| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 20:44 - Mar 11 with 1822 views | swanforthemoney |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 14:07 - Mar 11 by PentyrchJack |
I will let FA look at it first then share it plus their response. |
its not flipping 1956. |  |
| I stand in the North Stand
|
|  |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 21:05 - Mar 11 with 1762 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:44 - Mar 11 by BytholWyn |
You have to look at the evidence before passing judgement. Viewed frame-by-frame this is the sequence of events:
Ayew gets to the ball a millisecond before Hogg, with a sideways right to left motion (taking his right leg away from Hogg's body), and plays the ball on to Hogg's shins and the ball bounces down.
Hogg's outstretched leg catches Ayew's inner thigh on the follow-through causing Ayew's right leg to move to the right and on to Hogg's left knee. Hogg then stamps down on to Ayew's left leg on the floor.
To my mind the fairest outcome would be two yellows - but if you had to give a red it should have been to Hogg - as his actions caused Ayew to make contact with his left knee, whereas Hogg has no extenuating circumstances to account for his stamp on Ayew.
We should definitely appeal. The only way the FA could legitimately uphold the original decision is if they also apply the same sanction to Hogg. Anything less would be a travesty of justice. |
It is still a red card.
It is not a situation where the ref was only allowed to give one and you think he gave it the wrong way. They both should have seen red, but that is not a reason to rescind one that was correctly given.
An appeal is frivolous and extremely futile. |  |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 10:59 - Mar 12 with 1647 views | BytholWyn |
I assume you haven't bothered actually looking at the incident frame-by-frame, because if you did you would see that Ayew got to the ball first, he had his trailing leg and left hand on the floor at the point of contact with the ball and the only reason he subsequently made contact with Hogg's knee was a result of Hogg's studs-led follow-through catching Ayew's inner right thigh and forcing his leg to the right onto Hogg's left knee.
If you're not at all interested in the evidence of what actually happened then yes I guess it would be a frivolous appeal. |  | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:02 - Mar 12 with 1639 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 10:59 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
I assume you haven't bothered actually looking at the incident frame-by-frame, because if you did you would see that Ayew got to the ball first, he had his trailing leg and left hand on the floor at the point of contact with the ball and the only reason he subsequently made contact with Hogg's knee was a result of Hogg's studs-led follow-through catching Ayew's inner right thigh and forcing his leg to the right onto Hogg's left knee.
If you're not at all interested in the evidence of what actually happened then yes I guess it would be a frivolous appeal. |
We know all this. It has been discussed.
It makes no difference though as you will read in the replies already made to the same point. | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:25 - Mar 12 with 1587 views | BytholWyn |
For "discussed" read "ignored".
The red card decision may well be upheld, if a strict interpretation is used to characterise the way Ayew approached the ball - but an appeal would be far from frivolous. At the very least it would make it very hard for the FA to ignore Hogg's challenge - which was worse than Ayew's - straight leg, studs showing, makes contact with Ayew's inner right thigh and then stamps down on Ayew's left. If the outcome of all this is that Ayew's red stands and Hogg gets away scot-free then that would be a travesty of justice. | | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:31 - Mar 12 with 1578 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:25 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
For "discussed" read "ignored".
The red card decision may well be upheld, if a strict interpretation is used to characterise the way Ayew approached the ball - but an appeal would be far from frivolous. At the very least it would make it very hard for the FA to ignore Hogg's challenge - which was worse than Ayew's - straight leg, studs showing, makes contact with Ayew's inner right thigh and then stamps down on Ayew's left. If the outcome of all this is that Ayew's red stands and Hogg gets away scot-free then that would be a travesty of justice. |
Well it was not ignored as it was clearly addressed. Ignored as to being a valid reason, granted. But that is simply because it is not.
What you are describing mitigates him from intent. But intent is not what he was sent off for. So it's irrelevant. He was sent off for a studs up, uncontrolled passage of play which ended in his studs in someone's knee 2 foot off the ground. | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:44 - Mar 12 with 1556 views | Swanjaxs |
Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports News now about to talk about the incidents at Huddersfield 👠|  |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:55 - Mar 12 with 1538 views | BytholWyn |
But again you're ignoring the reason why Ayew's studs ended up going into Hogg's knee. Ayew was in more control of his action than Hogg. Quite apart from getting to the ball first, he played the ball with the side of his foot, with a right-to left action, because his body - with his left leg and left hand already on the floor) was pivoted that way. Hogg on the other hand approached the ball straight on, with a straight leg and was over the ball - which is why the ball dropped straight down when Ayew played the ball onto Hogg's heel. Hogg then makes unambiguous contact with Ayew's right leg - pushing Ayew's leg onto Hogg's left knee, before stamping down on Ayew's prostrate left leg. Hogg's offence was certainly worse than Ayew - and the fact that Hogg ended up with studs in his knee was mainly his own fault.
I could accept Ayew's red card for the recklessness of his action - but to fail to sanction Hogg's worse offence just won't wash.
For those that want to blame Moss - I don't think he can be blamed - because his view of the stamp on Ayew's leg would have been obscured by Ayew's right leg. Oliver's view of the stamp was entirely unimpeded - another very poor decision by him. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:56 - Mar 12 with 1537 views | Swanjaxs |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:44 - Mar 12 by Swanjaxs |
Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports News now about to talk about the incidents at Huddersfield 👠|
Gallagher saying Ayew definitely a red card, Hogg wasnt, and the challenge on Ki was a yellow only.... | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:58 - Mar 12 with 1529 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:55 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
But again you're ignoring the reason why Ayew's studs ended up going into Hogg's knee. Ayew was in more control of his action than Hogg. Quite apart from getting to the ball first, he played the ball with the side of his foot, with a right-to left action, because his body - with his left leg and left hand already on the floor) was pivoted that way. Hogg on the other hand approached the ball straight on, with a straight leg and was over the ball - which is why the ball dropped straight down when Ayew played the ball onto Hogg's heel. Hogg then makes unambiguous contact with Ayew's right leg - pushing Ayew's leg onto Hogg's left knee, before stamping down on Ayew's prostrate left leg. Hogg's offence was certainly worse than Ayew - and the fact that Hogg ended up with studs in his knee was mainly his own fault.
I could accept Ayew's red card for the recklessness of his action - but to fail to sanction Hogg's worse offence just won't wash.
For those that want to blame Moss - I don't think he can be blamed - because his view of the stamp on Ayew's leg would have been obscured by Ayew's right leg. Oliver's view of the stamp was entirely unimpeded - another very poor decision by him. |
Because it makes no difference.
It is not a competition where two players make fouls and the worst one gets sent off.
Hogg could have pulled out a baseball bat and clubbed the whole of the Swansea team... Ayew would still rightly be sent off though. | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:20 - Mar 12 with 1482 views | somersetsimon |
Has there ever been a case of a referee sending off both players for a dangerous challenge? |  | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:23 - Mar 12 with 1473 views | Swanjaxs |
Just been announced Swansea City will not contest Jordan Ayews red card | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:24 - Mar 12 with 1468 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 11:56 - Mar 12 by Swanjaxs |
Gallagher saying Ayew definitely a red card, Hogg wasnt, and the challenge on Ki was a yellow only.... |
Essentially what I said from minute 1 then.
Although I think Hogg could have seen red but can see why he wasn't. The obvious one was Ayew, the ref can only look at one thing at a time.
Ki scenario was always clutching at straws. | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:24 - Mar 12 with 1468 views | BytholWyn |
If that comment by Gallacher is correct I'm utterly flabbergasted. If a senior referee is that incompetent then what hope do we have.
I understand that we've decided not to appeal. There you have it, it's official, we have no cajones.
If Hogg gets away with no retrospective action that will put the tin hat on the whole sordid affair. | | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:26 - Mar 12 with 1462 views | BytholWyn |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:24 - Mar 12 by E20Jack |
Essentially what I said from minute 1 then.
Although I think Hogg could have seen red but can see why he wasn't. The obvious one was Ayew, the ref can only look at one thing at a time.
Ki scenario was always clutching at straws. |
Why not admit it - you haven't actually looked at the footage on MOTD. There is no way that anybody who sees the footage frame-by-frame would conclude that Hogg wasn't more culpable than Ayew. I can understand a blinkered attitude from a Huddersfield fan, but from a Swansea one? | | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:26 - Mar 12 with 1462 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:24 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
If that comment by Gallacher is correct I'm utterly flabbergasted. If a senior referee is that incompetent then what hope do we have.
I understand that we've decided not to appeal. There you have it, it's official, we have no cajones.
If Hogg gets away with no retrospective action that will put the tin hat on the whole sordid affair. |
So that is two professional top level referees and also our own football club that have apparently decided to not appeal.
Who exactly thinks it wasn't a red then? A few posters on planet swans that happen to be Swansea fans?
Surely you see the pattern there? | |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:29 - Mar 12 with 1453 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:26 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
Why not admit it - you haven't actually looked at the footage on MOTD. There is no way that anybody who sees the footage frame-by-frame would conclude that Hogg wasn't more culpable than Ayew. I can understand a blinkered attitude from a Huddersfield fan, but from a Swansea one? |
You don't seem to understand the point.
You keep alluding to the fact that it is a competition. Worst one gets the red. It's not.
As I said above. The club are clearly not going to appeal. Two top flight refs have concluded the decision was correct.
Yet you are calling that view blinkered... the one that only a few Swansea fans are claiming being correct of course. [Post edited 12 Mar 2018 12:32]
| |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:38 - Mar 12 with 1424 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:24 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
If that comment by Gallacher is correct I'm utterly flabbergasted. If a senior referee is that incompetent then what hope do we have.
I understand that we've decided not to appeal. There you have it, it's official, we have no cajones.
If Hogg gets away with no retrospective action that will put the tin hat on the whole sordid affair. |
There won't be retrospective action against Hogg because the referee saw the incident. Retrospective action is only taken when the referee missed something. |  |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:42 - Mar 12 with 1417 views | theloneranger |
Aside from Ayews's red card, Gallagher did say it could have been 2 reds, but Hogg's challenge was low.
Yet it was a stamp, and your foot will always be low when contact is made.
Stamping is a red card offence |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 12:56 - Mar 12 with 1391 views | SWANSEYE |
No appeal and he misses the next 3 |  | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 13:39 - Mar 12 with 1331 views | BytholWyn |
That ignores the fact that he raked Ayew's inner thigh before stamping down on his left - which is hardly a defensible action in its own right. It never ceases to amaze me at the sloppy half-arsed punditry by ex-players and officials alike. I have some sympathy with the club's decision not to appeal, because they couldn't be confident that the officials in the review panel would do a professional job.
As for retrospective action against Hogg, Oliver clearly didn't see the incident (even though he was a few yards away and had a clear view of the stamp) - otherwise Hogg would have been red carded as well. | | | |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 14:50 - Mar 12 with 1296 views | E20Jack |
| Swans consider J.Ayew appeal on 13:39 - Mar 12 by BytholWyn |
That ignores the fact that he raked Ayew's inner thigh before stamping down on his left - which is hardly a defensible action in its own right. It never ceases to amaze me at the sloppy half-arsed punditry by ex-players and officials alike. I have some sympathy with the club's decision not to appeal, because they couldn't be confident that the officials in the review panel would do a professional job.
As for retrospective action against Hogg, Oliver clearly didn't see the incident (even though he was a few yards away and had a clear view of the stamp) - otherwise Hogg would have been red carded as well. |
It ignores it because it is irrelevant.
Not sure how clearer I can be.
The club have appealed in the past, in fact they appealed against Leroy Fer red card a few months ago and had it overturned.
They didn't appeal this time because clearly they didn't think they had a case that would overturn it. And they are right. [Post edited 12 Mar 2018 14:53]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
