Watford to appeal red card

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:30 pm

simonclaret wrote:I googled it, I don't read the Sun usually, obviously.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/2332775/ ... explained/

Yes. I saw that too. It's wrong. Read the FA's disciplinary regulations and you'll see additional games aren't among the outcomes possible.

vinrogue · Post by **vinrogue** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:32 pm

Off the ground or on the ground, two footed with studs showing catching opposition above the ankle, reckless? Yes, sending off? Yes in today’s football that is enough for a red.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:38 pm

It's really not so different to Hendrick's last season.
1-1, kiss and make up, move on!

skibum84 · Post by **skibum84** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:47 pm

I agree this will be the problem when video refs are used. It’s all about opinions but I don’t think the FA help things by being so quiet about all these matters. As fans the only opinion we hear is from the media which is full of idiots using phases like, “there was contact, he has a right to go down!”. There needs to be a stronger voice from referees and the FA on what is a penelty/red card etc.

EarbyClaret · Post by **EarbyClaret** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:00 pm

Ill-judged rather than malicious - trouble is you go in for that tackle and you give the referee a decision to make - if he had let that go, in those conditions, then he'd have risked losing control of the game together with the potential for a serious injury next time it happened. So he called it right.

As has been pointed out a lot of similarities with the Hendrick challenge at Vicarage Road last season. As I recall SD said Jeff apologised individually to the rest of the team at H/T - in contrast to the way Watford have dealt with this incident.

simonclaret · Post by **simonclaret** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:23 pm

thatdberight wrote:Yes. I saw that too. It's wrong. Read the FA's disciplinary regulations and you'll see additional games aren't among the outcomes possible.

Yes they are.

From the FA's handbook:

In all cases, the Regulatory Commission may increase any punishment that it imposes if it believes a denial of the Charge or any claim by the Player that the standard punishment would be clearly excessive in their case, to have been an abuse of process or without any significant foundation.

Page 341:
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/cfa/globa ... 17-18.ashx

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:39 pm

simonclaret wrote:Yes they are.

From the FA's handbook:

Page 341:
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/cfa/globa ... 17-18.ashx

That's for misconduct. It's actually pages 359-361 that cover sendings-off. However, that doesn't affect the fact you were right and I was completely wrong.

simonclaret · Post by **simonclaret** » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:42 pm

I thought such a big change would be more widely publicised. For what it’s worth I don’t think he’ll get an extra game given the wide variety of interpretations. But I expect they’ll uphold the red.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:35 am

Lost his appeal. (Five live)

Three match ban.

Jeffbfc · Post by **Jeffbfc** » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:49 am

ElectroClaret wrote:Lost his appeal. (Five live)

Three match ban.

Harsh, harsh har, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card

Re: Watford to appeal red card