Charman ban stands

[Old Git]

Looks like the appeals procedure is a completely flawed system to me. If a clear miscarriage of justice has occurred then surely the point of an appeal should be to right a wrong when this has occurred.
In the case of Charman he now faces a 4 match ban at a crucial time of his career when he could be on the verge of a move to a full time club. If he does not get his move because teams want to see more of him but are unable to do so, this ban could affect his whole career. Also the fact that he has had 2 red cards for violent conduct might put teams off him. Yet in both cases he has been ridiculously harshly treated.

[onewayup]

I am now of the opinion that no matter what evidence you have to back up your appeal, your appeal will be rejected from the outset ,unless the official in charge / referee makes a statement that he got his decision wrong at the time of the said offence, The referee in this case should be taken to task over his totally inept performance on the day, he has lied through his back teeth to justify his sending off of an innocent player, who now through no fault of his own has to miss 4 matches which could define his career as a professional footballer player. That particular referee was wrong on so many levels he should not be allowed to officiate again until he completes a full reassessment course, how he can honestly look himself in the mirror is beyond me.
Lied, wronged the player .lied again to justify his own decision and to protect himself obsolving
Himself from any blame, for a catastrophic day of bad decisions.and the real culprit gets off Scott free curtis ..thankfully the referee for the next meeting of these sides was of the highest order and took no s*** from curtis.

[lo36789]

I am now of the opinion that no matter what evidence you have to back up your appeal, your appeal will be rejected from the outset ,unless the official in charge / referee makes a statement that he got his decision wrong at the time of the said offence, The referee in this case should be taken to task over his totally inept performance on the day, he has lied through his back teeth to justify his sending off of an innocent player, who now through no fault of his own has to miss 4 matches which could define his career as a professional footballer player. That particular referee was wrong on so many levels he should not be allowed to officiate again until he completes a full reassessment course, how he can honestly look himself in the mirror is beyond me.
Lied, wronged the player .lied again to justify his own decision and to protect himself obsolving
Himself from any blame, for a catastrophic day of bad decisions.and the real culprit gets off Scott free curtis ..thankfully the referee for the next meeting of these sides was of the highest order and took no s*** from curtis.

What are you on about?

A referee is never asked at any point in the process to make a statement on "having now watched the footage what do you think the right decision is?". That opportunity does not present itself even if he sent an e-mail to the FA disciplinary to that effect it would irrelevant to the case / appeal. For a case on the field where there is footage the match official doesn't provide anything else into the appeal process - it is down to the club to prove it based on the footage and a decision is entirely at the discretion of the independent panel.

After the match he submits using a drop down red card the code / reason he sent him off ie. violent conduct. Making a mistake is not a "lie". When Armstrong asked him why and he responded that was for an elbow...that wasn't a lie...it was what he thought he had seen. He was being entirely honest with Alun on what he thought he saw.

The still shows why that view could exist. Imagine your position where the official is and what would be visible from that angle on the pitch. A swing of an arm behind the head, head jolts forward at the point you can see the elbow come down behind the head. Why it could appear like an elbow is so incredibly easy to see, I would go as far as to suggest you would need to be missing a substantial amount of cognitive ability, or be so blinded by your own agenda, to not be able to recognise it.

Perfectly legitimate to still hold a view that it is incorrect, but to suggest there is an integrity issue seems a bit of a push...unless you have some evidence of these times where he "lied" and "lied again to protect himself obsolving himself from any blame" within any of this.

It's not like the appeals process doesn't overturn red cards (https://www.afcfylde.co.uk/tollitt-red-card-overturned/ & https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/sport/195 ... st-rovers/) but your evidence needs to objectively show that the decision was outwith the laws of the game.

[onewayup]

Lo. Did he get the decision wrong. Yes he did .did he lie saying he saw Charman elbow curtis yes he did that is what he reported as to the reason for the sending off. He was making bad decisions all game end off .

[Old Git]

A wrong decision was made. It should have been overturned. Simple as that.

[onewayup]

Agreed .old git.

[lo36789]

Lo. Did he get the decision wrong. Yes he did .did he lie saying he saw Charman elbow curtis yes he did that is what he reported as to the reason for the sending off. He was making bad decisions all game end off .

That's not a lie though? He said the reason he sent him off was an adjudged act of violent conduct and said to Alun he thought he saw an elbow.

If an assistant flags someone offside and turns out they were onside the assistant was lieing?

Bizarre logic.

[onewayup]

2,000 people at the game only you and the referee it appears are right, the referee got it wrong there was no elbow, no matter how long you you procrastinate he got that decision wrong along with most of the decisions on the day.

[lo36789]

I said it was wrong repeatedly, but there is a difference between getting a decision wrong and a lie.

Surely, surely you have the capacity to see that?

[onewayup]

Did he not report seeing something that didn't happen. Then that is a lie surely you have the capacity to see that.

[onewayup]

It was wrong to lie .he said he saw an elbow, lie it didn't happen so he obviously made it up to suit the sending off.a lie in my book.it wasn't a one off most of the afternoons decisions which were wrong. He repeatedly got it wrong. Then squirmed until a flash of inspiration an elbow. Which just didn't happen. He blew the whistle for a free kick against Curtis until spennymoor players got to him. He then changed his mind. Tait was the biggest instrument in influencing a very weak referee.

[lo36789]

Serious nonsense.

How do you know he blew for a free kick against Curtis I didn't see the right arm come out. There was no directional signal given at the point he stopped play.

I accept you might have come to that conclusion from your perspective. I think you are wrong but I don't think you are lieing , just think you have made an incorrect judgement, might be down to your positioning or view at the time perhaps?

Or are you saying you are lieing because I think you got a judgement wrong? By your logic you must be.

[darlogav]

Serious nonsense.

How do you know he blew for a free kick against Curtis I didn't see he right arm come out. There was no directional signal given at the point he stopped play.

I'm sorry but I don't believe that for one second you can't see his right arm come out to give a free kick. He clearly raises it when he blows. I'd give up the refereeing if you can't see that.

I can't be bothered to read through the reasons the appeal might have been unsuccessful. The why doesn't really bother me here.The fact of the matter is there was no violent conduct and the fact that we are being punished as if there was is absolutely farcical.

[lo36789]

Yes raises it 'up' not 'out'.

The signal for an attacking free kick is a right arm straight out horizontally...his arm is above his head with a flat palm basically indicating "stop"

[en passant]

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.

For all the excuses made on behalf of the referee not being able to have a clear sight of the incident and coming to the conclusion that what Charman did came within the above definition, as you have said, there is no evidence for the incident meeting the criteria to make it a red card.
We are told that an appeal is not an opportunity to rerun the whole incident but to assess if the rules were correctly applied. As with all appeals it is for the side bringing the appeal to show that there was a clear error in following the rules that applied to this incident. As you have identified, there was no excessive force or brutality shown by anyone other than Curtis, and no evidence of a strike to the head other than the Curtis stranglehold on Charman's neck. The complete failure to find any part of this rule being met by Charman's actions, should be all that was needed in getting this decision overturned. It is difficult to see any other way of handling the appeal.
The only possible way in which I could make a case for upholding the red card would be if the panel thought that Curtis was the recipient of the red card they were considering, and that, in this case, the evidence was clearly supportive of both elements of the rule being breached.

[darlogav]

Yes raises it 'up' not 'out'.

The signal for an attacking free kick is a right arm straight out horizontally...his arm is above his head with a flat palm basically indicating "stop"

Haha give it a rest.

It's 50 degrees as opposed to 45 degrees so it's stop play???? You really not strengthening your position here. If I could screen shot I would! Sure someone else can...

This will be my last post on the matter, feel free to reply but I won't be going round in circles. However, I really think you're grasping at straws there. At the very least he's signalled incorrectly. At worst he gave a free kick and then changed his mind. To deny he makes the universal, well known signal for a free kick, which we see every week though mate come on...

That's a comical reply.

[lo36789]

I guess that is perspectives. For me his arm is just going straight up - ie just 'stop play'. Seem to be on a tangent mind as regardless i am not sure that is proof that the referee 'lied' by getting a decision wrong.

FWIW in law above the neck it doesn't need to be brutality...its a separate clause and just needs to be more than negligible contact with hand / arm. A push if the contact is above the neck the expectation is a red card.

As I've said, repeatedly, I actually had it as two yellows for aggression. I understand the assessor had it as two reds for Curtis and Charman. Ironically the Charman red was (as I've heard second hand) the only key match decision judged as correct per the assessor. Thompson red incorrect, missed penalty to Darlington for handball and a missed red card for Curtis.

My understanding of the appeals panel (I've only ever been to one as a witness of another case - either I've never been appealed against or I've just not been needed) is based on what I am reading and what they have previously said about our Boston game last season.

If the case we made was simply that it wasn't an elbow I am not surprised it failed. It feels a little naive to simply argue the nuance rather than categorically detailing why objectively the decision was incorrect in law.

[en passant]

If the case we made was simply that it wasn't an elbow I am not surprised it failed. It feels a little naive to simply argue the nuance rather than categorically detailing why objectively the decision was incorrect in law.

Do you know that the focus of our appeal was on whether or not an elbow was used? If you do not know and are just speculating, why not assume that the appeal was against any contact by Charman being insignificant or not in contact with the head? Just interested to know if there is a source document that you have access to that may not have been seen by those of us who are still puzzled by the appeal failure.

[theoriginalfatcat]

Can an appeal be appealed?

[lo36789]

Do you know that the focus of our appeal was on whether or not an elbow was used? If you do not know and are just speculating, why not assume that the appeal was against any contact by Charman being insignificant or not in contact with the head? Just interested to know if there is a source document that you have access to that may not have been seen by those of us who are still puzzled by the appeal failure.

Basing it on the announcement we made.

"We contended that the referee had made a clear and obvious error in sending Luke off for violent conduct, specifically use of the elbow, but the FA commission turned down our appeal."

Might just be my clumsy reading but sounds like our contention was specifically use of the elbow. It may also be that we've just made a quick summary announcement but you know that is the only info publicly available.

Clear and obvious error is VAR criteria. Our contention should have been that it was wrong in law for Luke Charman to be dismissed for violent conduct and then effectively ticked off each criteria for VC with explicit evidence from the footage to counter it.

It is not easy to do given how subjective the criteria is for violent conduct especially I assume it will need to definitively and objectively be incorrect. Not just "we believe" "we feel" "we think".

[jjljks]

Can an appeal be appealed?

Thanks to Brexit, we cannot go to appeal through the European Court of Justice.

However I feel our Human Rights have been breached!

[darlo2001uk]

Do you know that the focus of our appeal was on whether or not an elbow was used? If you do not know and are just speculating, why not assume that the appeal was against any contact by Charman being insignificant or not in contact with the head? Just interested to know if there is a source document that you have access to that may not have been seen by those of us who are still puzzled by the appeal failure.

Basing it on the announcement we made.

"We contended that the referee had made a clear and obvious error in sending Luke off for violent conduct, specifically use of the elbow, but the FA commission turned down our appeal."

Might just be my clumsy reading but sounds like our contention was specifically use of the elbow. It may also be that we've just made a quick summary announcement but you know that is the only info publicly available.

Clear and obvious error is VAR criteria. Our contention should have been that it was wrong in law for Luke Charman to be dismissed for violent conduct and then effectively ticked off each criteria for VC with explicit evidence from the footage to counter it.

It is not easy to do given how subjective the criteria is for violent conduct especially I assume it will need to definitively and objectively be incorrect. Not just "we believe" "we feel" "we think".

Maybe the club could use lo's expertise in preparing the wording for an appeal if there is a similar situation in the future? I'm being serious - not sarcastic.

[don'tbuythesun]

I was thinking the same. It would be helpful in wording and when deciding to appeal.....or not.

[lo36789]

Haha loan_star isn't wrong about one thing - it's rarely worth appealing.

To prove something definitively didn't happen is an extremely high bar when the laws have some scope for subjective judgement.