| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays 15:13 - Dec 7 with 36448 views | Plazex |
Actually looks as if Sakho took fabianski down. Hope we have the card rescinded. And bloody hell 3-1 crap. |  |
| |  |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:47 - Dec 7 with 1899 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:43 - Dec 7 by ScoobyWho |
In the case of a red card, if the ref thought an incident happened and it turns out later it didn't the red card can be rescinded. We are over complicating matters here. What seems to be misunderstood is the ruling whereby a ref if he see's something and deals with it then it cant be dealt with later. In the case of a red this doesn't apply. It doesn't matter if he saw it or not when a red card appeal is underway.
That rule is for things that go unpunished during the game, not for things that have already been punished and that are under appeal. It's different. |
Thats not confusing things.
The appeal isn't that Sakho hand balled it, if it is then it wont get seen as it is un reviewable. Not only that it would cost is £1500 and they would almost certainly increase the ban.
The appeal is that Fabianski's foul on Sakho (which occurred after the handball) was a red card offence. The offence will be "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity".
That is the review. Did he deny a clear goal scoring opportunity?
I think mostly all will agree the answer is yes. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:52 - Dec 7 with 1872 views | ScoobyWho |
When all is said and done the appeal will be he shouldn't have been sent off as it is clear he shouldn't have been.
And the red will be rescinded.
However your points are well put, it's just that we all see things differently, and I am wearing my Swansea glasses. And they are as clear as a very bright day. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 21:55]
|  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:54 - Dec 7 with 1861 views | Senhin |
Dear God... |  |
| Did you see that ludicrous display last night? |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:02 - Dec 7 with 1827 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:52 - Dec 7 by ScoobyWho |
When all is said and done the appeal will be he shouldn't have been sent off as it is clear he shouldn't have been.
And the red will be rescinded.
However your points are well put, it's just that we all see things differently, and I am wearing my Swansea glasses. And they are as clear as a very bright day. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 21:55]
|
I dont want to come across as disrespectful to you due to my conviction of this point but I promise you, you cannot appeal just under the subtext of "he shouldnt have been sent off" it will need to be in writing with a specific criteria. The only reviewable offence we can appeal under is whether Fabianski's foul warranted a red card. (Just like mistaken identity etc)
The best chance we have is the panel thinking that there was a covering defender or such like but this is always in the case of a defender rather than a keeper, the fact it was the keeper that committed the foul 25 yards from his goal line is in instance that cannot be overruled by a panel that will only over-rule a clear mistake on the reviewed criteria. The chance is so slim i hope we dont do it as the consequences could be far worse.
If it is contentious then it will not be overturned as the ruling on the field will hold precedence. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:17 - Dec 7 with 1798 views | Catullus |
How was he denied the chance when he shot and missed?
Anyway, Monk is saying we'll appeal. Somebody should have put money on it! | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:21 - Dec 7 with 1784 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:17 - Dec 7 by Catullus |
How was he denied the chance when he shot and missed?
Anyway, Monk is saying we'll appeal. Somebody should have put money on it! |
Its already been explained a multitude of times.
However in terms of our case, the whistle blew long before he shot so its irrelevant.
Most managers say the will appeal but many decide not to when reality sets in. He may well appeal, but he wont win. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 22:23]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:21 - Dec 7 with 1787 views | somersetsimon |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 21:47 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Thats not confusing things.
The appeal isn't that Sakho hand balled it, if it is then it wont get seen as it is un reviewable. Not only that it would cost is £1500 and they would almost certainly increase the ban.
The appeal is that Fabianski's foul on Sakho (which occurred after the handball) was a red card offence. The offence will be "denying a clear goal scoring opportunity".
That is the review. Did he deny a clear goal scoring opportunity?
I think mostly all will agree the answer is yes. |
I guess it depends on whether you see the handball as something that happened before the foul, or whether it was part of the same incident. If we make a case that Fabianski would have taken the ball if it hadn't been handled, then surely that needs to be look at. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:26 - Dec 7 with 1761 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:21 - Dec 7 by somersetsimon |
I guess it depends on whether you see the handball as something that happened before the foul, or whether it was part of the same incident. If we make a case that Fabianski would have taken the ball if it hadn't been handled, then surely that needs to be look at. |
You cant base a case for over turning a decision around assumption though. If our whole argument is "fabianski may have got the ball if sakho didnt handball it" then id certainly be wary of an extension to his ban as a punitive measure.
It has to be a solid, glaring error from the ref and they are allowed human error, which not spotting a handball angled away from you is.
A better example. If bony was through on goal (but offside missed by the ref and lino) and then taken out by Curtois for example and sent off. Do you think Chelsea would appeal because Bony was actually offside so it shouldn't have come to that situation? Absolutely not.
Its the same thing. The incident that will be reviewed is the foul that os stated on the refs report which is denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, whether an un reviewable offence occurred prior to that or not is irrelevant as the above example will go some way to show. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 22:33]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:31 - Dec 7 with 1746 views | NeathJack |
Hey Parlay, are you saying that if a player blatantly punched the ball towards the goal and a defender stopped in going in by punching it away and subsequently got sent off that it wouldn't be overturned? |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:34 - Dec 7 with 1738 views | somersetsimon |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:26 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
You cant base a case for over turning a decision around assumption though. If our whole argument is "fabianski may have got the ball if sakho didnt handball it" then id certainly be wary of an extension to his ban as a punitive measure.
It has to be a solid, glaring error from the ref and they are allowed human error, which not spotting a handball angled away from you is.
A better example. If bony was through on goal (but offside missed by the ref and lino) and then taken out by Curtois for example and sent off. Do you think Chelsea would appeal because Bony was actually offside so it shouldn't have come to that situation? Absolutely not.
Its the same thing. The incident that will be reviewed is the foul that os stated on the refs report which is denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, whether an un reviewable offence occurred prior to that or not is irrelevant as the above example will go some way to show. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 22:33]
|
But isn't the whole "clear goal scoring opportunity" thing based on assumptions? You are assuming that the attacker was likely to score given their position and you have to assume that the defenders wouldn't be able to cover... | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:38 - Dec 7 with 1719 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:34 - Dec 7 by somersetsimon |
But isn't the whole "clear goal scoring opportunity" thing based on assumptions? You are assuming that the attacker was likely to score given their position and you have to assume that the defenders wouldn't be able to cover... |
Absolutely, and that is the refs call on the field.
But you cannot appeal based on assumptions as the refs assumption will always trump the clubs assumption of the offending player otherwise we would never have any reds upheld.
I edited above to give an example of a striker wrongly called onside getting clattered through on goal and a keeper getting his marching orders. You cannot appeal because an offside offence was missed by the ref happened before hand meaning he shouldnt have been there. What will be reviewed is the foul in the match report. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:38 - Dec 7 with 1718 views | C_jack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:26 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
You cant base a case for over turning a decision around assumption though. If our whole argument is "fabianski may have got the ball if sakho didnt handball it" then id certainly be wary of an extension to his ban as a punitive measure.
It has to be a solid, glaring error from the ref and they are allowed human error, which not spotting a handball angled away from you is.
A better example. If bony was through on goal (but offside missed by the ref and lino) and then taken out by Curtois for example and sent off. Do you think Chelsea would appeal because Bony was actually offside so it shouldn't have come to that situation? Absolutely not.
Its the same thing. The incident that will be reviewed is the foul that os stated on the refs report which is denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, whether an un reviewable offence occurred prior to that or not is irrelevant as the above example will go some way to show. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 22:33]
|
Offside is not a foul. |  |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:41 - Dec 7 with 1706 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:31 - Dec 7 by NeathJack |
Hey Parlay, are you saying that if a player blatantly punched the ball towards the goal and a defender stopped in going in by punching it away and subsequently got sent off that it wouldn't be overturned? |
Absolutely. If the ref missed the handball towards goal and sent the defender off for punching it away the red would be upheld because the offence he got sent off for remains.
I will now ask you regarding the offside example. Would you expect a panel to overturn a red card professional foul if it turned out on replays the striker was offside. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:43 - Dec 7 with 1686 views | NeathJack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:41 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Absolutely. If the ref missed the handball towards goal and sent the defender off for punching it away the red would be upheld because the offence he got sent off for remains.
I will now ask you regarding the offside example. Would you expect a panel to overturn a red card professional foul if it turned out on replays the striker was offside. |
With all due respect regarding the incident I described, bollocks 
And as for your example, yes I would as the red card shouldn't have stood. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:44 - Dec 7 with 1681 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:38 - Dec 7 by C_jack |
Offside is not a foul. |
What difference does that make? If the officials made an error and thus called a striker onside instead of offside and got clattered, on review it was an error and he shouldnt have been there.
But offsides cannot be reviewed and neither can unseen hand balls. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:45 - Dec 7 with 1678 views | JackFish |
Just seen it again on MOTD2, what an awful bit of refereeing. Blatant handball, debatable whether it's a foul or not and two covering defenders meaning it's not a clear goalscoring opportunity. |  | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:45 - Dec 7 with 1673 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:43 - Dec 7 by NeathJack |
With all due respect regarding the incident I described, bollocks
And as for your example, yes I would as the red card shouldn't have stood. |
Then you are clearly wrong on both counts. You genuinely think if Sakho was offside on replays we would get it turned over on that basis?
Thats probably the most crazy opinion ive read on this forum and there has been a few. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:47 - Dec 7 with 1670 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:45 - Dec 7 by JackFish |
Just seen it again on MOTD2, what an awful bit of refereeing. Blatant handball, debatable whether it's a foul or not and two covering defenders meaning it's not a clear goalscoring opportunity. |
It was an empty net, if fabianski was a defender then it would be over turned because of the covering defenders. As it is, covering defenders dont make a blind bit of difference. There is no such rule as "last man" as many fans think, the offence is denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. 25 yards out with an empty net is doing just that.
Its as straight forward as that. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 22:50]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:53 - Dec 7 with 1648 views | JackFish |
The offense is denying an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. Look at how far in front of himself he's played the ball and how many defenders are back.
I don't think it's even a foul from Fabianski, he's allowed to stand there and if anything has tried to get out of the way as Sakho jumped into him. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:58 - Dec 7 with 1624 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:53 - Dec 7 by JackFish |
The offense is denying an OBVIOUS goalscoring opportunity. Look at how far in front of himself he's played the ball and how many defenders are back.
I don't think it's even a foul from Fabianski, he's allowed to stand there and if anything has tried to get out of the way as Sakho jumped into him. |
But any appeal is based on supposition. Remember this has to be an OBVIOUS error on the part of the ref (forget the handball as it doesnt come into it).
You cant overturn a red because its contentious and "someone may have blocked it". The decision HAS been made.
There now needs to be solid and irrefutable evidence that Fabianski did not deny a clear goal scoring opportunity. That is impossible. | |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:59 - Dec 7 with 1622 views | NeathJack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:45 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
Then you are clearly wrong on both counts. You genuinely think if Sakho was offside on replays we would get it turned over on that basis?
Thats probably the most crazy opinion ive read on this forum and there has been a few. |
Well i don't think anyone expected you to agree. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:03 - Dec 7 with 1606 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:59 - Dec 7 by NeathJack |
Well i don't think anyone expected you to agree. |
I think you would be hard pushed to find anybody in world football to agree that a red would be overturned on the basis of a clattered through on goal striker actually on replays being in an offside position, let alone me agreeing. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 23:05]
| |
| |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:08 - Dec 7 with 1595 views | JackFish |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 22:58 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
But any appeal is based on supposition. Remember this has to be an OBVIOUS error on the part of the ref (forget the handball as it doesnt come into it).
You cant overturn a red because its contentious and "someone may have blocked it". The decision HAS been made.
There now needs to be solid and irrefutable evidence that Fabianski did not deny a clear goal scoring opportunity. That is impossible. |
I didn't say anything about winning an appeal, I'm saying I don't think its a sending off offense for three reasons.
You're probably right that it won't be overturned because it's not an obvious error from the ref, doesn't mean that we shouldn't appeal though. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:08 - Dec 7 with 1593 views | NeathJack |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:03 - Dec 7 by Parlay |
I think you would be hard pushed to find anybody in world football to agree that a red would be overturned on the basis of a clattered through on goal striker actually on replays being in an offside position, let alone me agreeing. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 23:05]
|
Aye, I'm sure no one would think that if a bloke 30 yards offside standing in the 6 yard box was fouled it shouldn't be overturned. | | | |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:13 - Dec 7 with 1569 views | Parlay |
| Fabianski red card-Seen the replays on 23:08 - Dec 7 by NeathJack |
Aye, I'm sure no one would think that if a bloke 30 yards offside standing in the 6 yard box was fouled it shouldn't be overturned. |
Shouldn't be disallowed or wouldn't be disallowed? Key words there.
You may get many thinking it should be, i cant imagine there are many actually believing it would be.
If he is 30 yards or 3 makes no difference to your point. You CANNOT overturn a red based on an incorrectly given onside. I don't want to be rude, i like you as a poster, genuinely - but this is basic, basic, basic stuff.
If you can give me officially documented instance of a panel overturning a red card because the fouled striker actually turned out to be offside then i will be as shocked as i have ever been on the internet. Even someone appealing on that grounds would shock me.
People need to understand what is and isn't reviewable and you cannot review an offside just like you cannot review an unseen handball. The ONLY things that can be reviewed are things in the referees report (in this instance denying a clear goalscoring opportunity) or special circumstances where a player has committed serious foul play and the FA want to intervene. [Post edited 7 Dec 2014 23:16]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
