FA reject unfair dismissal appeal from NUFC for Cheik Tiote

[Yorkie]

Teaches Cheick right. He needs to learn to stop getting booked so much.

 

If owt good comes of the whole thing, hopefully it's this.

[alpal78]

Let's not forget the part the Stevenage w***** played in this,Cajun should seek the c*** out and anally violate him with a gardening implement.

 

Yeah! How dare he lose the ball and then trip over Tiote. Some people have no class

 

The dick head got up, realised what was going on and went back down.

 

Grade A t***

 

Conspiracy innit.

 

They're all out to get us

 

Jesus wept.

 

Excuse me whilst I borrow a few sarcastic words levied at me the other day:

 

Guessing that Dave and Jonny Hall a bunch of people on an internet forum knows the game better than Poll, Tiote and Nolan. the FA

 

Grow up.

 

Me grow up? I'm not the one going "They're corrupt!" "They hate us, they did it on purpose!" "Booo FA!".

 

Just face it. Whether he won the ball or not, whether it was a perfect challenge or not, the FA deemed that the 'lunge' of both of his feet leaving the ground was deemed 'dangerous play'. Get over it.

 

Jonny, I see your point, I don't buy the whole conspiracy theory either. Although Tiote made no contact, if the FA deemed a two footed lunge dangerous and merits a red card, then the decision is 'right' (strictly speaking) but what I find difficult to accept is that the same FA decided not to retrospectively punish De Jong for breaking a player's leg. Surely the purpose of all these laws is to protect players from horrific injuries, when the law is enforced literally without taking into account their very purpose, then something is seriously wrong. The law is a means to achieve an end not and end in itself.

[JH]

Teaches Cheick right. He needs to learn to stop getting booked so much.

 

If owt good comes of the whole thing, hopefully it's this.

 

Aye. It's just a shame we have to suffer for him to learn

[JH]

Jonny, I see your point, I don't buy the whole conspiracy theory either. Although Tiote made no contact, if the FA deemed a two footed lunge dangerous and merits a red card, then the decision is 'right' (strictly speaking) but what I find difficult to accept is that the same FA decided not to retrospectively punish De Jong for breaking a player's leg. Surely the purpose of all these laws is to protect players from horrific injuries, when the law is enforced literally without taking into account their very purpose, then something is seriously wrong. The law is a means to achieve an end not and end in itself.

 

Look at something like Shearer's challenge on Bridge in the FA Cup a few years ago. Not saying it was a dangerous challenge, because it wasn't, it was perfect infact, but Bridge ended up breaking his leg - by that logic, Shearer should have been punished and banned for that challenge - that's the reason why the laws focus on action rather than consequence.

 

For what it's worth I think De Jong should have been banned, but not because he broke HBA's leg, but because the challenge was 'dangerous and reckless' whether it broke the player's leg or not.

 

But the stupid rule that if the referee saw the incident and chose not to act, meant that they didn't.

[Colocho]

So have we established that after this three match ban, he will face another two match ban after two more yellows? If we're going to work on Sewelly's ''it's inevitable Tiote will get booked'' theory we'll have Cheiky for maximum 11 more games this season?

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Disappointed.

 

Thought he stood a chance albeit slight

 

Big loss.

[Yorkie]

If a referee doesn't award a free-kick, are the FA actually allowed to deliver a suspension for the incident post-game? Isn't that against the rules in this country? I vaguely recall reading something about it 'undermining' the refs, which is why they don't do it. Obviously it's a total bollocks rule if true, but it would explain why De Jong got away with it scott-free.

 

The most annoying thing about the whole thing is that De Jong got away with it and Tiote didn't. But on this occassion, it's the right call by the FA. Infuriating for us, mind.

[alpal78]

Jonny, I see your point, I don't buy the whole conspiracy theory either. Although Tiote made no contact, if the FA deemed a two footed lunge dangerous and merits a red card, then the decision is 'right' (strictly speaking) but what I find difficult to accept is that the same FA decided not to retrospectively punish De Jong for breaking a player's leg. Surely the purpose of all these laws is to protect players from horrific injuries, when the law is enforced literally without taking into account their very purpose, then something is seriously wrong. The law is a means to achieve an end not and end in itself.

 

Look at something like Shearer's challenge on Bridge in the FA Cup a few years ago. Not saying it was a dangerous challenge, because it wasn't, it was perfect infact, but Bridge ended up breaking his leg - by that logic, Shearer should have been punished and banned for that challenge - that's the reason why the laws focus on action rather than consequence.

 

For what it's worth I think De Jong should have been banned, but not because he broke HBA's leg, but because the challenge was 'dangerous and reckless' whether it broke the player's leg or not.

 

No I wasn't suggesting a player get banned just based on consequences (broken leg), but I think you would find (just by observation) that most leg breakers are indeed dangerous tackles. There are of course instances when a player is extremely unlucky when his foot gets stuck in the turf/grass but those are exceptions and not the norm. Yes De Jong should have been punished for a dangerous tackle, even more dangerous than Tiote's, the whole rule that if the ref saw it, we can't change it surely has to go, it is as bad as FIFA opposition to goal line technology.

[JH]

If a referee doesn't award a free-kick, are the FA actually allowed to deliver a suspension for the incident post-game? Isn't that against the rules in this country? I vaguely recall reading something about it 'undermining' the refs, which is why they don't do it. Obviously it's a total bollocks rule if true, but it would explain why De Jong got away with it scott-free.

 

The most annoying thing about the whole thing is that De Jong got away with it and Tiote didn't. But on this occassion, it's the right call by the FA. Infuriating for us, mind.

 

IIRC They speak to the referee and if he mentions in his match report that he saw the incident and chose not to act, their 'hands are tied' and they can't do anything about it Stupid rule if it's the case.

[Yorkie]

If a referee doesn't award a free-kick, are the FA actually allowed to deliver a suspension for the incident post-game? Isn't that against the rules in this country? I vaguely recall reading something about it 'undermining' the refs, which is why they don't do it. Obviously it's a total bollocks rule if true, but it would explain why De Jong got away with it scott-free.

 

The most annoying thing about the whole thing is that De Jong got away with it and Tiote didn't. But on this occassion, it's the right call by the FA. Infuriating for us, mind.

 

IIRC They speak to the referee and if he mentions in his match report that he saw the incident and chose not to act, their 'hands are tied' and they can't do anything about it Stupid rule if it's the case.

 

Aye that's what i mean. It's bollocks but i can sort of understand it. Players are cunts and referees need protection... if the FA are gonna look at everything post-game then you're in danger of making the officials redundant.

 

We just need better refs tbh. That's the main issue.

[JH]

Jonny, I see your point, I don't buy the whole conspiracy theory either. Although Tiote made no contact, if the FA deemed a two footed lunge dangerous and merits a red card, then the decision is 'right' (strictly speaking) but what I find difficult to accept is that the same FA decided not to retrospectively punish De Jong for breaking a player's leg. Surely the purpose of all these laws is to protect players from horrific injuries, when the law is enforced literally without taking into account their very purpose, then something is seriously wrong. The law is a means to achieve an end not and end in itself.

 

Look at something like Shearer's challenge on Bridge in the FA Cup a few years ago. Not saying it was a dangerous challenge, because it wasn't, it was perfect infact, but Bridge ended up breaking his leg - by that logic, Shearer should have been punished and banned for that challenge - that's the reason why the laws focus on action rather than consequence.

 

For what it's worth I think De Jong should have been banned, but not because he broke HBA's leg, but because the challenge was 'dangerous and reckless' whether it broke the player's leg or not.

 

No I wasn't suggesting a player get banned just based on consequences (broken leg), but I think you would find (just by observation) that most leg breakers are indeed dangerous tackles. There are of course instances when a player is extremely unlucky when his foot gets stuck in the turf/grass but those are exceptions and not the norm. Yes De Jong should have been punished for a dangerous tackle, even more dangerous than Tiote's, the whole rule that if the ref saw it, we can't change it surely has to go, it is as bad as FIFA opposition to goal line technology.

 

I agree on the rule - it's ridiculous. It's the job of the governing body to guide and sweep up after their employees (in this case, the refs) make mistakes. There's no point to even having them if they automatically stand by the decisions of the referee.

 

I also agree on the most leg breaks come from dodgy tackles. But the rules are clear that it is action and intention, rather than consequence that they focus on. That's why this Tiote appeal rejection isn't surprising in the slightest.

 

The rules need bringing up to date tbh.

[Incognito]

And a higher body that doesn't support their shitness.

[Yorkie]

I don't think the rules need an upgrade so much as the referees do. You can count on about one hand the good ones in this country.

[JH]

I don't think the rules need an upgrade so much as the referees do. You can count on about one hand the good ones in this country.

 

I agree that we need a better standard of referee, but even the best referees in the world make mistakes.

 

You need a system in place for when they make these mistakes, which is the why the rules need changing. As things stand, mistakes can't be rectified in most cases.

[Guest Tdeans]

I think all the rules need to actually be written with some logic rather than some old b****** who played football decades ago. I mean what the hell is going on with the offside rule it should be done by whether a player is between the last man and goalkeeper  when the balls played regardless of whether or not whether he decides to get involved with the game. And as the for banning players I think we can just thank good ol corruption (De Jong should have been banned, yet he plays 4 the richest club and thus was not)

[Dokko]

FA, UEFA & FIFA are all bent and useless.

[Yorkie]

I don't think the rules need an upgrade so much as the referees do. You can count on about one hand the good ones in this country.

 

I agree that we need a better standard of referee, but even the best referees in the world make mistakes.

 

You need a system in place for when they make these mistakes, which is the why the rules need changing. As things stand, mistakes can't be rectified in most cases.

 

Footy wud be less intresting den tho.

[thomas]

I, for one, welcome our new robot officiating overlords.

[JH]

I don't think the rules need an upgrade so much as the referees do. You can count on about one hand the good ones in this country.

 

I agree that we need a better standard of referee, but even the best referees in the world make mistakes.

 

You need a system in place for when they make these mistakes, which is the why the rules need changing. As things stand, mistakes can't be rectified in most cases.

 

Footy wud be less intresting den tho.

 

 

I do love when that argument is given like I can't imagine what barrel of laughs we'd have missed if Viduka's goal against Fulham wasn't chalked off and we stayed up.

[Nobody]

Let's not forget the part the Stevenage w***** played in this,Cajun should seek the c*** out and anally violate him with a gardening implement.

 

Yeah! How dare he lose the ball and then trip over Tiote. Some people have no class

 

The dick head got up, realised what was going on and went back down.

 

Grade A t***

 

Conspiracy innit.

 

They're all out to get us

 

Jesus wept.

 

Excuse me whilst I borrow a few sarcastic words levied at me the other day:

 

Guessing that Dave and Jonny Hall a bunch of people on an internet forum knows the game better than Poll, Tiote and Nolan. the FA

I said that as you had previously said something along the lines of "guessing that you guys knows better than PM, the referee and his assistant". Not those exact words, but words to that effect.

The fact is, the FA would never rescind a red card unless it was absolutely blatant that the ref must have seen the situation wrong (see Zabaleta), don't think anyone of us ever thought the FA would rescind it, even though they clearly should have.

[Exiled in Texas]

No point comparing De Jong incident to Tiote, because the referee saw De Jong and said No-foul.  You don't want to create a culture of trial-by-video with every tackle being reviewed, but there is merit in allowing post-game review.

 

My question regarding the rule about whether the referee saw it is, there appears to be a hard/fast rule about whether the referee saw it or not. Whereas, the question is really, did the referee see enough to make a complete decision. In the case of De Jong, the referee said that he saw it, and from his position he saw no foul. So the FA could not investigate and review it with all the video evidence (Much of which points out that the referee did not get a complete look at the incident, and only saw part of the challenge).

 

I would prefer to allow the referee to review these incidents post game, and answer the question "had you seen all the views presented through video replay, would your decision have been the same". Have the FA request that the referee review incidents that they deem necessary rather than clubs trying to initiate the process.

 

I'd also add further penalty to any appeal that was upheld to reduce frivolous appeals.

[Incognito]

In a nutshell Nobody

[JH]

No point comparing De Jong incident to Tiote, because the referee saw De Jong and said No-foul.  You don't want to create a culture of trial-by-video with every tackle being reviewed, but there is merit in allowing post-game review.

 

My question regarding the rule about whether the referee saw it is, there appears to be a hard/fast rule about whether the referee saw it or not. Whereas, the question is really, did the referee see enough to make a complete decision. In the case of De Jong, the referee said that he saw it, and from his position he saw no foul. So the FA could not investigate and review it with all the video evidence (Much of which points out that the referee did not get a complete look at the incident, and only saw part of the challenge).

 

I would prefer to allow the referee to review these incidents post game, and answer the question "had you seen all the views presented through video replay, would your decision have been the same". Have the FA request that the referee review incidents that they deem necessary rather than clubs trying to initiate the process.

 

I'd also add further penalty to any appeal that was upheld to reduce frivolous appeals.

 

Your suggestion seems like the most sensible (and simple) thing to introduce.

[Kaizero]

I, for one, welcome our new robot officiating overlords.

 

[Incognito]

There aren't many refs who would own up to a fuck-up,though