The Football Association's decision to uphold a three-match ban for West Ham striker Andy Carroll is to be heard by an independent tribunal on Friday.
Andy Carroll Red Card
- Thread starter MarchwoodSaint
- Start date
-
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
-
Hmmm. Not too sure about that PTF. I think you'll find that if a referee sees and/or takes action over an incident, then no retrospective action can be taken so there's no way all dodgy decisions are reviewed. This is quite ludicrous given the sheer volume of camera angles available of course. This is an appeal over a sanctionable offence which is quite different. I have never heard of a tribunal sitting again following an initial decision though and any change of direction by the FA here will indeed see every appeal not upheld appealed again.
A review doesn't have to lead to action. And I've already explained why this won't make any difference to other cases.
IMHO .
The result of this , no matter what team you support may well lead to loads of appeals etc in the Future .
The FA made a decision , West ham disagreed , the FA upheld the original decision and west ham ( or any club in the future ) are taking it further .
CAN OF WORMS . ROD FOR THEIR OWN BACK .
End of IMHO .
The result of this , no matter what team you support may well lead to loads of appeals etc in the Future .
The FA made a decision , West ham disagreed , the FA upheld the original decision and west ham ( or any club in the future ) are taking it further .
CAN OF WORMS . ROD FOR THEIR OWN BACK .
End of IMHO .
You're just being awkward now
Only if there is a question of impropriety as there is here.
What on earth does that mean?
You're just being awkward now
Only if there is a question of impropriety as there is here.
What on earth does that mean?
Anything you like , I will let you have the last word , you always do !
Not sure quite what prompted that, but you did ask me a question, it's hardly surprising I responded is it?
I feel that the very fact that the FA have opted to meet with West Ham, indicates they feel something wasn't completely right with the initial verdict and I think it will be overturned and Carroll will have no ban.
Reviews do not have to lead to action but that still doesn't mean that all dodgy decisions are indeed reviewed.
As for why you think this won't make any difference to any other cases that's rather heavily dependent on this incident being the very first of it's kind in the history of the PL (which it isn't), this not being the very first time that an appeal of this nature has gone to arbitration (which it isn't) West Ham having discovered some technicality in the rules which somehow all other football clubs are ignorant of (which they haven't) and the original panel, having been asked "Do you think this was violent conduct?" applied the incorrect test by actually answering "What do you think Carroll should get for that haircut?".
If this is overturned, it is a can of worms. How can it be anything else?
It is worth pointing out that a three match ban for his haircut is possibly not long enough though
I think this is a case of who screams loudest. I think they have been given this meeting because they were making threats and I will be impressed with the FA if they stick to their guns (they won't).
Reviews do not have to lead to action but that still doesn't mean that all dodgy decisions are indeed reviewed.
As for why you think this won't make any difference to any other cases that's rather heavily dependent on this incident being the very first of it's kind in the history of the PL (which it isn't), this not being the very first time that an appeal of this nature has gone to arbitration (which it isn't) West Ham having discovered some technicality in the rules which somehow all other football clubs are ignorant of (which they haven't) and the original panel, having been asked "Do you think this was violent conduct?" applied the incorrect test by actually answering "What do you think Carroll should get for that haircut?".
If this is overturned, it is a can of worms. How can it be anything else?
It is worth pointing out that a three match ban for his haircut is possibly not long enough though
It might be the first of its kind, I can't recall a previous instance of a club accusing the FA of not properly following the correct procedure to determine their player's guilt, can you? (genuine question)
I don't think it's likely that this will happen often, and clubs aren't going to legally challenge every decision because they would invariably lose.
As for the hair cut... well, in that regard I have some sympathy for those who think Chico should be banned as well
Not really. They'll have to accept it like everyone else does when they lose an appeal.
,
Well that will still be interesting, on account of it making their legal threat look rather empty.