ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
piston broke
Posts: 5548
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 1448 times
Has Liked: 1229 times
Location: Ferkham Hall

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by piston broke » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:53 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:After being mugged for a penalty in both the Arsenal and then this. You can understand his frustration. No excusing at lashing out, its his mistake, but he'll learn from it. Sean Dyche will make sure of that.
Tarks and pens don't sit happy. He also gave the pen away against Leeds and should have given one away against Watford.
He then lost us the shoot out against Leeds as the only miss.

Kevin Long will see us right.


In reply to an earlier question the charge is reviewed by a panel of 3 ex officials whose decision must be unanimous. So there's hope, just a little, yet.

RingoMcCartney
Posts: 10318
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
Been Liked: 2637 times
Has Liked: 2798 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by RingoMcCartney » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:10 pm

cutsy123 wrote:Nice chilled xmas for tarky
So its Tarky on the Turkey!
This user liked this post: tim_noone

EarbyClaret
Posts: 1427
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:48 am
Been Liked: 510 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by EarbyClaret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:14 pm

Inevitable ban - but there we are.

On a positive note - if the referee had seen it - red card and a penalty and almost certain defeat. As it was we came away with a point.

Kevin Long hugely impressive in back-to-back clean sheet performances and a little unlucky to miss out at Brighton in the first place. In retrospect Ben Mee's injury may have turned out to be a real stroke of luck - imagine Long's first start of the season being against Kane.

As it is, after missing one game he's back and this time will have Mee alongside him. If he plays as well as he did last week he'll keep his place and Tarkowski will be benched - one way or another this has been a worthwhile lesson for him.

Obviously we'll see what happens over the next three games but this could have been a lot worse

Woodleyclaret
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
Been Liked: 1890 times
Has Liked: 2262 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Woodleyclaret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:15 pm

This season's anti Burnley stance.A nonsense decision but then so was the non penalty
The FA seemed determined to undermine our season again.Why Kane and Ali aren't being punished only highlights the gulf between those who are loved and those who are not

Rick_Muller
Posts: 6902
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:53 am
Been Liked: 2898 times
Has Liked: 7112 times
Location: -90.000000, 0.000000

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Rick_Muller » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:32 pm

EarbyClaret wrote:Inevitable ban - but there we are.

On a positive note - if the referee had seen it - red card and a penalty and almost certain defeat. As it was we came away with a point.

Kevin Long hugely impressive in back-to-back clean sheet performances and a little unlucky to miss out at Brighton in the first place. In retrospect Ben Mee's injury may have turned out to be a real stroke of luck - imagine Long's first start of the season being against Kane.

As it is, after missing one game he's back and this time will have Mee alongside him. If he plays as well as he did last week he'll keep his place and Tarkowski will be benched - one way or another this has been a worthwhile lesson for him.

Obviously we'll see what happens over the next three games but this could have been a lot worse
Thanks Earby... you may have guessed that I was a little irked by this. You have added a little perspective to it.

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:32 pm

Woodleyclaret wrote:This season's anti Burnley stance.A nonsense decision but then so was the non penalty
The FA seemed determined to undermine our season again.Why Kane and Ali aren't being punished only highlights the gulf between those who are loved and those who are not

It's just the nature of the law.

If Alli and Kane had committed an offense warranting a red card (as they did) and the ref had missed it - as in not blown for a foul not made a decision then they'd get a ban from the panel.

Just as if the ref had seen the Tarkowski elbow and made mention of it in his match report then no retrospective action could be taken.

The idea with these sanctions is not to demonise referees - The Laws of the game are there to help referees make decisions, but once a ref makes a decision it stands.

With Alli and Kane the ref made a decision, with Tarkowski the ref didn't make a decision and therefore retrospective action could be taken.

All the information is in Law 5 - which explains all about Referees.


http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... he-referee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rick_Muller
Posts: 6902
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:53 am
Been Liked: 2898 times
Has Liked: 7112 times
Location: -90.000000, 0.000000

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Rick_Muller » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:39 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:It's just the nature of the law.

If Alli and Kane had committed an offense warranting a red card (as they did) and the ref had missed it - as in not blown for a foul not made a decision then they'd get a ban from the panel.

Just as if the ref had seen the Tarkowski elbow and made mention of it in his match report then no retrospective action could be taken.

The idea with these sanctions is not to demonise referees - The Laws of the game are there to help referees make decisions, but once a ref makes a decision it stands.

With Alli and Kane the ref made a decision, with Tarkowski the ref didn't make a decision and therefore retrospective action could be taken.

All the information is in Law 5 - which explains all about Referees.


http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-gov ... he-referee" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That’s all fine, but it’s not bloody right!

bobdemer
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:51 pm
Has Liked: 2 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by bobdemer » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:42 pm

PERSONAL HEARING? COULD TARKS ASK FOR A PERSONAL HEARING, AND DELAY THE PROCEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE CHRISTMAS/NEW YEWR FIXTURES?

Woodleyclaret
Posts: 8847
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
Been Liked: 1890 times
Has Liked: 2262 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Woodleyclaret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:56 pm

This season's anti Burnley stance.A nonsense decision but then so was the non penalty
The FA seemed determined to undermine our season again.Why Kane and Ali aren't being punished only highlights the gulf between those who are loved and those who are not

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:00 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:That’s all fine, but it’s not bloody right!

But until the law is changed or we decide referees are no longer needed and we can use technology instead there is going to be inconsistency/mistakes occurring.

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:07 pm

Woodleyclaret wrote:This season's anti Burnley stance.A nonsense decision but then so was the non penalty
The FA seemed determined to undermine our season again.Why Kane and Ali aren't being punished only highlights the gulf between those who are loved and those who are not
We heard you the first time.

No need to shout.

In order to punish Kane and Alli they'd have to get a FIFA committee together to change the laws of the game, even the most optimistic person wouldn't imagine such a committee would be able to meet before saturday.

Even if the laws were changed so Kane and Alli could be punished they'd then have to back date it to include the Man City v Spurs game and then I'd imagine Spurs would take FIFA to CAS.

We'll have to make do.

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:10 pm

bobdemer wrote:PERSONAL HEARING? COULD TARKS ASK FOR A PERSONAL HEARING, AND DELAY THE PROCEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE CHRISTMAS/NEW YEWR FIXTURES?

But then he'd have to have a pretty good reason.

Addiction to violence.

Commy
Posts: 4563
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:53 pm
Been Liked: 804 times
Has Liked: 60 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Commy » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:14 pm

It's the inconsistency that's annoying. Tarks should be banned for what he did and he will hopefully learn from it, but Murray should be banned as well. It wasn't a tangle of legs as the pundits say. It was cheating as he knew exactly what he was doing.
These 3 users liked this post: tim_noone Colburn_Claret k90bfc

tim_noone
Posts: 17108
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 4386 times
Has Liked: 15117 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by tim_noone » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:20 pm

I think long will step up to the plate against spurs.hopefully we play Barnes and vokes from the start and get at em!
This user liked this post: k90bfc

Vegas Claret
Posts: 35153
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 12767 times
Has Liked: 6344 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Vegas Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:35 pm

the most predictable thing to happen today was Tarks being charged. Foolish thing to do, bit of a learning curve for him but hey ho. Long will step back in, if Ward is fit then apparently we can also play Taylor there.

Rick_Muller
Posts: 6902
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:53 am
Been Liked: 2898 times
Has Liked: 7112 times
Location: -90.000000, 0.000000

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Rick_Muller » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:51 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:But until the law is changed or we decide referees are no longer needed and we can use technology instead there is going to be inconsistency/mistakes occurring.
I’m not criticising referees or asking for technology to be used. I am asking that the rules and laws as they currently are defined are applied to other clubs and players, specifically the “power” clubs such as Arsenal (Ramsey dive) and Man City (Silva exaggeration). The FA have a panel who could(should?) have applied retrospective action against these players too, but didn’t - it is a double standard that smaller clubs have always experienced.

IanMcL
Posts: 35050
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:27 pm
Been Liked: 6976 times
Has Liked: 10429 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by IanMcL » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:23 pm

Only himself...and nasty Murray to blame.
The 2 Brighton players should be punished, along with a host of others, throughout the league.

Goody1975
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 1230 times
Has Liked: 292 times
Location: Burnley

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Goody1975 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:24 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:I’m not criticising referees or asking for technology to be used. I am asking that the rules and laws as they currently are defined are applied to other clubs and players, specifically the “power” clubs such as Arsenal (Ramsey dive) and Man City (Silva exaggeration). The FA have a panel who could(should?) have applied retrospective action against these players too, but didn’t - it is a double standard that smaller clubs have always experienced.
IMO the referee (Pawson) didn't see the contact by Kane on Stirling as he turned away as the challenge happened (fearing being hit by the ball), nobody can say the referee saw the challenge properly as it was obviously such an horrendous challenge that no referee would have just booked him if they saw the incident clearly.

After a challenge by Callum McManaman a few years ago the FA changed their rules and said they would take retrospective action "when match officials are not in a position to fully assess a 'coming together' of players.", that has to be the case with the Kane incident.
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller

cricketfieldclarets
Posts: 21464
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 8585 times
Has Liked: 11285 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by cricketfieldclarets » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:25 pm

The main thing is they punished the lad izquerido for his dive after they punished murray for his.

Im dissapointed in Tarks. Disappointed he didnt flog him!

dsr
Posts: 16333
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4892 times
Has Liked: 2609 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by dsr » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:25 pm

One thing Tarkowski will have learned - if you are going to elbow a cheating opponent, you might as well do it hard into the jaw and get some value for the three match ban. If it's the same ban either way, then what's the odds?
These 2 users liked this post: boatshed bill billyhamilton82

Vegas Claret
Posts: 35153
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 12767 times
Has Liked: 6344 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Vegas Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:26 pm

Goody1975 wrote:IMO the referee (Pawson) didn't see the contact by Kane on Stirling as he turned away as the challenge happened (fearing being hit by the ball), nobody can say the referee saw the challenge properly as it was obviously such an horrendous challenge that no referee would have just booked him if they saw the incident clearly.

After a challenge by Callum McManaman a few years ago the FA changed their rules and said they would take retrospective action "when match officials are not in a position to fully assess a 'coming together' of players.", that has to be the case with the Kane incident.
Playing Devils Advocate here Goody: If Pawson didn't see the Kane challenge properly then we why did he book him ? Because the crowd jumped up ?

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:26 pm

Goody1975 wrote:IMO the referee (Pawson) didn't see the contact by Kane on Stirling as he turned away as the challenge happened (fearing being hit by the ball), nobody can say the referee saw the challenge properly as it was obviously such an horrendous challenge that no referee would have just booked him if they saw the incident clearly.

After a challenge by Callum McManaman a few years ago the FA changed their rules and said they would take retrospective action "when match officials are not in a position to fully assess a 'coming together' of players.", that has to be the case with the Kane incident.
The Law is Law 5 it says once play has been restarted a decision stands - that means retrospective action cannot be taken. An off the ball incident that none of the officials sees is not included as in affect that incident has not officially tajen place (not referred to in match report etc.)

If you want all incidents to be included for retrospective action law would need to be changed.

This as I've pointed out would have to be done by The FIFA committee responsible for changing the laws of the game.

Lobby them hard enough and you might get the change you want.

They obviously weren't able to change the law after the Callum McManaman incident.

I suppose if Kane and Alli were able to use simulation to make their challenges seem less serious than they were they could have retrospective bans for successfully deceiving the referee but that would be stretching the new law a little.

dsr
Posts: 16333
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4892 times
Has Liked: 2609 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by dsr » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:31 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:Playing Devils Advocate here Goody: If Pawson didn't see the Kane challenge properly then we why did he book him ? Because the crowd jumped up ?
He saw Sterling fall over. If a player falls over, it's a foul - that is the law as it is applied today.
These 2 users liked this post: Vegas Claret Colburn_Claret

Goody1975
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 1230 times
Has Liked: 292 times
Location: Burnley

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Goody1975 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:46 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:Playing Devils Advocate here Goody: If Pawson didn't see the Kane challenge properly then we why did he book him ? Because the crowd jumped up ?
He saw the foul being done but the impact and the severity of it was almost impossible for him to see as he was turning his head away the incident, i believe he thought Kane was just late in the challenge but couldn't possibly have seen the shin high contact.
Last edited by Goody1975 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Goody1975
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 1230 times
Has Liked: 292 times
Location: Burnley

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Goody1975 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:53 pm

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:The Law is Law 5 it says once play has been restarted a decision stands - that means retrospective action cannot be taken. An off the ball incident that none of the officials sees is not included as in affect that incident has not officially tajen place (not referred to in match report etc.)

If you want all incidents to be included for retrospective action law would need to be changed.

This as I've pointed out would have to be done by The FIFA committee responsible for changing the laws of the game.

Lobby them hard enough and you might get the change you want.

They obviously weren't able to change the law after the Callum McManaman incident.

I suppose if Kane and Alli were able to use simulation to make their challenges seem less serious than they were they could have retrospective bans for successfully deceiving the referee but that would be stretching the new law a little.
They did change the rules on retrospective action after the Callum McManaman incident, my point being Pawson couldn't possibly have had seen the incident clearly or he would have certainly sent Kane off. It would be interesting to see what Pawson put in his report for the caution of Kane, it certainly won't have included the words reckless, out of control and endangering an opponent.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... io-haidara" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Goody1975 on Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:55 pm

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official, provided play has not restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or terminated the match.

Rare exceptions can be made for career ending tackles that go unpunished so this does not mean just ordinary excessive force challenges which are the normal red card offense.
Last edited by Caernarfon_Claret on Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 35153
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 12767 times
Has Liked: 6344 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Vegas Claret » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:58 pm

Goody1975 wrote:He saw the foul being done but the impact and the severity of it was almost impossible for him to see as he was turning his head away the incident, i believe he thought Kane was just late in the challenge but couldn't possibly have seen the shin high contact.
You can see from the footage he isn't looking and doesn't get a view (or very minimal at best) as you state - the fact you correctly say "he thought Kane was late" highlights his decision is a complete guess imho. Mad that Kane and Ali get no ban for two leg breakers and Tarks gets a 3 match ban (rightly) for elbowing Grandad Murray

Paul Waine
Posts: 10269
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2421 times
Has Liked: 3350 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Paul Waine » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:04 am

A variation on a Christmas cracker "knock, knock" joke....to lighten the mood:

"Nudge, nudge"
"Who's there?"
"James Tarkowski."
"No he's not, he's been banned...." :(

OK, I'll get my coat. ;)

UTC
This user liked this post: Guich

Goody1975
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 1230 times
Has Liked: 292 times
Location: Burnley

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Goody1975 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:07 am

Vegas Claret wrote:You can see from the footage he isn't looking and doesn't get a view (or very minimal at best) as you state - the fact you correctly say "he thought Kane was late" highlights his decision is a complete guess imho. Mad that Kane and Ali get no ban for two leg breakers and Tarks gets a 3 match ban (rightly) for elbowing Grandad Murray
In an alternate reality we would be missing Tarkowski but Spurs would have to do without Kane, Alli and Vertongen, Pawson was hardly likely to do us any favours but simply applying the laws of the game would have sufficed and definitely seen all three banned for their trip here on Saturday.
Last edited by Goody1975 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:07 am

Goody1975 wrote:They did change the rules on retrospective action after the Callum McManaman incident, my point being Pawson couldn't possibly have had seen the incident clearly or he would have certainly sent Kane off. It would be interesting to see what Pawson put in his report for the caution of Kane, it certainly won't have included the words reckless, out of control and endangering an opponent.

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... io-haidara" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As you say the law was clarified to punish career ending challenges (that are not seen) but it says these are rare events - it's not just for ordinary red card offenses (excessive force) it's your career ending shockers and I doubt Kane's offense would be classed as such. He was booked so the officials must have seen enough to say it was reckless, but not enough to be covered by the amendment.

Goody1975
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 1230 times
Has Liked: 292 times
Location: Burnley

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Goody1975 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:13 am

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:As you say the law was clarified to punish career ending challenges (that are not seen) but it says these are rare events - it's not just for ordinary red card offenses (excessive force) it's your career ending shockers and I doubt Kane's offense would be classed as such. He was booked so the officials must have seen enough to say it was reckless, but not enough to be covered by the amendment.
Massadio Haidara didn't have his career ended by the challenge by Callum McManaman and neither has Raheem Stirling but he could quite easily be sat with a pot on his leg after a double leg break this evening, he was oh so lucky that the leg Kane made contact with was not planted on the ground or he would have been out for the season, it was a horrible challenge.

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:20 am

As far as I can see retrospective action can be taken for:

Simulation
Off the ball incidents (violent conduct)
Violent conduct secondary to a challenge for the ball

Kane's may come under the later.

If so someone send the video to the FA quick.
This user liked this post: Goody1975

Goody1975
Posts: 3471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 1230 times
Has Liked: 292 times
Location: Burnley

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Goody1975 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:22 am

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:As far as I can see retrospective action can be taken for:

Simulation
Off the ball incidents (violent conduct)
Violent conduct secondary to a challenge for the ball

Kane's may come under the later.

If so someone send the video to the FA quick.
I'm off to bed but Vegas Claret does naff all during the day so maybe he could sort out a dossier.

Vegas Claret
Posts: 35153
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
Been Liked: 12767 times
Has Liked: 6344 times
Location: clue is in the title

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Vegas Claret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:15 am

Goody1975 wrote:I'm off to bed but Vegas Claret does naff all during the day so maybe he could sort out a dossier.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: you've got a strange definition of doing nothing :lol: :lol: :lol: ;)

jlup1980
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:01 pm
Been Liked: 1036 times
Has Liked: 639 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by jlup1980 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:53 am

He's rightly been done for a show of petulance and he'll be sorely missed in our next 3 games. Luckily they're probably games we would have pretty much written off already so it's not as bad as missing 3 winnable games.

This charge does highlight the absolute bias towards the power clubs though. No action will be brought against any of the top 6 it appears. I fail to see the difference between this incident and the Lukaku kicks Vs Brighton. He kicked out twice but "the FA's panel of three ex-referees were not unanimous in believing it was violent conduct. All three needed to be in agreement for a charge to be filed". I'm sorry but this is as clear as it gets; United and co. play to different rules. He kicked out twice for Christ's sake! If it was once they could maybe say his leg was tangled and he was trying to shake himself free but twice immediately shows there was intent. How on earth do they get away with this stuff?

It's ok to charge Richarlison, Lanzini and Niasse for diving after very minimal contact but it's ok if Ramsey or Bernardo Silva does it. It really does stink. Are the FA that afraid of Mourinho, Guardiola, Wenger etc?

RammyClaret61
Posts: 3497
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:46 pm
Been Liked: 1229 times
Has Liked: 319 times
Location: Melbourne, Australia.

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by RammyClaret61 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:45 am

This was in Australia this weekend we’re they use VAR, Video refs. Ignore the very first foul,the stamp due to bad editing. But from there the player involved as already been booked for the so called foul. That was about 75:30. For the ref to review it, change his decision, then restart the game on 79:44. Believe me, video is not instant. We’ve got game here now with 7,8,9+ minutes added time. Every time a player feels he’s been fouled in the area. He now goes down hoping the Video ref will look at it while play is stopped. It’s bevoming a joke and it’s only been used now for a couple of months.


https://youtu.be/pGx8Qy3L8UM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

vinrogue
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:26 am
Been Liked: 341 times
Has Liked: 184 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by vinrogue » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:05 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... layer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not sure how to post links, hope this works, but if you can read this article it implies it was more a petulant act by Lukaku, it would follow that Tarks was also petulant in similar circumstances, however we are Burnley and they are Man United, case closed 3 match ban for one and nothing for the other.

Blackrod
Posts: 5114
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 12:41 pm
Been Liked: 1348 times
Has Liked: 608 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Blackrod » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:36 am

Whilst obviously not right to elbow the other player it must be hugely frustrating to train hard all week and play honestly only for someone to cheat and try and con the referee. The diving in the penalty area needs to be stamped out.

houseboy
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1722 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by houseboy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:57 am

It was stupid but it was also pointed out on MOTD to be fair that the Brighton player who took a swan dive into the box in the second half with no contact whatsoever should also be retrospectively booked/banned. Not to mention the one who actually won a penalty (thankfully missed) by putting his leg between Tarks legs and taking a dive.
All this is leading us to the question, 'what the hell has happened to Tarks?' Why has he suddenly become very naïve looking at times. The non-penalty against Arsenal was a result of him putting his hands on the guys back, okay it was an obvious dive but he should know you can't lay hands on a player in the box. The awarded penalty on Saturday was a result of him being too close to the player in a position that wasn't that dangerous (it was at a difficult angle to the goal). And of course the obvious elbow in the ribs.
He has been immense for us this season and it is hard to criticise but just lately he has looked a bit 'off' at times, but having said that we don't have anyone I would rather have in CD with Mee.
Step up Kevin Long, Ben will look after you.
These 2 users liked this post: CleggHall k90bfc

dsr
Posts: 16333
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4892 times
Has Liked: 2609 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by dsr » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:58 am

Blackrod wrote:Whilst obviously not right to elbow the other player it must be hugely frustrating to train hard all week and play honestly only for someone to cheat and try and con the referee. The diving in the penalty area needs to be stamped out.
But the FA goes the other way - they want to encourage diving. Graham Poll, who presumably still knows the referees' guidelines and interpretations, said quite explicitly that when Winks skipped over Fernandinho's tackle on Sunday that it would have been a penalty if Winks had trailed his leg and fallen over.

Obviously the ultimate blame for diving rests with the players, but if they want to stamp it out they have to stop making out that trivial contact like the two penalties for Everton yesterday constitute fouls.

Guich
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:35 pm
Been Liked: 472 times
Has Liked: 598 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Guich » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:04 am

We need to stand alone, stick to our principles and do this:

One of our players successfully dives for a penalty (having had minimal contact), then the whole crowd boos, and his team-mates surround and berate him. Then Sean hooks him and publicly boll*cks him as we all chant 'You're not playing anymore!'

Watching the morons, particularly Shearer, on MOTD would be worth it alone. :)

Who's up for it?

houseboy
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
Been Liked: 2368 times
Has Liked: 1722 times
Location: Baxenden

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by houseboy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:07 am

Blackrod wrote:Whilst obviously not right to elbow the other player it must be hugely frustrating to train hard all week and play honestly only for someone to cheat and try and con the referee. The diving in the penalty area needs to be stamped out.
I thought the PL was intending to crack down on cheats (because that is what they are - it's not 'simulating' it's cheating) but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be happening. If the powers that be are looking at Tarkowski why aren't they looking at that amazing swan dive into the box on Saturday in the second half, there wasn't even minimal contact.
I have long accepted, even when I was playing and watching in the 60's and 70's when truly dirty players got away with GBH on the pitch, that there are fouls of various degrees of severity and it is part of the game (strangely becoming less so) but I hate cheats with an absolute passion and would punish them so severely that players would stop taking the risk, and sometimes it is so bloody obvious that a blind man on a galloping horse would spot it.
I find it ironic that in this day and age when referees are turning the game into some kind of handbag match with even the slightest foul punished that we are allowing the game to descend into a cheating competition.
This user liked this post: burnley007

Turfytop
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:59 pm
Been Liked: 37 times
Has Liked: 498 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Turfytop » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:56 am

I could accept tarkys charge if the fa are consistent with it, how lukaku doesn't get a ban is beyond me, he kicked out twice for Christ sake, it's the fa who are cheats

KeighleyClaret
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:03 pm
Been Liked: 343 times
Has Liked: 86 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by KeighleyClaret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:13 pm

The Rugby League has an excellent process for the Professional game. ALL matches are reviewed, see below:

The decision on whether a player should be charged with On-Field Misconduct is made by the Match Review Panel (the “Panel”).

The Panel is made up of the Compliance Manager (who chairs the Panel) and 4 side members drawn from people with appropriate expertise (such as former players, referees and coaches).

In relation to each round of Super League matches (or Challenge Cup matches involving Super League teams), each match is reviewed in full by a member of the Panel to identify incidents which should be considered by the Panel. These incidents are then considered by the Panel on the Monday morning following that Round and the Panel decide what action should be taken in relation to the relevant player(s).
In relation to each round of Championship, League 1, iProSport Cup or Challenge Cup matches solely involving Championship or League 1 teams, or Academy matches, the Panel meet on the Thursday following the Round in question and consider any incidents that have been reported by Match Officials or otherwise brought to the attention of the Panel. There are only 2 side members in attendance for these Panel meetings. For the final week of the season and during the play-offs, all competitions are dealt with in accordance with the timetable usually in operation within Super League.
If a Club wishes to bring any incidents of alleged misconduct to the attention of the Panel they must notify the Compliance Manager by: (a) in the case of Super League Players, no later than 10.00am on the first working day after the incident; (b) in the case of Championship Players, no later than 12.00 noon on the Wednesday following the day on which the incident took place.

In relation to each incident the Match Review Panel consider, the Panel has the following options:
- Charge the Player with On Field Misconduct (an “Offence”)
- Caution the Player – in which case, subject to the Player’s right of appeal to an Operational Rules Tribunal, the Caution will be placed on the Player’s record
- Decide there is no case to answer (in which case the Panel may still send the Player a warning/advice letter)
- Where a Player has been dismissed from the field of play, deem the Referee’s decision to send the player from the field of play sufficient punishment and place this finding on the Player’s record. Where an offence has been deemed Sending Off Sufficient, the Player shall have the right of appeal, such appeal to be submitted within 7 days.
- Refer the matter to the Compliance Manager for further investigation.

All relevant decisions of the Panel will be minuted and published on the RFL website.

A charged player who has:
- been charged with an Offence of Grade A-C; and
- who has not been found guilty of any other charge of on field misconduct before the Tribunal (including charges in the NRL), or by submitting a previous Early Guilty Plea (including charges in the NRL), in the 12 months preceding the date of the Match in which the alleged Offence took place; and
- who has not been permanently sent from the field in a Match in the 12 months preceding the date of the Match (unless subsequently found not guilty of such an offence). For the avoidance of doubt if an incident was deemed Sending Off Sufficient by the Panel, the player involved is no longer eligible to elect to make an Early Guilty Plea for 12 months from the date of the match in which he was dismissed;
may elect to make an Early Guilty Plea by informing the RFL Operations department of his intention to do so before 11.00 am on the day of any scheduled hearing. This will result in the lower end of the suspension range for the Grade of Offence set out in the Charge Letter being imposed (i.e. for a Grade B offence a one match suspension will be imposed). The suspension takes effect from midnight the day following the scheduled hearing the case would have been heard at had the player not made an Early Guilty Plea.

A player making such an Early Guilty Plea will not be subject to any fine but will forfeit the right to any hearing. For the avoidance of doubt the right to make an Early Guilty Plea only applies to initial hearings and not to any appeal hearing.

For the avoidance of doubt if a Player has previously used an Early Guilty Plea the date from which the 12-month period starts will be the date on which the previous suspension started and not the date on which he entered the Early Guilty Plea.

In the event that the Panel receive information that an injury has been caused as a result of an incident of On Field Misconduct, the Panel may elect to withdraw the Early Guilty Plea option even if the Player would have been otherwise eligible for it. In such cases, the matter shall be referred to the Operational Rules Tribunal who may consider such injury as an aggravating factor.

If the Player is not eligible for an Early Guilty plea, or chooses not to submit an Early Guilty Plea, or if the Charge is Graded D or above, the matter will be referred to the On-Field Operational Rules Tribunal for determination.

This is an independent Tribunal made up of a legally qualified Chair (a serving or retired Judge) and the side members are ex-professional players.

The Tribunal will consider all evidence presented to them by the Player and the Compliance Manager (on behalf of the Match Review Panel.)

The Tribunal then determine if the Player is guilty of an offence, the grade of that offence and what the appropriate sanction should be. Sanctioning decisions are made pursuant to the On Field Sentencing Guidelines.

The Tribunal also has the right to fine a player. Fines are not and will not be issued instead of suspensions and will not be used in an exemplary manner. The fine structure is as set out below. The money generated from fines goes towards Rugby League good causes such as player welfare and the RFL Benevolent Fund.
These 3 users liked this post: Rick_Muller lucs86 conyoviejo

Mala591
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:02 pm
Been Liked: 697 times
Has Liked: 446 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Mala591 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:31 pm

If the elbow into the ribs had occurred up Towneley in the 1980s the ref would have said 'any more of that son and you will be in the book'.

Murray is a good player and was giving Tarks a bit of a run around. He got frustrated and lashed out.

He will learn from the experience and he also needs to improve his balance and timing when tackling inside the box.

Having said that, if he learns from his mistakes and continues to improve he might well be pulling on an England shirt in a couple of years time. The other England centre half shirt will obviously be already on Ben Mees back.
This user liked this post: SussexDon1inIreland

northeastclaret
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:32 pm
Been Liked: 393 times
Has Liked: 299 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by northeastclaret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:10 pm

Mala591 wrote:If the elbow into the ribs had occurred up Towneley in the 1980s the ref would have said 'any more of that son and you will be in the book'.

Murray is a good player and was giving Tarks a bit of a run around. He got frustrated and lashed out.

He will learn from the experience and he also needs to improve his balance and timing when tackling inside the box.

Having said that, if he learns from his mistakes and continues to improve he might well be pulling on an England shirt in a couple of years time. The other England centre half shirt will obviously be already on Ben Mees back.
Murray might be a good player but he certainly wasn't giving Tarks the run around, winding him up by cheating yes, but he wasnt getting the better of him. Even his header straight at Pope when he dropped back and was picked up Bardsley was offside but not given, by the same lineman that was so sharp in picking up Woods offside in the second half.

lucs86
Posts: 657
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:41 pm
Been Liked: 177 times
Has Liked: 631 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by lucs86 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:17 pm

KeighleyClaret wrote:The Rugby League has an excellent process for the Professional game. ALL matches are reviewed, see below:
I'm not complaining about Tark getting a deserved ban or backing this big club conspiracy theory, but that rugby process sounds great. With the pace of the game and the amount of incidents, refs are going miss things and call them wrong, especially when players are trying so hard and getting so good at conning them.

Every PL game has a tonne of cameras. Get dishing out bans left right and centre for d***head behaviour. Yellows or sin bin for players surrounding refs.
These 2 users liked this post: simonclaret Rick_Muller

CharlieinNewMexico
Posts: 3544
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:53 am
Been Liked: 944 times
Has Liked: 582 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by CharlieinNewMexico » Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:45 pm

Has anyone seen the video of anything that happened just before it? Had a feeling that Murray had a nibble first but haven't seen it back.

Ilkley claret
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 142 times
Has Liked: 39 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Ilkley claret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:45 pm

Didn't he have to respond by this evening? Does anyone know the outcome?

Caernarfon_Claret
Posts: 5075
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:53 am
Been Liked: 1490 times
Has Liked: 638 times

Re: ARTICLE: Tarkowski charged by FA

Post by Caernarfon_Claret » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:02 pm

He was charged so unless he had some extraordinary explanation he'll be able to have a relaxing Christmas.
This user liked this post: burnley007

Post Reply