Letter to the FA

[Mo Gosfield]

It happened. It can't be changed. Let it go.

I know the decision can't be changed but I won't let it go until I see the FA's reasons for upholding the red card. I will be contacting BHA to see if they are willing to publish the report from the appeals committee.

 

[sparkie]

It happened. It can't be changed. Let it go.

Another one of the 'Let it go / Move on' dictatorship

 

[John Bumlick]

 

[Mo Gosfield]

What is wrong with you people? No one outside of BHAFC gives a ****. It didn't even make Sky Sports News the hour I watched last night and they had a bit about push bikes.

The FA aren't corrupt, they've just sided with their referee. We're not the first club to fall foul to a poor refereeing decision and we won't be the last. Yes there was and is a lot at stake but the reality of the situation was we looked a better side in my opinion when we went down to 10. Yes Stevens will be missed but that is life. Sometimes you don't get the rub of the green.

Plenty of folk on here took great pleasure in ripping it out of Palace when on of their mongs started a petition over Liverpool's last minute penalty. Writing to the FA, contacting the press, tweeting a hashtag is just as bad in my eye.

Some of you need to stop acting like spoilt kids who are pissing their pants over one decision when the reality is over the course of the season we didn't quite do enough to go up automatically. We've now got another chance to have a go at it so get behind the team and stop bloody whinging about something you haven't got a flying frigs chance of changing.

Grow up and start looking forward to Friday/Monday.

Sorry but until I see the reasons why the appeal was rejected, I won't move on. I am interested as to their answers. Its not too much to ask is it? The players were angry at the time and the club was aggrieved enough to lodge an appeal. Every single pundit, that I heard, on TV and radio, called it a wrong decision. Respected pro's like Teddy Sheringham even doubted the validity of a booking.

It doesn't matter whether anyone outside of BHA doesn't give a flying fig about us. I care about us and I want to see us have the best chance to get promoted and that was to have Dale Stephens in the side. We have been robbed of that opportunity and the player has been unfairly treated. In your opinion we played better with 10 men but that was purely down to Boro deciding to concede possession and sit deeper and deeper and let us have the ball where we couldn't hurt them. In the final 20 minutes or so, when we were dominant, we didn't create a single chance of note and their keeper had no saves to make.

Please don't patronise those of us who only want an explanation of the FA decision. We know we can't change anything but everything about it is so fundamentally wrong that I, for one, want to know how this decision was reached. Its simply not good enough to say that they sided with the referee, like they always do, grow up and move on. The player, the club and the fans deserve an explanation and if BHA are in possession of the answers, then, as a multiple STH, who spends a lot of money with the club, I want to know as well.

 

[Arthur]

Sorry but until I see the reasons why the appeal was rejected, I won't move on. I am interested as to their answers. Its not too much to ask is it? The players were angry at the time and the club was aggrieved enough to lodge an appeal. Every single pundit, that I heard, on TV and radio, called it a wrong decision. Respected pro's like Teddy Sheringham even doubted the validity of a booking.

Is it not obvious why the FA upheld Dean's decision? Stevens left the bloke with a very nasty injury which resulted in the lad being carried off. I'm sure he didn't mean to do it (but the handbags they had 30 seconds earlier didn't help his case) and it was accidental. They have more than enough grounds to support the referee decision. It doesn't matter if the Pope, jesus, god, muhammad and all the prophets come out and says it wasn't a sending off, Mike Dean thought it was at the time and the FA were always going to support him. I'm shocked so many people thought it would be overturned.

It doesn't matter whether anyone outside of BHA doesn't give a flying fig about us. I care about us and I want to see us have the best chance to get promoted and that was to have Dale Stephens in the side. We have been robbed of that opportunity and the player has been unfairly treated. In your opinion we played better with 10 men but that was purely down to Boro deciding to concede possession and sit deeper and deeper and let us have the ball where we couldn't hurt them. In the final 20 minutes or so, when we were dominant, we didn't create a single chance of note and their keeper had no saves to make.

We didn't create a single thing for the whole 90 minutes. Even the goal was a huge slice of luck, Stevens wasn't going for goal IMO. We looked good for the first 15 then Boro smashed us until half time. Second half was a bit more even until the sending off when we looked like the better side.

Please don't patronise those of us who only want an explanation of the FA decision. We know we can't change anything but everything about it is so fundamentally wrong that I, for one, want to know how this decision was reached. Its simply not good enough to say that they sided with the referee, like they always do, grow up and move on. The player, the club and the fans deserve an explanation and if BHA are in possession of the answers, then, as a multiple STH, who spends a lot of money with the club, I want to know as well.

I'm not patronising anyone. Just feel some of you need to get a grip because it's been and gone and we've got more important things to worry about now like Friday and Monday.

 

[BensGrandad]

Is it not obvious why the FA upheld Dean's decision? Stevens left the bloke with a very nasty injury which resulted in the lad being carried off. I'm sure he didn't mean to do it (but the handbags they had 30 seconds earlier didn't help his case) and it was accidental. They have more than enough grounds to support the referee decision. It doesn't matter if the Pope, jesus, god, muhammad and all the prophets come out and says it wasn't a sending off, Mike Dean thought it was at the time and the FA were always going to support him. I'm shocked so many people thought it would be overturned.



We didn't create a single thing for the whole 90 minutes. Even the goal was a huge slice of luck, Stevens wasn't going for goal IMO. We looked good for the first 15 then Boro smashed us until half time. Second half was a bit more even until the sending off when we looked like the better side.



I'm not patronising anyone. Just feel some of you need to get a grip because it's been and gone and we've got more important things to worry about now like Friday and Monday.

If you saw him celebrating after the game you will appreciate the carrying off on a stretcher was both exaggerated and not needed but highlighted him drawing attention to the tackle. In so doing he got the MOM up until then sent off.

 

[sydney]

This is exactly my point. Most on here are meekly accepting that nothing can be done but we need to make a point. If hundreds or even thousands of us post or email this letter it may not get a reply but it will aggravate them to hell and might just make them stop and think for a moment. Their arrogance and intransigence defies belief and they cannot be allowed to brush justice under the carpet.

they are unaccountable....like the refs....the managers have to face the press and be careful what they say....the refs just get in their audi's and piss off.....they don't have to explain a bloody thing .....only job where you never have to explain yourself ....ever....!! personally i don't think they want us in the prem....and personally i don't know if i want my team in the prem either although obviously the board would like the money.....still spewing mad.

 

[BensGrandad]

Is it not obvious why the FA upheld Dean's decision? Stevens left the bloke with a very nasty injury which resulted in the lad being carried off. I'm sure he didn't mean to do it (but the handbags they had 30 seconds earlier didn't help his case) and it was accidental. They have more than enough grounds to support the referee decision. It doesn't matter if the Pope, jesus, god, muhammad and all the prophets come out and says it wasn't a sending off, Mike Dean thought it was at the time and the FA were always going to support him. I'm shocked so many people thought it would be overturned.



We didn't create a single thing for the whole 90 minutes. Even the goal was a huge slice of luck, Stevens wasn't going for goal IMO. We looked good for the first 15 then Boro smashed us until half time. Second half was a bit more even until the sending off when we looked like the better side.



I'm not patronising anyone. Just feel some of you need to get a grip because it's been and gone and we've got more important things to worry about now like Friday and Monday.

If you saw him celebrating after the game you will appreciate the carrying off on a stretcher was both exaggerated and not needed but highlighted him drawing attention to the tackle. In so doing he got the MOM up until then sent off.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Is it not obvious why the FA upheld Dean's decision? Stevens left the bloke with a very nasty injury which resulted in the lad being carried off. I'm sure he didn't mean to do it (but the handbags they had 30 seconds earlier didn't help his case) and it was accidental. They have more than enough grounds to support the referee decision. It doesn't matter if the Pope, jesus, god, muhammad and all the prophets come out and says it wasn't a sending off, Mike Dean thought it was at the time and the FA were always going to support him. I'm shocked so many people thought it would be overturned.

No its not obvious, that's why so many of us want to know the reasoning behind the decision. If players are going to get penalised in a 50/50 challenge because one of them gets hurt, its opening a whole can of worms. If two players go for a header and one is left with a nasty injury, then I assume we are saying that the other player gets sent off for causing the injury. It was a 50/50 ball on Saturday. Stephens got there first, quicker than Ramirez and then the latter, who decided to follow through, is hurt. No consideration has been given to the fact that the player failed to protect his shins properly or his reaction to the referee and his subsequent striking of the official.

When the incident happened, not one single player appealed. Their eyes followed the ball and for a very short period, they continued playing. Not one player considered it worthy of stopping and appealing. The players all knew it was a fair challenge and didn't need to question it.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Yes Stevens will be missed

He's been missed for 33 years already, but I still miss him too.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

If you saw him celebrating after the game you will appreciate the carrying off on a stretcher was both exaggerated and not needed but highlighted him drawing attention to the tackle. In so doing he got the MOM up until then sent off.

That was just sickening. Strapped up and stretchered off like a leg break for what was clearly just a cut. He then walks sheepishly on at the end, with a plaster and a load of iodine on his leg. Can't be seen leaping about with the others so he sits on the edge of the podium, playing the wounded but brave soldier.

 

[Return of the Rev]

All up town and lets march on the FA Again

 

[mona]

Dear Sir
We note your comments with interest.
Yours faithfully
F A

 

[Wardy's twin]

Really disappointed by people telling others to move on and/or grow up how f*****g patronising. People with big Brighton hearts are thoroughly aggrieved by the original decision, the upholding of what was clearly a bad decision and most importantly that they have not detailed why (unless I have missed it somewhere?). I think it might be a great idea if we all wrote to the FA about this.

The lack of transparency on this is disturbing.

If you want to do something to change then you have to do something to effect that change rather than just sitting down accepting the next bad decision.

BRAVO KEVO!!!

 

[theonlymikey]

Hi, I havent't been on the forum for a while. I quite liked you guys and was giving you some time to cool down. However, during that time, you have managed to convince yourself of the following:

1) Gaston was saving an old injury in order to get your player sent off. Speechless.
2) It wasn't even a foul. Odd that the referee was two yards away and blew instantly.
3) It was never a red card. FA interpretations of "serious foul play" has been provided below.
4) The FA are conspiring against you. Quite frankly ridiculous and again, see FA interpretations of football law.

SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless
there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send
off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.
A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is
restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred
inside the offender’s penalty area)."

Looking at "stills" of the tackle, Both feet were OFF the ground. This can be interpreted as a "lunge".

In addition, it is impossible to argue to the tackle did not endanger the safety of an opponent. As can be seen by the gash in the players leg.

Please note: the law does not mention intent. Intent is not (and rightly not) taken into consideration in the referees decision.

You may feel aggrieved due to a similar incident with Barton a few weeks back, however I find it difficult to swallow the difference in your attitudes towards both of these tackles, considering your anger at his non-dismissal. I do agree havign read these rules, BArton should have been sent off.

As you can see, even if you believe the decision was not correct, as per the law, referees have to adhere to, it was not "incorrect". I do however, understand why you have appealed it with nothing to lose challenging it.

I hope a line can be drawn and you focus on the play offs. Your team needs your support now. It does not need you to dwell on something you have zero control of.

Wish you all the best.

Hopefully I will see you in a couple of weeks to say congratulations.

 

[Albumen]

I quite liked you guys

 

[Jam The Man]

3. The extent of any injury, even if attained by a fair or accidental challenge, shall determine the punishment given.
.

Remember when Calde accidentally broke the leg of that Newport County player and all hell broke loose? Red card undoubtedly issued on the scream of the player (understandably) and the basis of the injury.

Appeal result: Red card rescinded......

It's just totally inconsistent.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Really disappointed by people telling others to move on and/or grow up how f*****g patronising. People with big Brighton hearts are thoroughly aggrieved by the original decision, the upholding of what was clearly a bad decision and most importantly that they have not detailed why (unless I have missed it somewhere?). I think it might be a great idea if we all wrote to the FA about this.

The lack of transparency on this is disturbing.

If you want to do something to change then you have to do something to effect that change rather than just sitting down accepting the next bad decision.

BRAVO KEVO!!!

Patronising!?!?!?! Grow some balls and grow up FFS!!!

It needs to be said because people are carrying this victim mentality into the play-offs when we should only be focusing on the football.

Writing letters isn't going to make a jot of difference. There are dozens of contentious decisions and appeals every year from big clubs which get far more scrutiny media coverage than our one. They deal with all of them in the same way, we aren't a special case.

The FA won't give a s**t if a handful of Brighton fans write a stern letter.

 

[Arthur]

No its not obvious, that's why so many of us want to know the reasoning behind the decision. If players are going to get penalised in a 50/50 challenge because one of them gets hurt, its opening a whole can of worms. If two players go for a header and one is left with a nasty injury, then I assume we are saying that the other player gets sent off for causing the injury. It was a 50/50 ball on Saturday. Stephens got there first, quicker than Ramirez and then the latter, who decided to follow through, is hurt. No consideration has been given to the fact that the player failed to protect his shins properly or his reaction to the referee and his subsequent striking of the official.

When the incident happened, not one single player appealed. Their eyes followed the ball and for a very short period, they continued playing. Not one player considered it worthy of stopping and appealing. The players all knew it was a fair challenge and didn't need to question it.

All of which is neither here nor there.

In addition, it is impossible to argue to the tackle did not endanger the safety of an opponent. As can be seen by the gash in the players leg.

Exactly.

Whilst I don't agree it was a sending off and I do believe the FA were wrong not to overturn it I'm certainly not surprised and it is obvious to me why they upheld the referees decision. But then I guess I'm able to take my blue and white tinted specs off from time to time.

I wish you all the luck in the world in your crusade against the "corrupt" FA.

 

[marshy68]

What is wrong with you people? No one outside of BHAFC gives a ****. It didn't even make Sky Sports News the hour I watched last night and they had a bit about push bikes.

The FA aren't corrupt, they've just sided with their referee. We're not the first club to fall foul to a poor refereeing decision and we won't be the last. Yes there was and is a lot at stake but the reality of the situation was we looked a better side in my opinion when we went down to 10. Yes Stevens will be missed but that is life. Sometimes you don't get the rub of the green.

Plenty of folk on here took great pleasure in ripping it out of Palace when on of their mongs started a petition over Liverpool's last minute penalty. Writing to the FA, contacting the press, tweeting a hashtag is just as bad in my eye.

Some of you need to stop acting like spoilt kids who are pissing their pants over one decision when the reality is over the course of the season we didn't quite do enough to go up automatically. We've now got another chance to have a go at it so get behind the team and stop bloody whinging about something you haven't got a flying frigs chance of changing.

Grow up and start looking forward to Friday/Monday.

Spot on