Thanks Sam | Page 3 | Vital Football

Thanks Sam

To criticise the Club for appealing against what many feel to be a completely unjustified card is surely unfair too. Don't you think the club are well aware of the "success rate" of appeals? As for suggesting that a harsher penalty might be the result, I know that's occasionally been the case, but let's be honest, this is no way a frivolous appeal ......... it's bang on the money.

corect

we wuld have to hope that them looking at this will stay profesional in there investegateon. if they let unfare bias to the ref influence there deceseon then theres no hope left in the game.
 
Note that they're not appealing it as such despite Cook using the word several times - they are asking the FA if they will review the footage/decision. There's a subtle difference

If the FA than review it & say that the decision was correct Cook has said they will accept that
 
The more I've looked at it and assessed it, the more I'm convinced it wasn't even a foul.

I think that (unless the referee mentions an elbow that the camera angle didn't pick up) then whether it was a sending off is debatable & down to how you interpret dangerous play

Without question though its a foul by Morsy - The Brentford player clearly gets his head to the ball first & then Morsy connects with him.

That's a foul, just as it would be as if he'd had a ball played in to feet, knocked it away & was then brought down by a slightly mistimed foul with Morsy's feet/legs even if the other player's momentum carries him into the challenge as well
 
We're doomed Mr Mainwaring, doomed. :silly:

its aleged that a certane ex pompy maneger had plenty of brown envelopes. big sam lost the england job cos of dodgy deelings. then theres blatter and all them aruond him who took backhanders at the top level. storys abuond about funny handshakes and dodgy deels tb. cant walk aruond with blinkers on. this sh1t does hapen.

its not the game me and thee pleyed.
 
Surely, that's the nature of an appeal Bongsmon.
Surely, that's the nature of an appeal Bongsmon.

i should have been a bit clearer as it isn't in this instance - if the club was appealing in the sense that the FA may increase the band because they considered the appeal frivolous, then Latics would be saying that the decision was wrong.
Latics aren't doing that (or at least that's not what Cook says in that interview) - they're asking the FA to review the footage & clarify whether they think it was dangerous play as per the laws of the game & if the FA say yes then Latics won't appeal
I'm also guessing that by now Latics have had the referees report on the sending off & what's in that that has influenced them asking for it to be reviewed. Whether that's coz the referee doesn't mention an elbow despite the Brentford players & manager arguing that it was I don't know
 
I think that (unless the referee mentions an elbow that the camera angle didn't pick up) then whether it was a sending off is debatable & down to how you interpret dangerous play

Without question though its a foul by Morsy - The Brentford player clearly gets his head to the ball first & then Morsy connects with him.

That's a foul, just as it would be as if he'd had a ball played in to feet, knocked it away & was then brought down by a slightly mistimed foul with Morsy's feet/legs even if the other player's momentum carries him into the challenge as well

My reasoning for why it wasn't a foul is because effectively the brentford player was propelled into him, so therefore neither could avoid the collision - in fact the brentford lad went into it with greater force and had no control over his body movement at that point. I still maintain regardless that two players competing for a bouncing ball with their head shouldn't warrant a red card, particularly as it's something that happens nigh on every game and the players would be bloody stupid to risk that type of injury/challenge.

As for the appeal, we're talking semantics here. Cook said they've appealed so I'll interpret that statement on face value. Am I correct in thinking its reviewed by a panel of 3 independent of each other, with a majority decision?
 
My reasoning for why it wasn't a foul is because effectively the brentford player was propelled into him, so therefore neither could avoid the collision - in fact the brentford lad went into it with greater force and had no control over his body movement at that point. I still maintain regardless that two players competing for a bouncing ball with their head shouldn't warrant a red card, particularly as it's something that happens nigh on every game and the players would be bloody stupid to risk that type of injury/challenge.

As for the appeal, we're talking semantics here. Cook said they've appealed so I'll interpret that statement on face value. Am I correct in thinking its reviewed by a panel of 3 independent of each other, with a majority decision?

I get your point about him receiving a shove & I would agree but for the fact that when I've watched the challenge back bit by bit, (IMO) Morsy doesn't put his head in until the Brentford player has already headed it on. So for me, far from trying to pull out of any challenge when he realises the Brentford player may collide with him he actually commits to it more so its no longer just a collision. If he hadn't then I'd agree with you
On the first bit, of course 2 players competing for a bouncing ball can constitute a red card for one of them. If you judge one of them to have challenged dangerously then that player can be sent off. To me that's what Morsy has done but can accept that not everyone agrees

I know its semantics about what is & isn't an appeal but thought that as people were saying an appeal could potentially increase any ban, that it should be pointed out what the club is doing doesn't carry any risk of that
 
Within that you're not taking into account that Morsy didn't and couldn't anticipate the brentford player being pushed forward and therefore getting to the ball that micro second earlier - how could he? It was an unavoidable collision with both players going to head a ball. How he can be dismissed for someone being pushed into him is beyond me.

Turn it around - you can win a ball but if your challenge is too forceful and you connect dangerously with an opponent it's a foul, or can be interpreted that way. Therefore the brentford player went in with greater force and greater speed and during the follow through caught Morsy. You could interpret that it was he who was at fault. It's a contact sport and for me two players competing in that way and unfortunately colliding heads when making a genuine attempt to head a ball doesn't constitute a red for one and not the other. If not for the over reaction of brentford players seeing something that didn't happen - i.e. an elbow, he wouldn't have been dismissed for that challenge in my opinion.
 
It would be interesting to see what the ref put in his report as I don’t buy what Gibson told Paul kendrick. The amount of times that players have asked me something, I’ve given them an answer & then they’ve gone away saying I said something else is unreal.

I do get your point and would agree if that’s what in thought happened but that’s not how I see it. I see player get shoved, Morsy hesitates to go into the challenge, player heads the ball on, Morsy then jumps into the challenge when the ball has already gone and makes a heading movement which is late and after the ball has gone. It’s late and dangerous so it’s a red.

I don’t see it as 2 blokes colliding and clashing heads.
 
I see player get shoved, Morsy hesitates to go into the challenge, player heads the ball on, Morsy then jumps into the challenge when the ball has already gone and makes a heading movement which is late and after the ball has gone. It’s late and dangerous so it’s a red.

I don’t see it as 2 blokes colliding and clashing heads.

What a load of rubbish. You see it as the player heads the ball then Morsy decides to jump in and makes the head movement toward the other player ?... have I got that right ?

What I see is 2 players make a move toward the ball but 1 gets there slightly before the other but never a sending off in the memory of man.

You see this challenge several times in any game...1 is slightly quicker but no malice at all.
 
It would be interesting to see what the ref put in his report as I don’t buy what Gibson told Paul kendrick. The amount of times that players have asked me something, I’ve given them an answer & then they’ve gone away saying I said something else is unreal.

I do get your point and would agree if that’s what in thought happened but that’s not how I see it. I see player get shoved, Morsy hesitates to go into the challenge, player heads the ball on, Morsy then jumps into the challenge when the ball has already gone and makes a heading movement which is late and after the ball has gone. It’s late and dangerous so it’s a red.

I don’t see it as 2 blokes colliding and clashing heads.
If that's the way referees are taught to see things then it's no wonder we have all the ridiculous decisions that we see week in, week out esp in the lower leagues
 
What a load of rubbish. You see it as the player heads the ball then Morsy decides to jump in and makes the head movement toward the other player ?... have I got that right ?

What I see is 2 players make a move toward the ball but 1 gets there slightly before the other but never a sending off in the memory of man.

You see this challenge several times in any game...1 is slightly quicker but no malice at all.

Malice or intent doesn’t come into it.
See if you can pause it when the Brentford player heads the ball - Morsy is comparatively some distance away & there was no way he could get the ball yet he still leant in head first.
Whether there was malice, intent or whether he just made an error of judgement it was still dangerous and late in my opinion
 
If that's the way referees are taught to see things then it's no wonder we have all the ridiculous decisions that we see week in, week out esp in the lower leagues

Or maybe that’s what they’re taught because those are the laws of the game & it’s some other people who either don’t understand them or don’t try to ???
 
Or maybe that’s what they’re taught because those are the laws of the game & it’s some other people who either don’t understand them or don’t try to ???
It's not understanding the laws of the game, it's the interpretation of them and seeing something that is or isn't there.
 
KDZ, how could this appeal be even remotely considered as disingenuous? The "incident" was neither malicious, nor premeditated. It was a straightforward 50-50 challenge for the ball, but given that it was head to head, the collision understandably resulted n some concern from the Ref. If PK's account of Gibson's chat with the Ref is correct, then the use (if any) of a forearm by Morsy isn't even worthy of consideration.

To criticise the Club for appealing against what many feel to be a completely unjustified card is surely unfair too. Don't you think the club are well aware of the "success rate" of appeals? As for suggesting that a harsher penalty might be the result, I know that's occasionally been the case, but let's be honest, this is no way a frivolous appeal ......... it's bang on the money.

For every person who's watched it a number of times and convinced themselves that a red was correct, there'll be an equivalent number who are now convinced that it was completely unjustified.

That said, I too doubt we'll win .................. which will be a travesty.

With one wide camera angle it's hard to tell for sure, so the FA cant dismiss the refs opinion as a mistake out of hand. So if the ref and his assistants are certain it was a malicious elbow / forearm and the people on the panel also think so it could be from the clip then it could easily be deemed a cynical claim. Hopefully it wouldn't be considered such but I dont think it's not a risk.

If you slow it down and zoom in it looks like Morsys arm is in there. It's impossible to tell if Morsy is putting up him arm to protect himself from the impact and it touches the lad on the body safely. Or if it goes go into the face is it accidental or is there a sly and malicious formarm / elbow in there. Without a closer or alternative camera angle it's a judgement call and assumption so if everyone is looking at the exact same clip and there are different interpretations the review panel will probably lean onwhat the ref told them he saw and probably back him.

If we find another camera angle from pitch side it would remove the doubt but the fact we've not seen one makes me think there wont be.

For me if there is reasonable doubt they will give it to the ref. If they back the ref over what is deemed violent conduct then you've got to be careful as they will treat what could be deemed a frivolous appeal for a elbow differently then a mistimed tackle.
 
Last edited: