Appeals

[The Gump]

I have no evidence to back this up, but I do think that increasing a suspension for 'frivalous appeal' should also be a key part of the appeals procedure, to prevent everyone doing it, but I haven't seen anything like this done for a few years.

This does happen in other sports, though it will depend on whether an appeal is a review or a re-hearing. If the former (and I don't know but it feels these appeals are reviews rather than re-hearings, otherwise it wouldn't just be the suspension quashed) it is often dealt with by way of a deposit that can be forfeited for frivolous appeals, if the latter it can be a forfeit of deposit or increase in sanction.

Assuming a similar process that applies to Steps 5 to 7 applies in the professional game, it looks like a review where only the appeal fee is forfeited, though I would hope in the professional game the appeal fee is significantly higher!

 

[RefereeX]

This does happen in other sports, though it will depend on whether an appeal is a review or a re-hearing. If the former (and I don't know but it feels these appeals are reviews rather than re-hearings, otherwise it wouldn't just be the suspension quashed) it is often dealt with by way of a deposit that can be forfeited for frivolous appeals, if the latter it can be a forfeit of deposit or increase in sanction.

Assuming a similar process that applies to Steps 5 to 7 applies in the professional game, it looks like a review where only the appeal fee is forfeited, though I would hope in the professional game the appeal fee is significantly higher!

I'd be more in favour of an additional sanction than a financial penalty though, as fines are only a punishment for less wealthy clubs.

 

[The Gump]

I'd be more in favour of an additional sanction than a financial penalty though, as fines are only a punishment for less wealthy clubs.

Balancing access to justice with frivolity is a tough one, but there seems to be little evidence that there is abuse of the system at the moment. I'd be interested to know the appeal fees in the pro game as I imagine £50 for a Duck and Duck Sunday League team is enough to put off frivolous appeals, but it would need to be substantially bigger to ensure frivolous appeals aren't made in the pro game.

Regulators and officials are prone to not liking their decisions being undermined/successfully challenged and as a referee I sympathise with that, but we have to be a bit more grown up and confident about it, insofar as a) we/they are making split second decisions from a specific angle and b) appeal generally go on for hours away from the pressure cooker of the moment.

For me it all comes back to this unrealistic pursuit and expectation of perfection from officials. Unfortunately it's always been thus, is getting worse and is unlikely to change.

 

[RefereeX]

Balancing access to justice with frivolity is a tough one, but there seems to be little evidence that there is abuse of the system at the moment. I'd be interested to know the appeal fees in the pro game as I imagine £50 for a Duck and Duck Sunday League team is enough to put off frivolous appeals, but it would need to be substantially bigger to ensure frivolous appeals aren't made in the pro game.

Regulators and officials are prone to not liking their decisions being undermined/successfully challenged and as a referee I sympathise with that, but we have to be a bit more grown up and confident about it, insofar as a) we/they are making split second decisions from a specific angle and b) appeal generally go on for hours away from the pressure cooker of the moment.

For me it all comes back to this unrealistic pursuit and expectation of perfection from officials. Unfortunately it's always been thus, is getting worse and is unlikely to change.

I don't disagree - I've been told by clubs twice in the last 3-4 years that they will be appealing a red card I have given against them. One were nice as pie about it, but for whatever reason they didn't end up appealing it, even though, in my personal opinion, they should have as they would have probably won. The others were less nice about it and also didn't end up appealing it, but it was the most stone wall red card I've seen, had they chose to appeal it, they would absolutely have deserved an increased suspension as it is very undermining to do so in the face of such a blatant red card. The manager of said club was a very wealthy man who paid players cash in hand out of his own pocket. I wouldn't imagine a small fine would have bothered him much.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I'd be more in favour of an additional sanction than a financial penalty though, as fines are only a punishment for less wealthy clubs.

Your wish is granted at Premier League level:
However, there are times when an appeal is deemed 'frivolous' by the commission, and instead of overturning the three-match ban, they add another game onto the suspension. This risk means club's don't relentlessly appeal red card decisions.

 

[ARF]

I have no evidence to back this up, but I do think that increasing a suspension for 'frivalous appeal' should also be a key part of the appeals procedure, to prevent everyone doing it, but I haven't seen anything like this done for a few years.

This certainly used to be the case several years ago when all suspensions for red cards at county level were decided by disciplinary commissions rather than being the automatic match-based suspensions we all know now. By appealing the sending off, players or managers could delay the start of any suspension leaving them free to be involved in an upcoming important match (especially cup finals) even if they knew they were guilty as sin. Even the threat of having an extra match tacked on wasn't always enough if it meant being able to win a cup/league, gain promotion, or avoid relegation, and then just missing one extra game at the start of the following season.

Nowadays the claim has to be dealt with before the suspension starts, meaning that the system can no longer be 'played' in order to gain from it, making the frivolous appeal clause essentially redundant. They are already paying a fee in order to put in the claim, which they lose if the claim is unsuccessful, and I can't imagine even the most deep-pocketed chairmen are happy to throw away money appealing every single red card in the vain hope that one might occasionally get overturned.

 

[socal lurker]

For a long time, there were no appeals. The ref’s decision stood, and the suspension stood. There was debate when the first leagues started having appeals as to whether they were even permissible in thr LOTG; essentially it was decided that it was OK to appeal the suspension, because that did not change the ref’s decision in the game, just the further sanction. I don’t have a problem with appeals of suspensions, as they do correct injustices where there was a miss on the field. What I have a problem with is how these appeals are handled in so many places. Rather than have experienced refs make the reviews, in so many places we have retired players and coaches making the decisions—resulting in decisions being called wrong that we’re exactly right based on what the refs are trained to do. This makes no sense.

 

[ladbroke8745]

For a long time, there were no appeals. The ref’s decision stood, and the suspension stood. There was debate when the first leagues started having appeals as to whether they were even permissible in thr LOTG; essentially it was decided that it was OK to appeal the suspension, because that did not change the ref’s decision in the game, just the further sanction. I don’t have a problem with appeals of suspensions, as they do correct injustices where there was a miss on the field. What I have a problem with is how these appeals are handled in so many places. Rather than have experienced refs make the reviews, in so many places we have retired players and coaches making the decisions—resulting in decisions being called wrong that we’re exactly right based on what the refs are trained to do. This makes no sense.

That i agree with.
The recent one with arsenal had Stuart Ripley and Alan Knight who are top flight experienced players but not been on a pitch for 20-25 years in professional football whilst the other was a player that played League One football at best for 3-4 years (not entire seasons either id guess based on appearances).
That's not to say they don't know what they're doing but it is akin to like asking ex criminals if criminals should be let off early because they know their mindsets and what it's like im jail (a pitch).

 

[Homer Ref]

I suppose you need to look at the Sunday Morning games at the park where there will be less evidence around to support an appeal than there would be in a PL game. So basically the higher up the league the more chance an appeal is successful. For me, we shouldn't take anything to do with appeals unless we are asked for our input.