I think the main problem is that the presumption of the panel is that the ref was correct

And it’s on us to prove that his decision was, as a matter of fact, wrong. The panel don’t re-ref the incident, i.e. even if they think it was a very harsh decision, unless we can prove that there was no kick out, it seems unlikely to be overturned.

To where this post started though, Howson’s comments in his radio interview are helpful. Can’t remember his exact words, but made it clear that there was barely any contact but any kick out is a red card. Which, based on the letter of the law, doesn’t seem right. Hopefully his words form part of our appeal.

Posted By: SimonOTBC on March 8th 2024 at 10:24:36

Message Thread

I think Sainz wins his appeal today (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 08:11:59
- Let me know if I have to do anything (n/m) (NCFC) - Augustus Pablo, Mar 8, 12:24:29
- You can read previous decisions on the FAs website (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 11:58:36
  - Quite analogeous albeit it was contact during a challenge not an alleged kick out (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 8, 12:31:32
  - It’s previous overturns like this (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 12:03:26
- I am sure he’ll win the appeal. (NCFC) - Fenwood Lad, Mar 8, 09:55:31
- Dead to me, JH (NCFC) - Nelsons final flanel, Mar 8, 09:41:17
  - Hero to zero and I hope the lego-headed c88t is reading this (n/m) (NCFC) - MonkeyPuzzle, Mar 8, 10:52:23
    - Almost certainly is (NCFC) - Nelsons final flanel, Mar 8, 11:01:28
  - Same as a dive for a pen, players are always gonna look for it. (n/m) (NCFC) - Lentil Weaver, Mar 8, 09:47:34
  - Perfectly fine (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:43:15
    - Good to see Kenny pointing out to his face that he was cheating (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 10:25:29
- I am not sure he will. I think he should but they will want to protect their boy Madley. (n/m) (NCFC) - colincanary, Mar 8, 09:01:45
- Admitting it was a naughty challenge from him as well. (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Mar 8, 08:58:11
- "contacts contact" (NCFC) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Mar 8, 08:49:41
  - I hate that line, so often trotted out by players and pundits (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 8, 09:26:33
  - *' (n/m) (NCFC) - Ken Dodds Dads Dog, Mar 8, 08:50:44
- Basically confirming that most players are cheats (n/m) (NCFC) - jamesward, Mar 8, 08:47:15
  - I sent a couple of views of it to former Prem Ref I know.. His response.... (NCFC) - Azteca, Mar 8, 11:47:36
  - Yeah. What Howson did is no different to a player going down for a penno after minimal con (n/m) (NCFC) - Trent_Canary, Mar 8, 08:49:31
    - *contact (n/m) (NCFC) - Trent_Canary, Mar 8, 08:49:44
- What is the definition of violent conduct? (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 08:24:14
  - Not what Sainz did! (n/m) (NCFC) - Trent_Canary, Mar 8, 08:39:11
  - Here: (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 08:32:51
    - Any kick out is an attempt at excessive force tbf (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 08:44:49
      - I don’t think so (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 09:03:57
      - No its not. But he didn't kick out anyway (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 8, 08:48:07
        
        yes it is ... (NCFC) - ghostof barry butler, Mar 8, 09:05:50
        
        Nope. Any kick out is a foul. Violent conduct requires excessive force or brutality (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 8, 09:28:02
        
        If a player pushes another gently in the chest they are not sent off (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 8, 09:30:43
        
        Interesting ref talk here (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:39:16
        
        Interesting how few refs know the rules based on that (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 09:51:51
        
        Many laws are fairly ambiguous (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:58:31
        
        Yes, and also I think it’s based on common practice more than the letter of the law (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 10:19:52
        
        VMT (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 10:20:51
        
        Yes, and excessive force is defined too: (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 09:38:17
        
        As it was totally unnecessary (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:42:56
        
        He wasn't in danger of injuring Howson (NCFC) - jamesward, Mar 8, 09:54:34
        
        Doesn’t take much with studs tbf (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 10:08:48
        
        I suppose if you're counting a slight graze or reddening of the skin (NCFC) - jamesward, Mar 8, 10:14:55
        
        I think the main problem is that the presumption of the panel is that the ref was correct (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 10:24:36
        
        If that counts as being in danger of injuring Howson, so does every single tackle (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 09:48:50
        
        Tackles are a necessary part of the game though (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:52:15
        
        Yes there is, but the language used is the same (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 10:21:28
        
        Can’t injure someone by pushing them (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:33:43
        
        Yep (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 09:22:42
        
        Could certainly be interpreted that way. Anything more than no force is excessive!! (n/m) (NCFC) - JD3, Mar 8, 08:57:15
    - I think he should win the appeal. Different rules vs if it was howson’s face (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 08:33:25
  - All depends on interpretation I think (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 08:25:47
- BEEP BEEP BEEP (NCFC) - norwaay, Mar 8, 08:13:28
  - .... (NCFC) - Trent_Canary, Mar 8, 08:38:31
  - ... (NCFC) - Chris Peacock, Mar 8, 08:25:50
  - However the appeal goes (NCFC) - SCC 28, Mar 8, 08:24:00
  - 😂😂😂 (n/m) (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Mar 8, 08:23:30

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.