffective against Bournemouth in the cup last tuesday, I doubt Brown is the solution either, but I think this is what we will see.

People suggesting Jose as an option well its just that, its an option but it will not happen, not having a recognised striker will cost us dearly.

 

[LlcoolJ]

To be honest, Its a clear stamp and he is guilty.

Take your blue and white specs off, if you look at Liverpool and Mane a few weeks back they can feel a little hard done by as Matt Richie got away with the same thing a day later, however both should have been red cards.

This clearly seems harsh, however he has stomped, stepped on the player clearly, he could have easily got out of the way of player even if he had to fall over himself.

The bigger worry is who will replace him, if it is Jamie Murphy we are ****ed, he was completely inaffective against Bournemouth in the cup last tuesday, I doubt Brown is the solution either, but I think this is what we will see.

People suggesting Jose as an option well its just that, its an option but it will not happen, not having a recognised striker will cost us dearly.

That's the spirit.

 

[B.W.]

It is NOT a clear stamp, and he is not found guilty yet. Some jumping the gun on here... let's see the panel outcome, shall we? I note that:

"Not a stamp, but was there intent? Former top ref Dermot Gallagher gives his verdict on the Tomer Hemed incident against Newcastle"... ... in the Argus.

 

[LamieRobertson]

It is NOT a clear stamp, and he is not found guilty yet. Some jumping the gun on here... let's see the panel outcome, shall we? I note that:

"Not a stamp, but was there intent? Former top ref Dermot Gallagher gives his verdict on the Tomer Hemed incident against Newcastle"... ... in the Argus.

 

[Driver8]

It is NOT a clear stamp, and he is not found guilty yet. Some jumping the gun on here... let's see the panel outcome, shall we? I note that:

"Not a stamp, but was there intent? Former top ref Dermot Gallagher gives his verdict on the Tomer Hemed incident against Newcastle"... ... in the Argus.

The “panel outcome” is guilty which is why he was charged. See above.

 

[amexer]

Whats the procedure. I assume Hemed Hughton etc are now at FA HQ pleading there case

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

First question - Why didn't you look back when you landed on another players leg?

He hasn't got a hope in hell of getting away with it. Silly.

 

[BensGrandad]

Dermot Gallagher is hedging his bets by saying it was NOT a stamp but question whether treading on his leg was intentional. Graham Poll says it wasnt a stamp so 2 well respected ex refs have gone in Tomers favour will be interesting to see how the panel see it. IMHO it is not cut and dried either way .

 

[Marshy]

not a stamp, and was looking at the ball. Only Tomer knows if he was hoping to land on some leg....

 

[Bodian]

Dermot Gallagher is hedging his bets by saying it was NOT a stamp but question whether treading on his leg was intentional. Graham Poll says it wasnt a stamp so 2 well respected ex refs have gone in Tomers favour will be interesting to see how the panel see it. IMHO it is not cut and dried either way .

But wouldn't 'intentionally treading on a player's leg' still be a sending off issue for violent conduct, regardless of whether it was a stamp? I think the only thing they'll look at is whether it was intentional or not - they'll ignore the lack of force and so on. And as others have posted, the fact that Hemed didn't look back will weigh against him. It's one thing to say 'sorry, didn't meant it', but to then further convince them that 'I didn't even know I had stood on his leg' is probably pushing the bounds of credibility a bit far.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I'm amazed anyone would think Hemed didn't mean it

He has played football for over 20 years. By now he knows what GRASS feels like under his boot. Last time I checked, a human leg isn't that similar.

If you don't want to hurt someone, and you land on a body part, you INSTANTLY turn to apologise/check they are ok.

I have no problem in saying I did similar playing Sunday League(yes, I know it's not prem). A guy had deliberately tried to hurt me several times and on the next header I landed on his foot, pushed down and then jogged on.

Straight red and rightly so. I knew exactly what I was doing and my lack of compassion made it even clearer.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

If you are trying to get away with it you would imstantly turn around, apologise and make a big fuss to the reff. This increases the chances that it will appear in his match report and, therefore, stopping any retrospective punishment.

Hang on.

So in what situation would you do what Tomer did, and just jog away? Don't tell me, if you landed on someones leg (and there is NO WAY you can't say you didn't realise..it's a leg) would you just jog away?

 

[Marshy]

I'm amazed anyone would think Hemed didn't mean it

He has played football for over 20 years. By now he knows what GRASS feels like under his boot. Last time I checked, a human leg isn't that similar.

If you don't want to hurt someone, and you land on a body part, you INSTANTLY turn to apologise/check they are ok.

I have no problem in saying I did similar playing Sunday League(yes, I know it's not prem). A guy had deliberately tried to hurt me several times and on the next header I landed on his foot, pushed down and then jogged on.

Straight red and rightly so. I knew exactly what I was doing and my lack of compassion made it even clearer.

I know you right he will almost 100% get done for it..... hopefully get the ban reduced though...

Barton for example got away with his on Kayal which was way worse....

Difference being i guess in the Premier League and on the TV...