Murphy's red card

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

I was sat right in front of where the incident happened, and no way was it accidental, Hughton would be incensed if it was the other way around, get over it.

You need to get to specsavers as he clearly slips, even if you didn't see it in real time the replays clearly show it.

"It’s unfortunate, there appears to be a bit of a slip and you can say there isn’t any intent but that doesn’t matter.

“They have to prove that there is a clear and obvious error from the referee, in this case Mark Haywood.

“In my opinion, and unless there is another angle showing something completely different, it is reckless and endangering the player’s safety. Malice doesn’t come into it, I’m afraid.

“I cannot see anything other than the red card being upheld.”



These are probably the most important bits. I think the appeal is likely to be rejected on these grounds. Let's hope that if we do drop any points thanks to his suspension, that it is enough to send Bolton down. A bigger bunch of bell ends you are less likely to meet. See this prick Martin for details.

Most of that doesn't even come into it, we don't have to show that the ref got anything wrong, we aren't appealing the red card, that will always stand. We are appealing the 3 game suspension, the slip should be enough to remove the intent and malice from the equation, he wasn't even trying to make a challenge so it's unlikely to be considered reckless, unless Murphy is that good at faking a slip. I'd be very surprised if the meaning the ban isnt reduced or removed all together, although knowing how footballing authorities work anything is possible.

 

[MartinBWFC]

Why do you even care? We're playing 2 of your relegation rivals in our next 4 games; wouldn't you prefer that one of our first choice wingers is available for both?

I don't really care, but Hughton has annoyed me with his bias, but we won't need any help we'll be reet when we get a striker in, mid-table to top 10 is my guess.

 

[drew]

I was sat right in front of where the incident happened, and no way was it accidental, Hughton would be incensed if it was the other way around, get over it.

That or your golden labrador didn't provide an adequate description of events at the time.

 

[Simster]

You need to get to specsavers as he clearly slips, even if you didn't see it in real time the replays clearly show it.



Most of that doesn't even come into it, we don't have to show that the ref got anything wrong, we aren't appealing the red card, that will always stand. We are appealing the 3 game suspension, the slip should be enough to remove the intent and malice from the equation, he wasn't even trying to make a challenge so it's unlikely to be considered reckless, unless Murphy is that good at faking a slip. I'd be very surprised if the meaning the ban isnt reduced or removed all together, although knowing how footballing authorities work anything is possible.

To be fair, I don't doubt he slipped. No need for Specsavers here.

It is just that proving it was a "clear and obvious error" might be difficult. I'd say he slipped, we all would. But the reaction of some of those Bolton fans on that newspaper story probably shows that it isn't as clear cut as we'd like to think.

Having looked at it again, it is clear that he slips, but what isn't clear is whether or not he was already committed to a dangerous tackle at the point he slips. The ref might suggest that he was, file that in his report, and the appeal rejected.

 

[nwgull]

I don't really care, but Hughton has annoyed me with his bias, but we won't need any help we'll be reet when we get a striker in, mid-table to top 10 is my guess.

You care enough to sign up to NSC though? Good luck with getting that striker in - only another 15 more league games until the January transfer window opens!

Neil Danns' riverdance on the floor in reaction is comedy by the way, particularly as he was straight back on the pitch 2 minutes later.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

To be fair, I don't doubt he slipped. No need for Specsavers here.

It is just that proving it was a "clear and obvious error" might be difficult. I'd say he slipped, we all would. But the reaction of some of those Bolton fans on that newspaper story probably shows that it isn't as clear cut as we'd like to think.

The specsavers comment was directed at Martin "Stevie Wonder" BWFC sat second row on Saturday not you.

We don't have to prove any clear and obvious error as what the ref did isn't under scrutiny. We only need to prove the challenge doesn't warrant a 3 game ban, it depends on how the panel view the slip and if that removes the reckless endangerment and intent from equation. In my opinion it does as intent must be a conscious decision from the player, a slip isn't a conscious decision.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There isn't a snowball in hells chance the card will be rescinded, there's more chance of you finishing in the top 2 than getting it overturned.

Hopefully, we'll get both. Have a nice day. x

 

[Terry Butcher Tribute Act]

I don't really care, but Hughton has annoyed me with his bias, but we won't need any help we'll be reet when we get a striker in, mid-table to top 10 is my guess.

Ah yes, the old "we'll be ok when we find a striker" ploy. Leon Best is available, could do a job?

 

[8ace]

You care enough to sign up to NSC though? Good luck with getting that striker in - only another 15 more league games until the January transfer window opens!

Neil Danns' riverdance on the floor in reaction is comedy by the way, particularly as he was straight back on the pitch 2 minutes later.

PALACE REJECT

 

[drew]

To be fair, I don't doubt he slipped. No need for Specsavers here.

It is just that proving it was a "clear and obvious error" might be difficult. I'd say he slipped, we all would. But the reaction of some of those Bolton fans on that newspaper story probably shows that it isn't as clear cut as we'd like to think.

Having looked at it again, it is clear that he slips, but what isn't clear is whether or not he was already committed to a dangerous tackle at the point he slips. The ref might suggest that he was, file that in his report, and the appeal rejected.

Surely it's more to do with whether the ref at the time realised he slipped. I suspect that at the time he didn't.

 

[brightonrock]

There isn't a snowball in hells chance the card will be rescinded, there's more chance of you finishing in the top 2 than getting it overturned.

I don't really care, but Hughton has annoyed me with his bias, but we won't need any help we'll be reet when we get a striker in, mid-table to top 10 is my guess.

[emoji38]

Cheers for that, I needed a laugh. It might get rescinded, it might not - but the only thing with a snowball's chance in hell is the likelihood of your utter shower finishing top 10. Good luck against Oldham next year.

 

[Sheebo]

You can only say that with the benefit of replays, which the ref doesn't have. In real time it looks like a two-footed lunge. What part of this don't people understand?

I never said I didn't understand that although a good ref would've spotted his leg slipping as the challenge became unorthodox. I was talking about the appeal so don't know why you've quoted my post mate...

 

[Sheebo]

The ball had gotten away from him and he was trying to win it back when he slipped, so, yes, he was challenging for the ball when he slipped.

It's tight but I think he was just trying to play a pass as the ball was there away from Danns and there to be passed.. So no challenge...

 

[Sheebo]

At the game, although people around me weren't surprised by the red card, what was puzzling was that it just felt as though Murphy had the ball and so wasn't actually challenging for it. It didn't look like one of those desperate lunges when the ball goes beyond you and you try to recover. To me it looked more like a simple clash.

Having watched the replays, it's even clearer that Murphy wasn't challenging or tackling. It simply looks as though he was going to kick the ball with his left foot, and his right foot slipped - and momentum took him into Danns. Danns was obviously caught, but rolled around a bit too much.

I think there's a very good chance it will be overturned. If the ref says it was for serious foul play, and the evidence is that it was a simple slip - then there's a good case for it. Gabriel's red card was overturned on the basis that the ref made 'an error of judgement' - so if that principle is applied logically....

Has there been a statement from the ref as to what the reason for the sending off actually was?

Is exactly correct - [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] and your rule book take note

 

[Sheebo]

I don't really care, but Hughton has annoyed me with his bias, but we won't need any help we'll be reet when we get a striker in, mid-table to top 10 is my guess.

Care to comment on the clear foul for the equaliser (I keep wanting to call it a winner given how happy it's made your lot ) ? That was clear as day....

 

[LamieRobertson]

I thought we would have heard by now.

 

[MartinBWFC]

Care to comment on the clear foul for the equaliser (I keep wanting to call it a winner given how happy it's made your lot ) ? That was clear as day....

Thought the defender was backing in to be fair.

 

[Mackenzie]

I was sat right in front of where the incident happened, and no way was it accidental, Hughton would be incensed if it was the other way around, get over it.

Taking the rights and wrongs out of the decision, you've got to admit that Dann's reaction was ****ing comedy gold, Michael Flatley having an epi.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I was sat right in front of where the incident happened, and no way was it accidental, Hughton would be incensed if it was the other way around, get over it.

You could even be from selhurst with that comedy gem.

 

[nwgull]

Taking the rights and wrongs out of the decision, you've got to admit that Dann's reaction was ****ing comedy gold, Michael Flatley having an epi.

RiverDanns.

Coat. Taxi!