Charman ban stands

[LoidLucan]

Not worth appealing ever again if that one can't be overturned.

[JE93]

Embarrassing all around. Embarrasing behaviour from Curtis during and after the incident. Embarrassing from the ref on the day giving Curtis no consequences
despite looking right at the incident awarding us a freekick and then sending Charman off for an elbow which never occurred, Embarrassing from the panel in not overturning the decision on the evidence.

[Old Git]

Unbelievable.

[lo36789]

I am not even sure we are the worst appeal outcome of the day.

https://twitter.com/eastleighfc/status/ ... 19012?s=24

When I saw that this had not been overturned for "violent conduct" I don't know that anything wouldn't meet that definition now!

[Old Git]

I am not even sure we are the worst appeal outcome of the day.

https://twitter.com/eastleighfc/status/ ... 19012?s=24

When I saw that this had not been overturned for "violent conduct" I don't know that anything wouldn't meet that definition now!

World has gone mad. Referees wonder why they don’t get much respect and send someone off for brushing his hand. The referee in question should be sacked for being totally ridiculous.

[loan_star]

All due to the fact that Darlo couldn’t prove he didn’t elbow Curtis.
Quite why Curtis has got away with any retrospective action also shows how warped the FA disciplinary system works.

[LoidLucan]

It does highlight that there really is very little point appealing... no matter how ridiculous the ref's decision clearly is and even if videos and photos show that what he based his decision on didn't actually happen. You really can't win... even when it is clear and obvious that the ref got it wrong (and all the evidence shows he got it wrong). What a fecking farce.

[quaker4life]

Utterly ludicrous that Curtis has faced no punishment whatsoever, if what Charman did is considered violent conduct then I have no idea why getting an opponent in a headlock isn't considered a red card offence? I've already said if this was the case then they both should have been sent off.

Awful timing in terms of a transfer as well, who knows this could work in our favour?! Not that I'm one for clutching at straws.

[lo36789]

All due to the fact that Darlo couldn’t prove he didn’t elbow Curtis.
Quite why Curtis has got away with any retrospective action also shows how warped the FA disciplinary system works.

An elbow wouldn't have been part of report. We had to provide there was no act of violence that Charman did not "strike or attempt to strike his opponent".

In law that is what the red card offence is which might explain when the FA look at things to the letter any movement of your arm towards someone could meet the term 'strike'...I am starting to wonder if that is why these things don't get overturned as objectively they aren't incorrect.

We know from FA appeals before they are very rigid. I am sure previously they said about the missed games last season they aren't there to re-judge to incident they are there to determine if a decision was within the laws / rules.

It's not great but I suppose at least it is 'consistent' and I suppose removes all subjectivity.

The Curtis is more because there is no such thing as retrospective action at any level of football internationally. Sure they tried to bring it in for simulation a few years back and it died a death only Luis Suarez was ever charged in a UEFA cup game.

To be honest it would open a dangerous precedent of clubs submitting video evidence alleging misdemeanors by opponent, future opponents or league rivals.

[jjljks]

Even Prince Andrew would not have got off, given this useless process.

[LoidLucan]

VIOLENT CONDUCT

Violent conduct is when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, or against a team-mate, team official, match official, spectator or any other person, regardless of whether contact is made.

In addition, a player who, when not challenging for the ball, deliberately strikes an opponent or any other person on the head or face with the hand or arm, is guilty of violent conduct unless the force used was negligible.


To meet the above criteria for violent conduct Charman would have had to use excessive force or brutality or strike Curtis on the head or face. This must have been based on an alleged elbow, which didn't happen. It clearly doesn't refer to the gentle shove that is on the video because that doesn't meet the criteria above to send him off.

[JE93]

All due to the fact that Darlo couldn’t prove he didn’t elbow Curtis.
Quite why Curtis has got away with any retrospective action also shows how warped the FA disciplinary system works.

An elbow wouldn't have been part of report. We had to provide there was no act of violence that Charman did not "strike or attempt to strike his opponent".

To be fair in law that is what the red card offence is which might explain when the FA look at things to the letter any movement of your arm towards someone could meet the term 'strike'...I am beginning to wonder if that is why these things don't get overturned as I guess to the letter they are not definitively incorrect.

We know from FA appeals before they are very rigid. I am sure previously they said about the missed games last season they aren't there to re-judge to incident they are there to determine if it is definitively and absolutely not correct within the laws.

It's not great but I suppose at least it is 'consistent' and I suppose removes all subjectivity.

The Curtis is more because there is no such thing as retrospective action at any level of football internationally. Sure they tried to bring it in for simulation a few years back and it died a death only Luis Suarez was ever charged.

To be honest it would open a dangerous precedent of clubs submitting video evidence alleging misdemeanors by opponent, future opponents or league rivals.

Out of interest Lo, why might Elbowing be specifically mentioned on the FA's own suspensions site? Surely that can only come from the official match report? (https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... b=10577744).

For me the FA and referees are making a rod for their own back here. The referee must be embarrassed by that decision. Well then grow a pair. Admit you saw it wrong, make that point to the Appeals Committee and right your wrongs. This only fuels the fire that when it comes to referees is them and us, and stokes animosityand aggression between the two. They don't get asked questions after the game about what they saw in an incident, no one gets to see the scores they get from their assesors. So he's wandered off with no consequences and we lose our best player for 4 games.

[lo36789]

It's the second paragraph "deliberately strikes an opponent on the head or face with the hand or arm".

There is the clause about negligible force but that is obviously a subjective term.

Reality is Charman did push his hand / arm into Curtis and may have inadvertently touched his head / face - I think we would all argue it was negligible force, clearly the FA didn't view the objectively it wasn't not not negligible - that is the issue when the laws include a subjective term.

[LoidLucan]

Charman didn't strike Curtis "on the head or face with the hand or arm" and therefore wasn't guilty of violent conduct. It really is as simple as that despite you fudging things.The ref got it wrong and the appeal should have been won.

[lo36789]

Out of interest Lo, why might Elbowing be specifically mentioned on the FA's own suspensions site? Surely that can only come from the official match report?

I genuinley have no idea because elbowing isnt actually an explicit offence per the laws.

It an S2 violent conduct...there is no sub-category of violent conduct. You literally fill in the name and then just select the drop down. I must admit it's been well over two years since I last did one so maybe that has changed.

They don't get asked questions after the game about what they saw in an incident, no one gets to see the scores they get from their assesors. So he's wandered off with no consequences

Just cos you don't see the consequence doesn't mean there aren't any. If you complain about a member of staff at a restaurant just because their next performance review and pay review isn't publicised doesn't mean their weren't consequences for the individual?

[lo36789]

Charman didn't strike Curtis "on the head or face with the hand or arm" and therefore wasn't guilty of violent conduct. It really is as simple as that despite you fudging things.The ref got it wrong and the appeal should have been won.

Well many have admitted he did push him, so you are going to have to tell me what he used to push him if not his hands / arms.

I don't agree with the decision as I've said many a time, I think if the panel were asked the question "do they think the player should be sent off?" the appeal outcome would be different.

I am just wondering if it's that need for objective proof that is the issue when appealing.

[LoidLucan]

He was sent off for elbowing Curtis in the head and it didn't happen. Charman gave Curtis a push but not in the face or head which wouldn't make it a red card offence for violent conduct.

[lo36789]

Yes but that surely isn't the purpose of the appeal to get someone out on a technicality? If a referee says a tackle made contact with the shin but it happened to have been the knee, on your logic a red card should be rescinded as he broke his knee not his shin.

He was sent off for violent conduct, which includes deliberately striking an opponent in head or face with hand or arm.

It is this point which I suspect was 'key'

https://ibb.co/MB6MqHS

Hand over the top and into the back of Curtis' head / neck (this is what I could understand as on one viewing looked like a swing of the arm particularly if you had an angle which was obstructed by Curtis')

We can all disagree with what we think the decision should have been.

For perspective I have zero connection with FA appeals panels they are done by disciplinary committee nothing to do with refereeing at all they cover all misdemeanours from betting, tweets and on field issues.

I am literally breaking it down as to possibly why these outcomes are reached.

I recall last year there was a comment made when looking at our decision not to play the Boston game which indicated that it is an entirely objective view on whether the decision was within the distinct black and white parameters.

[JE93]

Out of interest Lo, why might Elbowing be specifically mentioned on the FA's own suspensions site? Surely that can only come from the official match report?

I genuinley have no idea because elbowing isnt actually an explicit offence per the laws.

It an S2 violent conduct...there is no sub-category of violent conduct. You literally fill in the name and then just select the drop down. I must admit it's been well over two years since I last did one so maybe that has changed.

They don't get asked questions after the game about what they saw in an incident, no one gets to see the scores they get from their assesors. So he's wandered off with no consequences

Just cos you don't see the consequence doesn't mean there aren't any. If you complain about a member of staff at a restaurant just because their next performance review and pay review isn't publicised doesn't mean their weren't consequences for the individual?

Cheers Lo.

I get the point and I know publishing scores is probably a step too far, but for me atm the system is broken and it's causing animosity and aggression towards referees which isn't right. But following a poor decision, we can't hear anything from the referee as to what is the basis of his decision. Which also makes it harder to appeal against because you don't know what you're specifically appealing against. For example using the elbow point, if he's said 'i saw an elbow from charman as he gets up' you can clearly see at the point that Curtis goes down clutching his face there is no elbow and therefore the decision is incorrect and should be overturned.

Now we as a team have been punished twice, we wrongly lost Charman in the Spenny game when we should have been playing with 11 v 9 for the final 10 minutes. And secondly because the referee and the appeals committee haven't put the mistake right, we have to play the next 4 without our best player.

[LoidLucan]

I might be being a bit simplistic here but surely if a ref sends someone off for elbowing someone in the head and the video shows no evidence that occurred then an appeal panel should really overturn the red card given for use of the elbow. This has just confirmed that there is no point appealing in virtually every circumstance. It's just a waste of time no matter how good your case is.

For what it's worth I think the ref, for whatever reason, thought that Charman's little shove was an elbow to the head and his assessment was cemented by Curtis' dramatics. The ref got it wrong and the panel have now backed his awful mistake. Lesson? Don't bother appealing.

[lo36789]

Yep. I assume it is the way it is for a reason.

The initial error is what it is. I don't agree with the decision but can appreciate how from an obstructed angle it looks a certain way.

Appeals process is the same at all levels as I understand it also. It isn't designed as an opportunity for the referee to re-referee their decision as that is only afforded really where video footage exists.

And the appeals board have set themselves up to be that objective perspective I assume to remove any issues which come with subjective assessments.

The rules say you can't gamble on football - person entered the work sweepstake on the Euros - so yes strictly they paid money so they gambled on football match outcome equals guilty - it seems daft but at least it will always be consistent.

It isn't ideal, and it sticks out like a sore thumb on days like today, but I guess the fear is the alternative. The appeals boards who are I believe closer to lawyers by trade would be effectively asked to start making refereeing decisions or potentially start being inconsistent in their outcomes based on a subjective view.

https://www.sportresolutions.com/news/v ... mber-roles

Just found this which sort of gives a clue as to what the three-person appeals panel is made up of. A football member (ex players / manager / chairman traditionally) and a legal member (someone with legal background) - not sure what the final one is mind!

[Darlo_Pete]

This leaves us a bit short of cover for the next few games, wonder of AA will try to bring someone on loan?

[AndyPark]

Well; it won’t considering we’ve just signed O’Neill.

He will just jump straight in to replace Charman up top with Cassidy.

[LoidLucan]

New Year wish... more refs like David McNamara who took charge of our home game with Spennymoor and was excellent. Full of common sense, efficient, no-nonsense, consistent and allowed the game to flow.

A bit too practical for the authorities at times though. Even refs get rough justice sometimes....
https://therealefl.co.uk/2018/11/16/edi ... way-to-go/

[loan_star]

New Year wish... more refs like David McNamara who took charge of our home game with Spennymoor and was excellent. Full of common sense, efficient, no-nonsense, consistent and allowed the game to flow.

Agreed, he was very good despite the odd mistake which everyone makes.
With regard to the appeal, in both the cases of Cooper and Charman, despite the video / still pics / ref backtracking (in Coopers case) there was "insufficient evidence" that the referee got it wrong or the offence didn't occur.
I've had plenty experience with the FA appeals & hearings process, both as a player and a manager, and its always skewed in favour of backing the referee. Charges are worded so that if the referee could possibly be wrong they'll get you on a technicality instead.

[bga]

New Year wish... more refs like David McNamara who took charge of our home game with Spennymoor and was excellent. Full of common sense, efficient, no-nonsense, consistent and allowed the game to flow.

A bit too practical for the authorities at times though. Even refs get rough justice sometimes....
https://therealefl.co.uk/2018/11/16/edi ... way-to-go/

An absolute joke but at least we all know who we are laughing at and it's not the referee.

[bga]

I am not even sure we are the worst appeal outcome of the day.

https://twitter.com/eastleighfc/status/ ... 19012?s=24

When I saw that this had not been overturned for "violent conduct" I don't know that anything wouldn't meet that definition now!

Agree this is never a red card for that offence. I am nterested whether you think the player in question did actually commit an offence, dissent
perhaps? The referee clearly wanted to have a quick quiet word word with him and he "brushed" the Ref away and just continued to walk away is that acceptable?

[lo36789]

New Year wish... more refs like David McNamara who took charge of our home game with Spennymoor and was excellent. Full of common sense, efficient, no-nonsense, consistent and allowed the game to flow.

Agreed, he was very good despite the odd mistake which everyone makes.
With regard to the appeal, in both the cases of Cooper and Charman, despite the video / still pics / ref backtracking (in Coopers case) there was "insufficient evidence" that the referee got it wrong or the offence didn't occur.
I've had plenty experience with the FA appeals & hearings process, both as a player and a manager, and its always skewed in favour of backing the referee. Charges are worded so that if the referee could possibly be wrong they'll get you on a technicality instead.

https://www.leaderlive.co.uk/chester_fc ... play-offs/

Only ever one decision from being terrible again.

Isn't the purpose / concept of an appeal to appeal the original judgement being wrong. The assumption is that it is correct and the purpose is not to re-judge the incident itself.

That is the same with any appeals court. An appeal is not a retrial - the onus is on the defence to prove it was definitively incorrect.

[lo36789]

I am not even sure we are the worst appeal outcome of the day.

https://twitter.com/eastleighfc/status/ ... 19012?s=24

When I saw that this had not been overturned for "violent conduct" I don't know that anything wouldn't meet that definition now!

Agree this is never a red card for that offence. I am nterested whether you think the player in question did actually commit an offence, dissent
perhaps? The referee clearly wanted to have a quick quiet word word with him and he "brushed" the Ref away and just continued to walk away is that acceptable?

Yeh potentially - everyone has their own grade on dissent - certainly challenges his authority I guess.

Feels like it could be managed differently but depends on the context of the game, what has gone before, scoreline etc. If you have gone unnoticed to that point why raise your profile for that.

[bga]

Thanks lo