Andy Carroll - Best Striker in the World

[Alex]

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:

serious foul play

violent conduct

spitting at an opponent or any other person

denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area)

denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player's goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick

using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures

receiving a second caution in the same match

Can anyone really say that was violent conduct? I thought the other day that it was deserved. But by the rules I cant really see that it was. But I guess it was up to West Ham to prove that he wasnt trying to hit him.

[Alex]

Attempting a punch isnt an offence though. It comes under violent conduct. Lashing out and not hitting someone is violent conduct now?

[Red_Polo]

There is an argument to say if we are banning people based on the intent to harm or cheat (as has happened here) then it completely muddies the waters.

Obviously he intended to smack Flores in the mouth. But where do things like that end. Do people get booked for raising their hands in the area at corners, because of the handball intent. Its silly.

While I do think it was a red, I dont think it should set a precedent.

Attempting to strike a player is an offence. Attempting to handball is not an offence. The rules are pretty clear on that aren't they? I can't see this as setting any sort of precedent, as far as I can see it's the same as it ever was. :talkingheads:

[Alex]

There is an argument to say if we are banning people based on the intent to harm or cheat (as has happened here) then it completely muddies the waters.

Obviously he intended to smack Flores in the mouth. But where do things like that end. Do people get booked for raising their hands in the area at corners, because of the handball intent. Its silly.

While I do think it was a red, I dont think it should set a precedent.

[Gibbo]

Ah **** of course.

Long week.

[Resu]

Play for Everton does he Carroll?

I was just commenting on your confession about not being a red.

[Gibbo]

Do we have a Bitter amongst us?

Play for Everton does he Carroll?

[Resu]

I still don't think I was a red. At all.

Do we have a Bitter amongst us?

[Yozza]

West Ham have lost the case.

Andy Carroll: West Ham striker's three-match ban upheld by tribunal

An independent tribunal has upheld the Football Association's decision to reject West Ham's appeal against Andy Carroll's three-match ban.

The Premier League side threatened legal action against the FA after their initial attempt to overturn the ban was turned down.

Carroll will now miss the Hammers' matches against Aston Villa, Norwich and Southampton.

An FA statement said: "An independent arbitration tribunal convened under FA Rule K has dismissed a legal challenge brought by West Ham United and Andy Carroll in relation to the red card received by Carroll in the match between West Ham United FC and Swansea on 1 February 2014.

"The independent tribunal resolved that there was no serious issue to be tried and also awarded The FA its costs."

Before Friday's hearing, West Ham had promised to abide by the decision.
The Hammers, who lie 18th in the table, also suggested the FA-appointed panel "did not apply the correct test" under its rules when making the original decision.

The move to reconsider the upholding of the initial suspension with a further hearing is a highly unusual one, and is the last stage a dispute can reach under FA rules.

It is thought to be the first time in Premier League history that a rejected red-card appeal has then been referred to an independent arbitrator.
Carroll, 25, was dismissed after clashing with Swans defender Chico Flores at Upton Park.

According to the FA, West Ham failed to prove that referee Howard Webb had made "an obvious error" in dismissing the forward, whose arm hit Flores on the top of his head as he tried to untangle himself following an aerial challenge.
Flores went to ground clutching his face but West Ham felt he had overacted. Replays also suggested that the contact was unintentional.

[Gibbo]

I still don't think I was a red. At all.

Gerrard should have several bans for leading with the elbow if it's the case.

[danperkins]

For me, the video replays DO show that Carroll intended to have a nibble at Flores. He deliberately shoves Flores in the back before he swings his arm around. On that basis, I don't think they should be able to successfully appeal the sending off.

Yes, Flores blatantly exaggerated and his antics aggravated Carroll in the first place. It IS wrong that the punishments given were not proportionate to the degree to which each player was at fault, but the suggestion that the ref has been fooled and made a different decision as a result is pure speculation. Carroll's breach of the rules on the other hand is quite clear to me.

The only reason this is an issue is the feeling that the ref may have been influenced by the exaggeration of Flores. Had it been a red for Carroll and yellow for Flores, I don't think we'd have been having this conversation.

[Shaggy]

West Ham have lost the case.

[Sarb]

For me, the video replays DO show that Carroll intended to have a nibble at Flores. He deliberately shoves Flores in the back before he swings his arm around. On that basis, I don't think they should be able to successfully appeal the sending off.

Yes, Flores blatantly exaggerated and his antics aggravated Carroll in the first place. It IS wrong that the punishments given were not proportionate to the degree to which each player was at fault, but the suggestion that the ref has been fooled and made a different decision as a result is pure speculation. Carroll's breach of the rules on the other hand is quite clear to me.

The only reason this is an issue is the feeling that the ref may have been influenced by the exaggeration of Flores. Had it been a red for Carroll and yellow for Flores, I don't think we'd have been having this conversation.

[Mattshark]

For me, the video replays DO show that Carroll intended to have a nibble at Flores. He deliberately shoves Flores in the back before he swings his arm around. On that basis, I don't think they should be able to successfully appeal the sending off.

Yes, Flores blatantly exaggerated and his antics aggravated Carroll in the first place. It IS wrong that the punishments given were not proportionate to the degree to which each player was at fault, but the suggestion that the ref has been fooled and made a different decision as a result is pure speculation. Carroll's breach of the rules on the other hand is quite clear to me.

The only reason this is an issue is the feeling that the ref may have been influenced by the exaggeration of Flores. Had it been a red for Carroll and yellow for Flores, I don't think we'd have been having this conversation.

[baitman]

thanks, thats cleared it all up then. i'll put the kettle on.