Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
FA commission report attachedWhat a complete farce it's become. Totally agree with the comment about a court jury not being influenced etc. I'd like to know what evidence this panel has (that deemed it not a red card) that is different to the clear view of MO and the VAR room ?
Thanks for posting this. Interesting insight to the appeal process.FA commission report attached
7. The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.FA commission report attached
Surely there'd be no point in the appeal process in the first place if the FA commission couldn't come to different conclusions than the match officials?7. The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.
But you just have ! So, why has arguably our best referee and the referees in VAR deemed it differently ?
The talk at the time from commentators listening to VAR feed was that Gomes' challenge was less serious than MLS' as (first?) point of contact was foot and not ankle or aboveInteresting they used an example from the exact same game. A challenge that I’d say was worse than the MLS challenge.
I wonder had MO sent him off if this would have meant the outcome of the case was difficult

Isn't that what VAR is there for, though ?Surely there'd be no point in the appeal process in the first place if the FA commission couldn't come to different conclusions than the match officials?
The angle of that foot is not the angle a player would use in order to just trip someone upThe Commission members were unanimous in their opinion that the Referee had
made an obvious error in sending off MLS for the challenge that he had made. The
challenge was certainly ‘Foul Play’ but it obviously could not, to the mind of the commission, be categorised as having been ‘Serious Foul Play’. MLS had stepped
across his opponent and tripped him up, possibly deliberately, but in doing so he
had obviously not endangered the safety of his opponent or used excessive force
or brutality, nor had he ‘lunged’ in at his opponent.
From this still... i don't see a player stepping across. I do see an outstretched leg with studs showing..
View attachment 7899
That's the point.The angle of that foot is not the angle a player would use in order to just trip someone up
I guarantee this case will be used in evidence in future appeals, from other teams between now and the end of the seasonThat's the point.
It wasn't a trip. It wasn't stepping across.
To me, its serious foul play.
and that'll be why MO instinctively brandished a red !!!That's the point.
It wasn't a trip. It wasn't stepping across.
To me, its serious foul play.
That’s a terrible argument. Effectively saying that VAR have all the evidence and hence never make a mistake……which we know isn’t true.What a complete farce it's become. Totally agree with the comment about a court jury not being influenced etc. I'd like to know what evidence this panel has (that deemed it not a red card) that is different to the clear view of MO and the VAR room ?