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

[S'hampton Seagull]

Accidental, move on. I don't think we will hear anything more about this.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Hillian1]

Just seen it.

Think he'll get done for that.

 

[LamieRobertson]

So not tangled then? Off balance maybe.

I just showed Mrs B who said she didn't think it was deliberate, and said "he wasn't looking at the Newcastle player".

In her favour is she's not had anything to drink, unlike me. Against her, is she's seen about 3 games of football ever.

Mrs B has proven to be a good judge ..get her to join the forum!

 

[Normski1989]

From one angle, I'm convinced that it was accidental. He was looking away and off balance. But then I see it from the reverse angle in slow motion and I think it's deliberate. I think it looks a lot worse when it's slowed down. Could go either way.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Wrong-Direction]

You started a thread calling somebody who commited suicide a selfish w**nker. When people called you out on you acting like a c*nt you doubled down and called them an a*rsehole instead. Then when you were unbanned you came back on here and completely ignored your pathetic little tantrum and didn't even have the balls to hold your hands up and admit you'd been a bellend.

So actually, I'd say no class was being polite. I think the layman's terms for someone like you is much worse than that.

Not that I give a shit what you think but a family member of mine commited suicide so I have every right to say what I f***ing like on the subject, it's tossers like you getting offended on other people's behalf that do my head in

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[SeagullinExile]

Just watched some more highlights, certainly looks worse in slow motion. Might get away with it.

 

[worthingseagull123]

https://www.clippituser.tv/c/rvalaa

Thoughts?

Fantastic display by the man, but he is a very silly boy if that was deliberate. Fingers crossed he isn't given a retrospective ban..

Looks a nasty one.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Oh dear. That's a ban, isn't it.
Out of character but crazily stupid

 

[spence]

Oh dear. That's a ban, isn't it.
Out of character but crazily stupid

I thought the same at first. Have another look though at it. Hemed never looks at the blokes leg.

If this goes to disciplinary then he will lose. We don't get much luck from them

 

[Guinness Boy]

People saying it's a ban should look at the highlights thread with its different angle and commentary. This is Sky creating a controversy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whitechapel]

I'll send you my address and you can come around with spence and say that to my face
But neither of you will - shame

Let me get this straight, you came on to this thread and called two people c*nts for literally no reason, but somebody turns the tables and has a pop at you and it turns in to an invitation to "say it to your face"

EMOTIONAL.

Not that I give a shit what you think but a family member of mine commited suicide so I have every right to say what I f***ing like on the subject, it's tossers like you getting offended on other people's behalf that do my head in

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Credit where credit is due, you're consistently an a*sehole on the subject. Congratulations.

 

[Bozza]

Struggling to find much stuff on respective reviews. The most detail I can find is a Boro paper on an incident involving Stuani >>> http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/...w-retrospective-refereeing-work-what-11173785

Sounds like a decision has to be unanimous for retrospective action to be taken, and the discussion on here suggests a unanimous decision is unlikely, even if it is reviewed. Fingers crossed anyway...

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I don't remember that from the game at all - what did the sky pundits make of it? If its picked up on match of the day he'll be banned I reckon

 

[Wrong-Direction]

Let me get this straight, you came on to this thread and called two people c*nts for literally no reason, but somebody turns the tables and has a pop at you and it turns in to an invitation to "say it to your face" [emoji38]ol:

EMOTIONAL.



Credit where credit is due, you're consistently an a*sehole on the subject. Congratulations.

Well if we're giving out credit, you're consistently a moron so looks like it's a double celebration [emoji106] [emoji482]

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Bozza]

People saying it's a ban should look at the highlights thread with its different angle and commentary. This is Sky creating a controversy

I'm not, nor was I, saying it's a ban. But I could see how a red card could be issued for that and I do believe if it had been the other way round, 80-90% of Albion fans would be saying "disgrace".

Anyway, from that article above:

"The higher the league, the more cameras there are at a game. And for live matches there can be dozens of cameras so an incident at a high-profile game is far more likely to be seen from a variety of angles than at a run-of the-mill lower league clash.

And, for a big game, incidents are far more likely to be flagged up by analysts, pundits and managers in their post match comments and often the narrative around a game is framed by broadcasters who have a vested interest in driving a post match “controversy”.

That leads to an uneven application of the process with nasty tackles going unnoticed outside of the magic bubble of the Sky Sports coverage.

And it can be frustrating for clubs and players to be on the receiving end of an incident that should possibly be reviewed retrospectively only to find the spotlight is elsewhere.

Just last week at QPR Ben Gibson suffered what looked like a clear cut stamp from Sebastian Polter that was missed by the officials but caught on camera - yet the post match inquest was into a “ball over the line” incident.

Similarly at Brighton the following day, all the focus after the whistle was on slow-motion replays of a wrongly disallowed Burnley goal while Joey Barton appears to have escaped after a stamp of his own.

There is a sense that broadcasters are getting to pick-and-choose which incidents get the full “controversy” treatment and that often the coverage is arbitrary."

 

[The Large One]

If that was 'deliberate', Barton's on Kayal was full-blown assault.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Let me get this straight, you came on to this thread and called two people c*nts for literally no reason, but somebody turns the tables and has a pop at you and it turns in to an invitation to "say it to your face"

EMOTIONAL.



Credit where credit is due, you're consistently an a*sehole on the subject. Congratulations.

OK send your address

 

[Richy_Seagull]

Could it have accidental? Yes.
Could it have been deliberate? Yes.
Is it worse than Barton on Kayal? Not a ****ing chance.

 

[Coldeanseagull]

If that was a stamp, then somebody needs to check their ballet shoes

 

[LamieRobertson]

People saying it's a ban should look at the highlights thread with its different angle and commentary. This is Sky creating a controversy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly ..and Souness saying he had a good look ..when it’s clear that Hemed wasn’t looking at the player at all!

Souness also can’t seem to grasp that CH gives an honest answer

..just to balance that slightly he was also full of praise for TH’s performance and Brighton