Tarkowski's Hand

[northeastclaret]

I was expecting a decision today, do you think we can take any hope from the fact that there has not been an announcement?

Regarding similar incidents were announcements on the Wed or Thurs following a weekend incident?

[conyoviejo]

Don't hold your breath..

[Shore claret]

I certainly hope we are defending it after what lukaku got away with.

[Bfcboyo]

If Barnes had done something similar to Murray I wonder if we would be calling him an arsehole

We know Barnes is an arsehole. But he is our arsehole.

So it's ok.

[nil_desperandum]

I was expecting a decision today, do you think we can take any hope from the fact that there has not been an announcement?
?

I would imagine that it's more the case that they haven't as yet had chance to sit down to look at it. It's not the sort of decision that they are going to discuss for two or three days - even if it's not "black and white". I would imagine that if the 3 "judges" can't agree after about an hour then they would have to dismiss it. They won't keep reconveneing until they are unanimous.

[2 Bee Holed]

I would imagine that it's more the case that they haven't as yet had chance to sit down to look at it. It's not the sort of decision that they are going to discuss for two or three days - even if it's not "black and white". I would imagine that if the 3 "judges" can't agree after about an hour then they would have to dismiss it. They won't keep reconveneing until they are unanimous.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is;
The 3 ex-officials look at the evidence separately. They then meet up.
If all 3 agree it was an offence then the punishment is set.
If you one of the 3 thinks the player is innocent, then there is no punishment.

How they decide whether it's a 1, 2 or 3 game ban, I don't know.

I just wish they'd hurry up now. I suspect 'handgate' might be having an influence on 'elbowgate'.
As long as it is less than 3 game ban, I will be ok with that.
After all the work I put into this it's the least I deserve.

[Rick_Muller]

I would imagine that it's more the case that they haven't as yet had chance to sit down to look at it. It's not the sort of decision that they are going to discuss for two or three days - even if it's not "black and white". I would imagine that if the 3 "judges" can't agree after about an hour then they would have to dismiss it. They won't keep reconveneing until they are unanimous.

The panel have already met and the decision has already been made - he has been charged with Violent Conduct and faces a 3 game ban.

The delay I suspect is due to Tarkowski probably requesting a personal hearing to submit his mitigation which may be along the lines of what this thread has disucssed (all speculation of course because we dont actually know) and they may well be considering this additional information before they decide its still a 3 game ban (because he doesn't play for a traditional top 6 team [yet - see the latest reports of Man City and Arsenal ] ), or as he's going to be selected for England next time round (thats the other get out of jail card the FA have for these) and its reduced to nothing or 1 game (of which he'll have been injured for anyway ).

[Oshkoshclaret]

or as he's going to be selected for England next time round (thats the other get out of jail card the FA have for these

Yes, like when Alan Shearer kicked Neil Lennon in the head in a World Cup year and the FA panel decided that in fact Neil Lennon's head had viciously assaulted Shearer's boot!

[Rick_Muller]

Yes, like when Alan Shearer kicked Neil Lennon in the head in a World Cup year and the FA panel decided that in fact Neil Lennon's head had viciously assaulted Shearer's boot!

Exactly like that

[2 Bee Holed]

Well...just to bump it up.
I wasn't too far wrong.
Here is what Sean Dyche has to say about it:
Dyche felt there were mitigating circumstances in the clash and revealed Tarkowski had had surgery on a hand injury picked up in that game and that Murray had played on that before the clash.
"First of all I think it must be pointed out we don’t condone it," Dyche said of the incident.
"At the time I was annoyed with Tarky, but having seen it after the game, the reason we’re a bit surprised is you can clearly Murray grab his hand, which has five pins and a metal plate in. We put that to the panel but they said it shouldn’t be reduced.
"That incident can’t be put in the same bracket as some that get three game bans. It’s very disappointing particularly when you have someone at the other end diving on the floor who gets nothing - and you know how I feel about that.
"James has five pins in it. He had damaged it before (the incident) but Murray knows it. He just happened to grab his hand – maybe it was by accident of course."
Dyche also felt Murray made the most of the first-half incident.

[yorkyclaret]

Do we know how the damage happened?

[2 Bee Holed]

Do we know how the damage happened?

Yes. It's confirmed on the club's website that it was injured during the incident where
a cheat won a penalty.
Tarks was brought down too in that same incident and broke his hand.
The cheat then went on to miss the resulting penalty.
As a result, Tarks has had to have an operation on his hand with several pins and a plate inserted.
Oh and he's also been banned for 3 games for violent conduct too.
All seems a perfectly fair and accurate assessment to me.
I think Tarks has got away lightly all things considered.

( I don't sound bitter do I?)

[Marneydisco]

Didn’t Matic get his 3 game ban reduced to 2 for extenuating circumstances when he got sent for pushing Barnes over following his “horror” tackle?

[dsr]

Apart from the fact that "tackle" should have been in inverted commas too - that wouldn't be relevant, marneydisco. Matic played for Chelsea. Different rules.

[Tall Paul]

Didn’t Matic get his 3 game ban reduced to 2 for extenuating circumstances when he got sent for pushing Barnes over following his “horror” tackle?

Yes. The reason given was that he didn't use much force to push Barnes. Barnes's actions weren't taken into account.

[Marneydisco]

Yes. The reason given was that he didn't use much force to push Barnes. Barnes's actions weren't taken into account.

Fair enough although I don’t see too much difference in the force. It’s one that Tarky will have to learn from.

[yorkyclaret]

I know it's easy to say after the event, but should he have been taken off, when it was seen to be broken, with having Long on the bench?

[dsr]

I know it's easy to say after the event, but should he have been taken off, when it was seen to be broken, with having Long on the bench?

He'd only just signalled to the bench at that time - they hadn't had chance to assess it.

[2 Bee Holed]

Timings were roughly:
Penalty at 35 mins.
Signalled to bench at 37 mins.
Banning incident at 38 mins.
Dressing applied by bench at 41 mins.

Interestingly therefore, the bench saw it at 41 mins, then no doubt again during half-time.
I assume somebody decided he was fit to play the 2nd half, with what turned out to be a badly broken hand.
What a man Tarks is!
But it does raise some questions.
Murray had already given him the masonic handshake, perhaps the dig to the ribs deterred him from having a
further go at the handshake during the 2nd half?
I hope we are learning from this.
We need to come up with a way of communicating with the bench that doesn't tell
the whole stadium and the watching world that you have a problem and exactly what the problem is.
Perhaps learn from Defour, he sneaks off for a casual drink a couple of times per match and chats.