Andy Carroll Red Card

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
as a norwich fan i'd be pissed off if it's overturned, as mentioned above we play them next week.
paul lambert is right, it would set a precedent to review all dodgy decisions.
 
canary_max said:
as a norwich fan i'd be pissed off if it's overturned, as mentioned above we play them next week.
paul lambert is right, it would set a precedent to review all dodgy decisions.
Click to expand...

All dodgy decisions are already reviewed. If you mean it would set a precedent to seek legal redress, then I don't agree. It would only encourage others to do that if they had reason to believe the FA wasn't following its own rules, as is apparently the case here. Taking the matter to court would make no difference whatsoever to the majority of cases.
 
pass the football said:
All dodgy decisions are already reviewed. If you mean it would set a precedent to seek legal redress, then I don't agree. It would only encourage others to do that if they had reason to believe the FA wasn't following its own rules, as is apparently the case here. Taking the matter to court would make no difference whatsoever to the majority of cases.
Click to expand...

I agree with CM .

He was sent off , they appealed . The appeal was turned down , they complained so the FA will look at it AGAIN . Can of worms being opened / Making a rod for their own back IF the red Card is rescinded ( SP ) .
 
pass the football said:
All dodgy decisions are already reviewed. If you mean it would set a precedent to seek legal redress, then I don't agree. It would only encourage others to do that if they had reason to believe the FA wasn't following its own rules, as is apparently the case here. Taking the matter to court would make no difference whatsoever to the majority of cases.
Click to expand...

Is that actually the case? I didn't get the impression that there was any procedure error. I don't really know, it's sort of hard to cut through the Gold/Allardici hand-waving to find out what they are actually saying.
 
The BBC article states:

The Hammers, who lie 18th in the table, also suggested the FA-appointed panel "did not apply the correct test" under its rules when making the original decision.
Click to expand...

That's the basis for legal action, not simply that they don't think it was the correct decision. If it is rescinded on that basis, how is that opening a can of worms, assuming the proper procedure is followed in all other cases?
 
In cricket, they only overrule the Umpire if there is a clear reason to do so...otherwise they stick with the on-field decision. The FA said they saw no reason to overrule the ref, so they are applying the same logic. West Ham are clutching at straws.

p.s. Not accepting the FAs decision is opening a can of worms because everyone will think they have a case (if it is important to them).
 
pass the football said:
The BBC article states:



That's the basis for legal action, not simply that they don't think it was the correct decision. If it is rescinded on that basis, how is that opening a can of worms, assuming the proper procedure is followed in all other cases?
Click to expand...

Ah I see, seems strange though, the correct test is "did the referee make a clear and obvious error", I'm guessing they didn't use one that was tougher towards West Ham... so I really don't see what their line is. They might think the test is wrong but it's a bit late for that argument. Still smells a bit like a PR exercise to me.
 
pass the football said:
The BBC article states:



That's the basis for legal action, not simply that they don't think it was the correct decision. If it is rescinded on that basis, how is that opening a can of worms, assuming the proper procedure is followed in all other cases?
Click to expand...

Had not spotted that to be honest . But just their word , so we will see .

I do agree with Qwerty though , seems strange .
 
Qwerty said:
Ah I see, seems strange though, the correct test is "did the referee make a clear and obvious error", I'm guessing they didn't use one that was tougher towards West Ham... so I really don't see what their line is. They might think the test is wrong but it's a bit late for that argument. Still smells a bit like a PR exercise to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know what precisely West Ham think the FA has done wrong, but as I say, that's the basis of their legal appeal and I don't see any problem with them exercising their right to seek legal redress. If it turns out the FA did follow correct procedure, then they will lose the case.
 
The ref didn't make a clear error...it was Andy Carroll (not mistaken identity), he swung out an arm in an unnatural manner (i.e. not essential to maintain his balance), and he wasn't freeing himself from Chico (that wrestling match was over). He did connect with Chico (though that is unnecessary for a red card..intent is enough).
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
The ref didn't make a clear error...it was Andy Carroll (not mistaken identity), he swung out an arm in an unnatural manner (i.e. not essential to maintain his balance), and he wasn't freeing himself from Chico (that wrestling match was over). He did connect with Chico (though that is unnecessary for a red card..intent is enough).
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that this is what West Ham are challenging?
 
pass the football said:
I don't know what precisely West Ham think the FA has done wrong, but as I say
Click to expand...

I'm guessing if they had any specific ideas they would have mentioned it by now ;) maybe they'll think of one before the no.2 appeal, I don't know.
 
Qwerty said:
I'm guessing if they had any specific ideas they would have mentioned it by now ;) maybe they'll think of one before the no.2 appeal, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. They will presumably mention it in court (it would be a pretty weak case otherwise!) but it might be complex and difficult to explain in a soundbite.
 
I hope West Ham are only challenging an error under FA rules...the real danger would be if they (or anyone else) started to challenge decisions under ordinary law. Football Clubs have signed up to operate within FA rules, but some could probably be challenged in a court of law. Unlikely to happen, but I could see ManU or City flicking through their law books if they were pushed off the gravy train by a points deduction (for financial wrong doing for instance).
 
Number 1 Jasper said:
They have said they will NOT take legal action , they will abide by the Tribunal hearing .
Click to expand...

Ok, they threatened it, and then withdrew the threat when the FA, in saying they would reconsider it, tacitly acknowledged their complaint had some merit. If the FA had not indicated it would reconsider, I would imagine that the legal action may well have gone ahead.

If the FA do again uphold the ban, then I wouldn't be surprised if that threat suddenly reappeared.
 
Threatening legal action because a decision went against them? What is the world coming to? This should have been rubbished by the F.A publicly and immediately and it isn't as though West Ham are the only club who can afford a lawyer. This is the start of it. West Ham are a hateful bunch. A **** brand of football, an overrated manager, ****s from wall to wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back