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

[Bold Seagull]

I love all the self righteous people who say he should have asked if Yedlin was ok what world do they live in? We were 1 minutes from gaining a hard fought for 3 points what do they honestly expect?

No one has said he should have asked that, the suggestion is that if you accidentally trod on someone, in your surprise the most natural reaction is probably to look at the player, look down, or at least put a hand up. The point being he landed on someones leg and his face has zero recognition of it happening - pretty guilty in my book because the minimum you'd do if you were genuinely surprised would be to look down.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

I don't care if the referees miss a player getting out a truncheon, hitting the other player over the head and running away shouting "He deserved that".

The issue is if the player breaks the rules then they should be brought to justice, even if that is via TV cameras catching the action.

The inability of a referee doesn't mean you should get away with a crime.

I agree with you that banning players after the match is a good thing, although I am struggling to see what Hemed did as violent conduct.

What really annoys me is the ridiculous rule that if the referee saw the incident, no action can be taken. I find that a really odd rule. If you are acting retrospectively because a player got away with an offence, why should it matter whether the referee saw the incident or missed it as he clearly missed how serious it was either way?

 

[Ernest]

Imagine the comedy if we score 4 or 5 whilst he's out, and when he returns the Nigels still haven't scored.

Imagine if we don't score in the next 3 games and neither have they, would be bad for us but tragic for them

 

[luppers]

Please take the rose coloured specs off, he did it and has got to take his punishment. Dread to think what the response on here would have been if it was a Newcastle player that did exactly the same to a Brighton player.

 

[Peteinblack]

Imagine if we don't score in the next 3 games and neither have they, would be bad for us but tragic for them

This seems to be a very likely scenario!

 

[Hamilton]

Bit of a joke really. Can I go on a panel? Doesn't sound like it needs much effort. Just turn up at FA HQ and have a few sherries.

 

[studio150]

At least the international break after the Arsenal game does give Murray additional time to get fit for games 2 and 3 of the ban

 

[Albion Robster]

Let me get this straight, Tomer Hemed lands on a players leg.
While Simon Francis of plucky little Bournemouth goes totally unpunished for a wreckless / flying elbow. For me, that severity and area of the impact was much more dangerous than Hemed's challenge.
Absolute farce by The FA!

 

[Official Old Man]

Yes he did it, yes he should be punished.
But the sooner they change the rule of 'unseen by the ref' the better. If a player does anything that warrents a ban, regardless of whether the ref thought it was just a foul, the better.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nice one Barbs

Why? The appeal hasn't cost any more games, and the club has stood by their player. He was going to get a 3 match ban, in any case.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Banned [emoji53], breaking on Sky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Munkfish]

Why? The appeal hasn't cost any more games, and the club has stood by their player. He was going to get a 3 match ban, in any case.

#

Not signing another striker.

 

[Weststander]

#

Not signing another striker.

Is that now being pinned solely on PB? Incredible.

TB, with such huge sums involved and the importance, would have determined or at the very least been a key part of the 'better value & more strikers become available at the end of August' theory.

 

[1066familyman]

Why? The appeal hasn't cost any more games, and the club has stood by their player. He was going to get a 3 match ban, in any case.

I'm struggling to keep up with events.

Have we appealed and the appeal has been rejected and it's still a 3 game ban?

I thought an unsuccessful appeal resulted in an additional 1 game ban, or is the additional game only if the appeal is seen as 'frivolous'?

If the latter, it then begs the question... What is their definition of 'frivolous' and who decides whether it's frivolous or not?

I feel a song coming on:

 

[Hillian1]

Correct decision, well done The FA.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

He must be gutted, not everyday you get to play away at Arsenal. Correct decision unfortunately.

 

[kevo]

Has an appeal ever succeeded?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm struggling to keep up with events.

Have we appealed and the appeal has been rejected and it's still a 3 game ban?

I thought an unsuccessful appeal resulted in an additional 1 game ban, or is the additional game only if the appeal is seen as 'frivolous'?

If the latter, it then begs the question... What is their definition of 'frivolous' and who decides whether it's frivolous or not?

The extra game is added on if the FA consider it's frivolous, or a silly reason why it has been appealed. The club felt they had a good reason to appeal by stating it was accidental rather than deliberate.
That was rejected, so the 3 match ban still applies, with nothing extra.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Has an appeal ever succeeded?

Calde's red card when the Newport player broke his leg.

Away from Brighton, two Newcastle players had their appeal upheld last season,

 

[seagulls4ever]

Can't complain - as I already said I think it looks deliberate.

However, this one from last season is a lot more obvious, but no ban followed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-xQVdvqUKA

Barton's was worse too, as we know, and he also escaped.

No consistency.