Murphy's red card

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Who are our options on the wings then, is Lua Lua still injured? The might mean March and Manu will be getting 90 minutes! Actually, I would start with Resenio and March and bring on Manu.

 

[Hastings gull]

Annoying, but entirely predictable. The FA never want to be seen to be "undermining" the referee. Unless he's made a complete and utter horlicks, like sending the wrong player off, then its extremely rare to see the FA uphold an appeal from the club. It was down to the referees interpretation of the incident, and if he's standing by his decision and saying "nope, I got that spot on", then the FA will always back that. They close ranks.

One door closes, another one opens. Lets see what Elvis has got.

Yes, sadly very true. The pressure on the FA to back "their man" is huge, and to be fair, in your place of work, would you not expect your boss to back you if you had made a decision in good faith? Annoying, in this instance, as there clearly were extenuating circumstances with his slip,but this is what happens in life. But, as you say, it is an opportunity for others who will be desperate to impress.
Lets not get despondent, as there may well be no need to, but get there tomorrow and make a huge noise -if the team sense that the fans have less hope, that may quickly transfer itself to the pitch.

 

[nwgull]

Who are our options on the wings then, is Lua Lua still injured? The might mean March and Manu will be getting 90 minutes! Actually, I would start with Resenio and March and bring on Manu.

Lua Lua probably injured until after the international break - although he's the sort of player that you'd keep your opposition guessing on, so who knows?

We should be confident going into Saturday; all of our other key players are reported to be fit.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

What a complete joke the FA are. How is Gabriel's ban for his sending off against Chelsea rescinded (when he clearly kicked out at Costa, whatever the cause of it) and Murphy is banned for three games for slipping over. How do these idiots run the game over here when so much money is at stake?

Exactly, there is no transparency in the FA.

Does anyone know if you can do a 'Freedom of Information' request to the FA?

It's almost worth the effort to try and understand the rationale for the judgement and the difference to the Gabriel findings.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

We should be confident going into Saturday; all of our other key players are reported to be fit.

This. Obviously being greedy you want absolutely everyone available but the time for us to worry would be if/when Kayal or Stephens were missing... if we also have our first choice pair (Hemed/Baldock) up front on Saturday then it looks good.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Exactly, there is no transparency in the FA.

Does anyone know if you can do a 'Freedom of Information' request to the FA?

It's almost worth the effort to try and understand the rationale for the judgement and the difference to the Gabriel findings.

Completely agree. They usually stand by the referee, even when he's completely wrong (like in this case), but for some reason they decided to rescind Gabriel's red card despite the fact he clearly kicked out. Maybe it is one rule for the big clubs and another for everyone else, as others have said. It's a bit depressing if true.

 

[Hastings gull]

Completely agree. They usually stand by the referee, even when he's completely wrong (like in this case), but for some reason they decided to rescind Gabriel's red card despite the fact he clearly kicked out. Maybe it is one rule for the big clubs and another for everyone else, as others have said. It's a bit depressing if true.

YEs, obviously hard to tell and it is never as if they would admit it, but you do wonder, when the press has got its teeth into it, whether the FA then back down as with Gabriel, but when there is relatively little publicity, and thus less flak, they feel they have to defend their man. Cynical? Yes undoubtedly, but there might just be a grain of truth to it.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

How. How how how can the FA make these two decisions in the same century?

- Kick out and connect with a player intentionally = "we'll let you off my man. These things happen after all! Besides we don't like that Diego Costa fella, this is for the good of the game"

- Slip over and sweep the legs away from a player. No studs up, no dangerous play, no injury, no goal scoring attempt, no nothing, just a bloody slip = "You filthy scumbag, have a ban. You don't deserve to have that card rescinded. Let that be a warning to every other player in football that slipping will not be tolerated. We will ALWAYS support the stance of our referees (unless it's the prem LOLZ)


Pricks. Absolute pricks.

 

[BensGrandad]

When I was sat on a disciplinary when on Surrey FA I had the audacity to side with a player and doubt the ref and was firmly told by the chairman that what the ref said must be right because he had no reason to say otherwise. I am sure that attitude still prevails with many of the oldies on the FA.