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

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Although it's not our 'way', Arsenal's biggest problems this season were Leicester at home (Counter attacking with long balls into the channel for Vardy) , Liverpool away (Counter attaching with Salah etc running the channels) and Stoke away (Arsenal had a record level of possession but were counter attacked)

It's not pretty and it won't look great, but a 'runner' up top may well suit. Someone like Murphy/Izquierdo/Brown may prove a extremely viable option.

Mustafi and Koscielny are not the quickest whilst Kolasinac and Bellerin will basically be wingers against us. There will be gaps to play into. It's still going to be ridiculously tough though.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Not even worth appealing then. Referees will stick rigidly to the rules and the panel of ex referees will always back them up.

Having said that, there has been some excellent refereeing so far this season.

Plenty of reasons I reckon.

Solidarity with the player who is adamant he didn't do it? Show the premier league we're no pushovers at this level? Tell the fans we're not afraid? Develop a 'hard-done by' narrative? Desperation because we haven't got any other strikers? Deflect our lack of strikers problem from the recruitment team to the FA?

take your pick...

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Not even worth appealing then. Referees will stick rigidly to the rules and the panel of ex referees will always back them up.

Having said that, there has been some excellent refereeing so far this season.

I bet the likes of Newcastle will agree that the FA never overturn decisions upon appeal.... oh wait they had 2 red cards overturned

And we all know that the FA never ever go against referees decisions wether right or wrong.

I think we've got to be thinking that we will not see Tomer for at least the next 3 or possibly 4 games.

Had it been Man U, Man C, Chelski or Arsenal, would have been a done deal, player would be in Saturday's squad.
One law for the big clubs another for the smaller ones.

No doubt the dickheads out there will pick me up on the big and small club issue, not understanding the context of the statement.

Do those clubs fans come out and say it was the correct decision by the panel (like some on here have) or do they all rally to defend the player (especially if they know they were guilty but the club loses an edge by losing that player due to a ban.

Basically some of the comments made online make it easier for the FA to bring charges and to turn down appeals

Btw, I don't think Hemed did it deliberately, he was off balance and the Newcastle players momentum made him fall forwards and naturally, people first step when this happens is pretty close to where they were standing, hence the (accidental) contact

Why would he want to injure a player we are targeting as a weakness in the opposition and risk getting a different player taking their place which we would have less joy against?

 

[theboybilly]

The thing that gets me is that Yedlin himself didn't make an issue of it nor did the Newcastle players. Above all that Rafa Benitez (who the incident occured right in front of) didn't complain during his moaning post-match comments in which he concentrated on the 'foul' at the goal. He even commented on how the game was played in a good spirit.

 

[Exile]

Why would he want to injure a player we are targeting as a weakness in the opposition and risk getting a different player taking their place which we would have less joy against?

Personally I'm of the opinion that there was little intent, and certain not pre-meditated intent. On your point there though - they had used all three subs.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Players score goals and run to the cameras to celebrate and the fans demand for the club to spend the TV millions on new talent.

Yet the same players then forget about the cameras when they do something wrong and the same fans complain that the TV media have highlighted it.

They ended a talking point, a controversy to try to big up what was in all essence, a duller game to a neutral. It's spin trying to create interest.

MOTD and others didn't feel there was anything much in it and hardly mentioned it.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I think the club and Hemed's best chance is the panel worrying about precedent and looking beyond this specific incident.

Because if they do Hemed, they are going to have to do a lot more players in the future - it would be significantly moving things away from 'obvious stamp' to 'maybe he did'. There is doubt over intent, both from Hemed's actions, and the movement of Yedlin's leg.

 

[Bozza]

I think the club and Hemed's best chance is the panel worrying about precedent and looking beyond this specific incident.

Because if they do Hemed, they are going to have to do a lot more players in the future - it would be significantly moving things away from 'obvious stamp' to 'maybe he did'. There is doubt over intent, both from Hemed's actions, and the movement of Yedlin's leg.

Not according to three elite ex-refs who unanimously decided it was a red card offence.

 

[Knotty]

Its at this time our £500k a year CEO earns his buck and chats to his chums at The FA to get the ban rescinded.

There is no way he would something as naive as that.

 

[Hungry Joe]

If our appeal is successful I'll eat my woolly hat. Time for Brown to show what he can do as a No.9, a position he feels is natural to him, which may be no bad thing in the short-medium term.

 

[sydney]

Not according to three elite ex-refs who unanimously decided it was a red card offence.

jobs worths ........they could do their credibility a lot of good by announcing that although they " thought that Hemed initially had a case to answer , after further investigation , speaking to the player and looking at slow mo replays numerous times however......they have reached the conclusion that the contact was accidental and without violent or malicious intent.

this will lead the average fan to surmise that they have done their job and are indeed rather smart and worthy of their positions.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Not according to three elite ex-refs who unanimously decided it was a red card offence.

No, not according to them. But actually what they are doing, in reality.

 

[darkwolf666]

I haven't actually seen the stamp but does it look bad? Be honest.

Yep, looks deliberate at worst or a poor attempt to avoid treading on an opponent at best...

 

[Bozza]

As I've said before, I think there was a bit of "leaving the foot in" about it and certainly not an out-and-out assault, see Barton, Joey and Shelvey, Jonjo for examples of the latter.

That aside, many people keep referring to whether Hemed meant it and intent. Does there have to be intent in order for it to be a red card offence? I've spent too much time debating this to waste even more researching the nuances of that.

 

[Hamilton]

Finding this extraordinary that 3 refs can reach the same conclusion.

[video]https://www.clippituser.tv/c/rvalaa[/video]

It's clear that two things are happening. In the first second of video you can see Yedlin moving his left leg towards the space where Hemed's foot will have to come down.

At 6 seconds you can see that Yedlin's movement in towards Hemed's right leg forces him off balance which means he has to fall forwards.

He's landed on Yedlin's leg, but it's accidental.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I think the club and Hemed's best chance is the panel worrying about precedent and looking beyond this specific incident.

Because if they do Hemed, they are going to have to do a lot more players in the future - it would be significantly moving things away from 'obvious stamp' to 'maybe he did'. There is doubt over intent, both from Hemed's actions, and the movement of Yedlin's leg.

Not according to three elite ex-refs who unanimously decided it was a red card offence.

I appreciate why these panels must remain anonymous, but it really does give them free reign to make cowardly decisions that they know they'll never be held accountable for.

Its interesting that both of the very senior ex-referees who have written about it in the media have decided that intent is NOT clear, yet their three nameless colleagues, faced with the same evidence, are able to be absolutely sure.

 

[Mackenzie]

I'm glad we've appealed this decision, it at least gives Tomer a chance. If the result goes against us we'll just have to take it on the chin.

 

[Tooting Gull]

As I've said before, I think there was a bit of "leaving the foot in" about it and certainly not an out-and-out assault, see Barton, Joey and Shelvey, Jonjo for examples of the latter.

That aside, many people keep referring to whether Hemed meant it and intent. Does there have to be intent in order for it to be a red card offence? I've spent too much time debating this to waste even more researching the nuances of that.

If you're being accused of a stamp - which he is, under the broader umbrella term - then surely intent is vital? Otherwise it is an accidental contact, like a no-fault clash of heads. For other fouls, handballs, intent isn't so important.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

That aside, many people keep referring to whether Hemed meant it and intent. Does there have to be intent in order for it to be a red card offence? I've spent too much time debating this to waste even more researching the nuances of that.

In this case, where there was no danger to the opponent, I'd say yes, there does. It would be the intent he's found guilty of effectively.

In very different instances, like the recent Sadio Mane high boot, everyone would accept that there was no intent to kick the keeper, but he was rightly sent off for 'endangering an opponent'.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Why would he want to injure a player we are targeting as a weakness in the opposition and risk getting a different player taking their place which we would have less joy against?

Because he was the same player who pushed him mid air and pissed him off.

In the heat of the moment, you don't think "oh I probably shouldn't do this because we are very strong down the left wing and he is rather susceptible to the pace of Solly Ma....."

You think "HAVE THAT"