A&H

BBC News - Ban overturned for assault of official

The Referee Store
However, the FA appeal board described the ban as "excessive" and said "there was no justification in the reasons as to why a ground ban was considered appropriate, given the purported intention to impose the minimum sanction".

Just can’t believe that part.
 
Absolutely ridiculous. The guy was literally convicted of assault off the back of this. If the FA wanted to make a statement here they could do, yet they’ve decided not to even make an effort.

There’s very little FA support for referees in the grassroots game as it is. Communication is always poor and outdated. Incidents like this only harm the already fraying confidence that many grassroots refs have in the FA.
 
Prime chance to just tell someone that NO, you’re not welcome in the sport… and actively chose to do the opposite. The (national) FA appealing against one of their own member associations, for what purpose?
 
FirsFox40 said:
Prime chance to just tell someone that NO, you’re not welcome in the sport… and actively chose to do the opposite. The (national) FA appealing against one of their own member associations, for what purpose?
Click to expand...
This isn’t the national FA appealing against the County FA, it is the person found guilty of the offence appealing against their sanction and that was heard by an independent panel appointed by the FA.

I read the story and suggest the criticism lies in the written verdict provided by the County FA following the initial hearing not being detailed enough and justifying sufficiently the punishment they handed out.

Having not read the reasons myself I’m not passing judgement either way but that is how I’ve interpreted from the reporting.
 
The appeal upheld the 5 year football ban, but withdrew the 5 year football ground or stadium ban, on the basis there is no precedent for including a venue ban.

The appeal write up gives more detail, the referee assaulted was the teenage referee’s father who remonstrated with the agressor in the car park, it wasn’t necessarily apparent to the aggressor that he was a match referee given he was wearing a black coat. Doesn’t excuse the behaviour in anyway, but context to correct the BBC reporting.

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files...erpool-fa---appeal-board---21-april-2023.ashx
 
DJIC said:
The appeal upheld the 5 year football ban, but withdrew the 5 year football ground or stadium ban, on the basis there is no precedent for including a venue ban.

The appeal write up gives more detail, the referee assaulted was the teenage referee’s father who remonstrated with the agressor in the car park, it wasn’t necessarily apparent to the aggressor that he was a match referee given he was wearing a black coat. Doesn’t excuse the behaviour in anyway, but context to correct the BBC reporting.

https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files...erpool-fa---appeal-board---21-april-2023.ashx
Click to expand...
The video is being shown this morning on BBC TV.
There is a clear assault on the referee's father.
The Appeal Board have imposed reduced sanctions on the guy, partly because the CFA did not get the wording right.
Sad case - Under 7's.
 
Let’s hope that his club and other local clubs do their part and simply tell him he’s not welcome.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
The Appeal Board have imposed reduced sanctions on the guy, partly because the CFA did not get the wording right.
Click to expand...
The appeals board is totally inflexible and unfit for purpose. When my accusation of discriminatory abuse was sent for appeal (after the player chose not to respond to the initial FA investigation) he was able to see everything I’d said and rebut it line by line (lying of course) and I was given no opportunity to respond or update my statement.

I’m not shocked that it’s proven the case again here, the evidence is literally on video and to reduce the sanction on a wording technicality is embarrassing for the board and the FA.
 
Overturned because the County FA thought they were imposing the minimum sanction when in fact they weren't by also including a grounds ban, and did not offer any justification to include the grounds ban. So the appeals panel saw itself as correcting the sanction to the minimum that the County FA had originally intended. The problem here is not with the panel it's between a) The minimum sanction set out in regulations and b) The County FA's application of the regulations.
 
CaptainsPlease said:
Overturned because the County FA thought they were imposing the minimum sanction when in fact they weren't by also including a grounds ban, and did not offer any justification to include the grounds ban. So the appeals panel saw itself as correcting the sanction to the minimum that the County FA had originally intended. The problem here is not with the panel it's between a) The minimum sanction set out in regulations and b) The County FA's application of the regulations.
Click to expand...
This is the inflexibility I mean. They’re a civil body, I don’t see why an FA explanation of “no we didn’t mean minimum in this case” isn’t enough.
 
ASM said:
This isn’t the national FA appealing against the County FA, it is the person found guilty of the offence appealing against their sanction and that was heard by an independent panel appointed by the FA.

I read the story and suggest the criticism lies in the written verdict provided by the County FA following the initial hearing not being detailed enough and justifyingit sufficiently the punishment they handed out.

Having not read the reasons myself I’m not passing judgement either way but that is how I’ve interpreted from the reporting.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. Once it goes to an appeal at the FA it isn't football any more, and rather is an independent tribunal. It becomes more of a legal than a football thing, and if there is anything irregular in the Liverpool CFA's written findings they will drive a bus through it. It happened where I am, a 5 year ban was reduced to 6 months on appeal because of a technicality, just the same as a course issued life sentence could be reduced to 5 years if the prosecution (CFA) have irregularities in their evidence.

If the FA aren't happy they can appeal the decision of the independent tribunal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top