| Calvin 11:08 - Nov 2 with 62605 views | macro |
Charged with violent conduct (I assume it's the challenge which Clarke went mad about)
Club going to protest against it so fingers crossed. [Post edited 2 Nov 2016 11:37]
|  | | |  |
| Calvin on 09:39 - Nov 5 with 2715 views | fitzochris |
| Calvin on 09:19 - Nov 5 by DaleiLama |
I am no lawyer but if there was a public prosecution does Clarke have to support it or can he drop charges? As of now he is the victim occupying the moral high ground but if the truth comes out all that is lost. |
From memory (it's been a long time since I did any kind of English court reporting), the CPS can decide to prosecute.
I'm not 100% sure if they can should Clarke decide not to pursue a complaint, but I suspect they might. I think it depends on the seriousness of the offence.
Of course this has to be the result of a police investigation, I hasten to add. [Post edited 5 Nov 2016 9:40]
|  |
| |
| Calvin on 09:44 - Nov 5 with 2701 views | The_DJ |
| Calvin on 09:08 - Nov 5 by fitzochris |
I don't know.
I want to make it clear that I'm not mitigating Andrew's actions at all. Regardless of provocation, if any, what he did is unjustifiable, wrong, brutal, thuggish.
I called for confirmation of the offence. We got that in the form of the video evidence (albeit via the Daily Mail).
Anything beyond this is mere curiosity. I want to know why a man who both on and off the pitch comes across as a level-headed, decent individual smashed an opposition player when the ball was nowhere near the two of them.
It won't justify what he did, but maybe help people understand where he was coming from.
As far as private prosecutions go, it's arguable there could be a public one given the evidence. It's been said, unquantifiably, that a complaint has been made to the police. If that's the case, I can understand all concerned keeping quiet for now.
If it's not the case, it would be good to hear from the club as to how they view this whole affair. Not in a formal statement, but with quotes from Hill and Dunphy. Like it or not, the club, by association, is getting tarred with an almighty elbow-shaped brush out there right now. [Post edited 5 Nov 2016 9:10]
|
A statement from the club needs to be made today if only to acknowledge the incident and accept or challenge ( not to be advised ) the judgement.
In time the player can start to make amends for his actions , I would hope communication with Oldham has already taken place. |  | | |
| Calvin on 10:10 - Nov 5 with 2607 views | SteTsGoldenBoot |
Calvin obviously lost it with Clarke for some reason.
Ironically, if he had waited a few seconds, took Clarke off at the knee, putting him out of the game for 12 months, he would have got just a three game ban.
Whats the difference between what Calvin did and the Arsenal player on the lad from Bournmouth a few weeks ago? A good Lawyer?
One things for sure is that we can't let a few seconds of madness define our season, I just hope we don't move J Bunney up front to do the PV/CA role. |  |
| Everything thats been, has past. The answers in the looking glass! |
| |
| Calvin on 10:12 - Nov 5 with 2597 views | swindondale |
I have supported Dale since 1968 and suffered some very low feelings along the way (and particularly in the last few years, lots of highs). I have never felt as sickened about my team as I have since watching that video yesterday. I do not want my team (and by default myself) to be associated with such behaviour as displayed by Calvin Andrew. I do not wish to see Mr Andrew playing for Rochdale AFC ever again and hope that the Club will seek to end his contract as soon as is legally possible. I feel that Mr Andrew’s actions constituted gross misconduct and cannot be excused whatever the provocation. |  | | |
| Calvin on 10:12 - Nov 5 with 2597 views | mikehunt |
| Calvin on 08:48 - Nov 5 by DaleiLama |
Latent psychopath? A 12 year unblemished career is probably the highest degree of latency ever recorded. Suggest anyone harbouring such thought go for the unfortified cornflakes next time.
As for the media, bad news sells. Think back to when you last saw a good news story. |
Precisely the point I was trying to make Lama. Everything about Calvin points to some kind of provocation otherwise it's scary.
I think the gravity of the situation needs some kind of explanation. I don't, normally, like tit-for-tats but this may warrant it, to try to explain what provoked it.
Trying to think of something similar: what about Roy Keane and that Scandinavian (I think) player? Keane had harboured a grudge against him for some time and was waiting to face him in a match again. From memory he clattered him straight from kick-off and began walking off himself; no other thought in his mind than to exact revenge. What kind of ban did that lead to? |  |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| Calvin on 10:49 - Nov 5 with 2496 views | 442Dale |
The level of disappointment has only increased now it's a day later. Really struggling to think of anything similar during my time as a Dale fan - it all comes back to Calvin being one of those players you can really identify with as a supporter.
One thing that doesn't make much sense is that in the initial statement before a decision was made, the club was in the process of challenging the charge - presumably the bit about three matches being an insufficient ban.
http://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/club-statement-calvin-andrew-3
Did we really think that challenging was appropriate? That three matches was sufficient? |  |
| |
| Calvin on 11:07 - Nov 5 with 2435 views | dawlishdale |
Stunned by the whole episode.
Whatever happened in the lead up to this does not excuse Calvins actions. It may go some way to helping us understand them, but it won't excuse them.
Seen a lot of bad stuff on the football pitch...this is up there with the worst of them.
Very bad day for the club I'm afraid. | | | |
| Calvin on 11:16 - Nov 5 with 2408 views | D_Alien |
| Calvin on 09:08 - Nov 5 by fitzochris |
I don't know.
I want to make it clear that I'm not mitigating Andrew's actions at all. Regardless of provocation, if any, what he did is unjustifiable, wrong, brutal, thuggish.
I called for confirmation of the offence. We got that in the form of the video evidence (albeit via the Daily Mail).
Anything beyond this is mere curiosity. I want to know why a man who both on and off the pitch comes across as a level-headed, decent individual smashed an opposition player when the ball was nowhere near the two of them.
It won't justify what he did, but maybe help people understand where he was coming from.
As far as private prosecutions go, it's arguable there could be a public one given the evidence. It's been said, unquantifiably, that a complaint has been made to the police. If that's the case, I can understand all concerned keeping quiet for now.
If it's not the case, it would be good to hear from the club as to how they view this whole affair. Not in a formal statement, but with quotes from Hill and Dunphy. Like it or not, the club, by association, is getting tarred with an almighty elbow-shaped brush out there right now. [Post edited 5 Nov 2016 9:10]
|
But any "quotes" would inevitably be seen as official, plus they could be used in court proceedings should it ever come to that.
I find it amazing that, first of all, people are calling for statements given the difficult circumstances and/or until any possibility of a prosecution has passed. It'd be highly irresponsible to do so
And secondly, the only possible justification for the FA making a further statement would be to establish what the norm is for this type of offence, but they too need to tread very carefully given the remaining options for prosecution
A couple of pages back, I'd expressed the hope that this issue about statements had been made plain, yet still there are calls for them - it's as if people can't stop their curiosity getting the better of their rationality
And on the point about trying to understand Calvin's action, references to psychopathy are not just absurd but a basic misunderstanding of how human beings can react under severe stress - the time delay between provocation and response isn't relevant. Think of those parents who kill themselves and their children when their partner refuses access - yes, it's pretty extreme, but not psychopathic. Any one of us can do something extreme, and what Calvin needs now is support in coming to terms with an action he is almost certainly far more disgusted with than any of us will be
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:25]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Calvin on 11:24 - Nov 5 with 2378 views | The_DJ |
| Calvin on 11:16 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
But any "quotes" would inevitably be seen as official, plus they could be used in court proceedings should it ever come to that.
I find it amazing that, first of all, people are calling for statements given the difficult circumstances and/or until any possibility of a prosecution has passed. It'd be highly irresponsible to do so
And secondly, the only possible justification for the FA making a further statement would be to establish what the norm is for this type of offence, but they too need to tread very carefully given the remaining options for prosecution
A couple of pages back, I'd expressed the hope that this issue about statements had been made plain, yet still there are calls for them - it's as if people can't stop their curiosity getting the better of their rationality
And on the point about trying to understand Calvin's action, references to psychopathy are not just absurd but a basic misunderstanding of how human beings can react under severe stress - the time delay between provocation and response isn't relevant. Think of those parents who kill themselves and their children when their partner refuses access - yes, it's pretty extreme, but not psychopathic. Any one of us can do something extreme, and what Calvin needs now is support in coming to terms with an action he is almost certainly far more disgusted with than any of us will be
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:25]
|
The possibility of any legal action is not bound by time.
The club cant bury its head in the sand.
The UK media by its reporting has made this global through the web, and social media has also kicked in.
A strong statement condemning the action is required today so the Team can get on with the FA Cup game tomorrow. Otherwise it will me a media frenzy at Maidstone for all the wrong reasons. | | | |
| Calvin on 11:25 - Nov 5 with 2376 views | 442Dale |
| Calvin on 11:16 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
But any "quotes" would inevitably be seen as official, plus they could be used in court proceedings should it ever come to that.
I find it amazing that, first of all, people are calling for statements given the difficult circumstances and/or until any possibility of a prosecution has passed. It'd be highly irresponsible to do so
And secondly, the only possible justification for the FA making a further statement would be to establish what the norm is for this type of offence, but they too need to tread very carefully given the remaining options for prosecution
A couple of pages back, I'd expressed the hope that this issue about statements had been made plain, yet still there are calls for them - it's as if people can't stop their curiosity getting the better of their rationality
And on the point about trying to understand Calvin's action, references to psychopathy are not just absurd but a basic misunderstanding of how human beings can react under severe stress - the time delay between provocation and response isn't relevant. Think of those parents who kill themselves and their children when their partner refuses access - yes, it's pretty extreme, but not psychopathic. Any one of us can do something extreme, and what Calvin needs now is support in coming to terms with an action he is almost certainly far more disgusted with than any of us will be
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:25]
|
As some have mentioned, it's about the club making a statement at the correct time, whenever that is.
They had no issue saying they were making a challenge in the original statement. I expect that as soon as is possible the club will at least come out with something that will indicate that eventually, whenever the situation allows, they will comment further if possible. | |
| |
| Calvin on 11:29 - Nov 5 with 2350 views | mikehunt |
And that's what I'm trying to say: he must have had some provocation otherwise it is psychopathic. | |
| The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance. |
| |
| Calvin on 11:32 - Nov 5 with 2339 views | fitzochris |
| Calvin on 11:16 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
But any "quotes" would inevitably be seen as official, plus they could be used in court proceedings should it ever come to that.
I find it amazing that, first of all, people are calling for statements given the difficult circumstances and/or until any possibility of a prosecution has passed. It'd be highly irresponsible to do so
And secondly, the only possible justification for the FA making a further statement would be to establish what the norm is for this type of offence, but they too need to tread very carefully given the remaining options for prosecution
A couple of pages back, I'd expressed the hope that this issue about statements had been made plain, yet still there are calls for them - it's as if people can't stop their curiosity getting the better of their rationality
And on the point about trying to understand Calvin's action, references to psychopathy are not just absurd but a basic misunderstanding of how human beings can react under severe stress - the time delay between provocation and response isn't relevant. Think of those parents who kill themselves and their children when their partner refuses access - yes, it's pretty extreme, but not psychopathic. Any one of us can do something extreme, and what Calvin needs now is support in coming to terms with an action he is almost certainly far more disgusted with than any of us will be
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:25]
|
You may find it amazing, but the club is entitled to make a statement regarding the outcome of a football disciplinary procedure, beyond the bare bones already released.
Decrying the action in footballing terms and commenting on the length of the ban etc, would have no bearing on a criminal case. It certainly wouldn't be irresponsible.
Calvin coming out and making claims about provacation might well do, so we'll leave that there.
Again, the FA too, is entitled to make a statement about a footballing punishment they have dished out, the justification for it and any future precident it may set. There is nothing to stop them doing that.
They are not obliged to do so, but they are entitled to do so.
If the police are already involved, and it's a big if, then I can understand the club not saying anything further at this point. I said this in the quoted post. Again though, if the police are involved, a statement would/should have been made to that effect.
And I made no to reference to psychotic behaviour or anything equally absurd. [Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:34]
| |
| |
| Calvin on 11:40 - Nov 5 with 2311 views | D_Alien |
| Calvin on 11:32 - Nov 5 by fitzochris |
You may find it amazing, but the club is entitled to make a statement regarding the outcome of a football disciplinary procedure, beyond the bare bones already released.
Decrying the action in footballing terms and commenting on the length of the ban etc, would have no bearing on a criminal case. It certainly wouldn't be irresponsible.
Calvin coming out and making claims about provacation might well do, so we'll leave that there.
Again, the FA too, is entitled to make a statement about a footballing punishment they have dished out, the justification for it and any future precident it may set. There is nothing to stop them doing that.
They are not obliged to do so, but they are entitled to do so.
If the police are already involved, and it's a big if, then I can understand the club not saying anything further at this point. I said this in the quoted post. Again though, if the police are involved, a statement would/should have been made to that effect.
And I made no to reference to psychotic behaviour or anything equally absurd. [Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:34]
|
The reference to psychopathy wasn't yours, clearly, although in responding to your post I included it
I'll simply refer back to the almost certainty that legal advice will have been taken against which any calls for statements are wishful thinking. If the club do issue a statement, they would have to be 100% certain that any form of wording wouldn't lead to further repercussions. Even saying they condemn the action would stir the media monster into demanding Calvin's sacking. Be careful what you wish for.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:42]
| |
| |
| Calvin on 11:45 - Nov 5 with 2290 views | 442Dale |
| Calvin on 11:40 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
The reference to psychopathy wasn't yours, clearly, although in responding to your post I included it
I'll simply refer back to the almost certainty that legal advice will have been taken against which any calls for statements are wishful thinking. If the club do issue a statement, they would have to be 100% certain that any form of wording wouldn't lead to further repercussions. Even saying they condemn the action would stir the media monster into demanding Calvin's sacking. Be careful what you wish for.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 11:42]
|
So in an ideal world, at what stage do we see a statement and what would it say? | |
| |
| Calvin on 11:57 - Nov 5 with 2235 views | D_Alien |
| Calvin on 11:45 - Nov 5 by 442Dale |
So in an ideal world, at what stage do we see a statement and what would it say? |
I don't live in such a world, but would follow the legal advice | |
| |
| Calvin on 11:59 - Nov 5 with 2221 views | Phil |
Do people really believe there is a risk of public or private prosecution?? This would send shockwaves right through the PFA. What about historical offences? Would we have an Operation Yewtree for footballers? Half the Leeds team from the 1970's would be banged up, not to mention Roy Keane injuring a player then confirming in his own book that he did it deliberately.
My opinion: Calvin is doing the right thing by keeping quiet, RAFC should make an official statement as soon as possible confirming that this is completely out of character for the player but they abide by the decision of the FA.
Furthermore: this had better be a new stance for the FA as regards further offences by ANY player at ANY level. And not just as a scapegoat from lowly Rochdale.
EDIT: And no I don't condone the actions by the way. [Post edited 5 Nov 2016 12:02]
| | | |
| Calvin on 12:00 - Nov 5 with 2212 views | judd |
The club should make a statement before we are on TV tomorrow clearly following legal advice even if the statement is minimal. Got bugger all to do with curiosity and everything to do with being seen to be doing the right thing in light of an almost unprecedented punishment. |  |
| |
| Calvin on 12:04 - Nov 5 with 2196 views | fitzochris |
| Calvin on 12:00 - Nov 5 by judd |
The club should make a statement before we are on TV tomorrow clearly following legal advice even if the statement is minimal. Got bugger all to do with curiosity and everything to do with being seen to be doing the right thing in light of an almost unprecedented punishment. |
That's it right there. Members of the club are going to be asked about it by the media regardless. | |
| |
| Calvin on 12:09 - Nov 5 with 2168 views | 442Dale |
| Calvin on 12:00 - Nov 5 by judd |
The club should make a statement before we are on TV tomorrow clearly following legal advice even if the statement is minimal. Got bugger all to do with curiosity and everything to do with being seen to be doing the right thing in light of an almost unprecedented punishment. |
The club have to realise the focus on this incident has increased in the last 18 hours, so if they haven't already had further discussions around it, you'd fully expect that to happen today. It's simple: they ask legally what it's possible to say, and if that's nothing they should say so.
The original statement said "we will make no further statement at this time". The most recent one doesn't even say that. In fact although yesterday's article is entitled "Club Statement", compare it to the report on the FA site. Is this a "club statement"?
http://mobile.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/statement-calvin-andrew-339
http://www.thefa.com/news/2016/nov/04/calvin-andrew-banned-for-12-games-041116 | |
| |
| Calvin on 12:11 - Nov 5 with 2159 views | D_Alien |
| Calvin on 12:00 - Nov 5 by judd |
The club should make a statement before we are on TV tomorrow clearly following legal advice even if the statement is minimal. Got bugger all to do with curiosity and everything to do with being seen to be doing the right thing in light of an almost unprecedented punishment. |
I was responding to Fitz's point about curiosity - not that there's anything wrong with that - we all have it. And if, following legal advice, the club do release a statement, it won't be because some people are demanding one
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 12:14]
| |
| |
| Calvin on 12:14 - Nov 5 with 2140 views | judd |
| Calvin on 12:11 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
I was responding to Fitz's point about curiosity - not that there's anything wrong with that - we all have it. And if, following legal advice, the club do release a statement, it won't be because some people are demanding one
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 12:14]
|
And I'm just expressing my opinion. Got sweet erm FA to do with anything you may have commented on regarding curiosity. | |
| |
| Calvin on 12:18 - Nov 5 with 2103 views | D_Alien |
| Calvin on 12:14 - Nov 5 by judd |
And I'm just expressing my opinion. Got sweet erm FA to do with anything you may have commented on regarding curiosity. |
Brilliant, lets all respond to points that haven't been made rather than ones that have | |
| |
| Calvin on 12:24 - Nov 5 with 2064 views | judd |
| Calvin on 12:18 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
Brilliant, lets all respond to points that haven't been made rather than ones that have |
Sorry I won't subscribe to your demands of how a post should be constructed. | |
| |
| Calvin on 12:26 - Nov 5 with 2044 views | D_Alien |
| Calvin on 12:24 - Nov 5 by judd |
Sorry I won't subscribe to your demands of how a post should be constructed. |
Well at least that's constructive | |
| |
| Calvin on 12:27 - Nov 5 with 2037 views | fitzochris |
| Calvin on 12:11 - Nov 5 by D_Alien |
I was responding to Fitz's point about curiosity - not that there's anything wrong with that - we all have it. And if, following legal advice, the club do release a statement, it won't be because some people are demanding one
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 12:14]
|
My curiosity relates to why Calvin did it. The club statement on the issue as a whole is something I believe should happen regardless. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
