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

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Fair enough, he would know

Surely the FA couldn't give a longer ban to Hemed than they have to either Shelvey or Britos, just because we've appealed. Would look so petty and would be tantamount to saying that no-one is allowed to appeal ever.

But this is of course the FA

And that is exactly how it works. If you lose the appeal it is deemed automatically frivolous by definition. It is a ruse to deter appeals. Who would have thought?

 

[dazzer6666]

We might have a bit of trouble getting round their defence if they park Montreal in front of the goal.................

We canada nother attacker late on......

 

[GT49er]

Bloody predictive text !

Excuses, excuses.....!

 

[DavePage]

if he meant it, wouldn’t grind it in?
he is the only striker available, so does he do a hamstring overstretching or does he play safe with minimal damage? Umm no complaint from the player or the fat controller, go figure Premier League, give him a 16 game ban, yes really.

 

[Shooting Star]

Still don't get this one. From memory, he won the ball a second earlier right? We were winning, he'd scored and he'd won the ball. Everyone keeps watching the rearview angle of the incident, but the one that is front-on clearly shows that Tomer doesn't even look at Yedlin when he hops over him. Stamps usually happen when a player is petulant or frustrated. Tomer doesn't have a petulant or vindictive character, and he surely wouldn't have been considering that he was maybe having his best day in an Albion shirt. It doesn't make rational sense why any player would do that in that context. I don't think he should have been charged whatsoever, ridiculous. Rafa didn't even pick up on it. Too right the club should contest.

 

[blue'n'white]

Hemed appeal - rejected - three match ban

Apologies if this has been posted before but does anyone actually know when the three refs sit down and actually look at the video of the "incident" on Sunday.
I assume that, as the appeal had to be in by 6pm yesterday, they will do it today.

Thanks

 

[Bozza]

The three refs looked on Monday and all agreed it was a red card offence, hence the charge.

I don’t know the process for the response/appeal but it sounds like we’ve submitted something (words and/or pictures and/or videos presumably) and then just wait for a decision.

 

[Chinman3000]

The three refs looked on Monday and all agreed it was a red card offence, hence the charge.

I don’t know the process for the response/appeal but it sounds like we’ve submitted something (words and/or pictures and/or videos presumably) and then just wait for a decision.

Will we know by the end of the week?

 

[throbinson]

Stupid thing to do IMO, if off balance just fall over

 

[Bold Seagull]

That's 4 games out then...

 

[Bozza]

Will we know by the end of the week?

Yep - will be all resolved before the next game.

I'd imagine it would be done and dusted today.

 

[GloryDays]

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

I agree. If this game was not on Sky it would have probably never been acknowledged. They've made themselves a nice little storyline there.

 

[dazzer6666]

Looks Like Friday could be D-Day.................from the FA Rules :

On the timing :

As a general guide, the following schedule will apply:

Match Day Notice and Evidence of Claim Reply Regulatory Commission
Fri/Sat/Sun Tuesday Thursday Friday

On the Misconduct

RULE E1 OF THE ASSOCIATION
A charge of Misconduct (as defined in and pursuant to Rule E1 of the Rules of The
Association) may be brought against a Player in relation to an incident whether or not the
same incident has been dealt with by the Referee and/or pursuant to these Procedures. In
deciding whether or not to bring a Charge under this paragraph, The Association will have
particular (but not exclusive) regard to the following:
(a) Any applicable Law(s) of the Game or Rules and Regulations or FIFA instructions
and/or guidelines;
(b) The nature of the incident, and in particular any intent, recklessness, negligence
or other state of mind of the Player;
(c) Where applicable, the level of force used;
(d) Any injury to any Participant caused by the incident;
(e) Any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred;
(f) The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally;
(g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent sanctions.

A Regulatory Commission considering a Charge under Rule E1 of the Rules of The
Association in such circumstances shall have regard to any punishment imposed under
these Procedures for the same incident when considering any punishment under
Regulation 8.1 (Penalties) of the Disciplinary Regulations

Full rules :

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/rules-of-the-association

 

[Hamilton]

The referees weren't Phil Prosser, Craig Pawson and Mike Dean by any chance?

 

[Bozza]

Looks Like Friday could be D-Day.................from the FA Rules :

On the timing :

As a general guide, the following schedule will apply:

Match Day Notice and Evidence of Claim Reply Regulatory Commission
Fri/Sat/Sun Tuesday Thursday Friday

On the Misconduct

RULE E1 OF THE ASSOCIATION
A charge of Misconduct (as defined in and pursuant to Rule E1 of the Rules of The
Association) may be brought against a Player in relation to an incident whether or not the
same incident has been dealt with by the Referee and/or pursuant to these Procedures. In
deciding whether or not to bring a Charge under this paragraph, The Association will have
particular (but not exclusive) regard to the following:
(a) Any applicable Law(s) of the Game or Rules and Regulations or FIFA instructions
and/or guidelines;
(b) The nature of the incident, and in particular any intent, recklessness, negligence
or other state of mind of the Player;
(c) Where applicable, the level of force used;
(d) Any injury to any Participant caused by the incident;
(e) Any other impact on the game in which the incident occurred;
(f) The prevalence of the type of incident in question in football generally;
(g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent sanctions.

A Regulatory Commission considering a Charge under Rule E1 of the Rules of The
Association in such circumstances shall have regard to any punishment imposed under
these Procedures for the same incident when considering any punishment under
Regulation 8.1 (Penalties) of the Disciplinary Regulations

Full rules :

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/rules-of-the-association

The Traore (ban upheld) and Lansbury (appeal accepted and ban rescinded) decisions came out on a Thursday with the game having only taken place two days earlier on the Tuesday earlier this month >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41273608

(Slightly different as they were reds issued on the field itself, I appreciate)

 

[papajaff]

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

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

No chance he's getting off, I'm amazed we've wasted time and risked a further ban appealing it.

We need to concentrate on working out which midfielder we're going to try up front for three games.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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

Doesn't look bad, does look like he deliberately stepped on him, therefore I expect a ban of three games in accordance with (g) The wider interests of football in applying consistent sanctions.

 

[WhingForPresident]

It won't be deemed frivolous but it won't be turned over either IMO.

 

[dazzer6666]

For me :

If the ref had seen it, would have been somewhere between a yellow and a red
The panel will back the charge and won't agree the appeal because they almost never do
The appeal won't be seen as frivolous given the element of doubt being expressed
3 game ban coming
Brown up front on Sunday and will score