retrospective action?

[ARF]

He was punched in the face on purpose.

Let's not call a deer a horse - if that was a punch then I'm Mike Tyson. It was however a deliberate strike to the opponent's face, and I don't think the force used can be classed as "negligible". How the red card has been successfully appealed is beyond me.

 

[Peter Grove]

Does the appeal panned care about the lotg in their decision?

Ok let me put it this way. Which question does the appeal panel answer?
- should the offender have been sent off?
- should the offender be suspended for any games?

If it's the latter then was are debating the wrong thing here.

As far as I'm aware, it's the latter. The question of the red card (and the sending off) is not what is on the table and despite the way it is almost always described in media reports, is not rescinded. All that happens is that the suspension is removed, the red card remains on the player's record.

 

[ARF]

As far as I'm aware, it's the latter. The question of the red card (and the sending off) is not what is on the table and despite the way it is almost always described in media reports, is not rescinded. All that happens is that the suspension is removed, the red card remains on the player's record.

For a claim of wrongful dismissal, the club "must establish that the Referee made an obvious error in sending off the Player", so (in theory anyway) the matter being dealt with by the panel is the former. As you say, the red card remains on the player's record but the suspension is removed completely.

Clubs can also submit a claim that the standard punishment for the red card would be clearly excessive, which would be closer to the latter question (if successful the suspension would reduced, but not removed completely).

 

[one]

If we look at this from an 'appeal' process, what are they appealing? Form what I've heard or read, it's the send off they are appealing. And if the appeal was successful then it's the send off that is overturned. It will be good if we had an official document to refer to.

Am I correct in stating that in this case, the appeal was submitted before a suspension was handed down?

 

[ARF]

If we look at this from an 'appeal' process, what are they appealing? Form what I've heard or read, it's the send off they are appealing. And if the appeal was successful then it's the send off that is overturned. It will be good if we had an official document to refer to.

Am I correct in stating that in this case, the appeal was submitted before a suspension was handed down?

They submitted a claim for wrongful dismissal, which was successful, hence the suspension being withdrawn. As has been said, even if a wrongful dismissal is successful then the red card remains on the player's record.

 

[JamesL]

Taken from here https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/07/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-two/

 

[ARF]

If anyone requires some nighttime reading, here are The FA's Disciplinary Regulations: https://disciplinary-regulations.fapublications.com/

 

[Peter Grove]

View attachment 4966

Taken from here https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/07/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-two/

This exactly matches my understanding of the process.

As that article (which as it says, is based on the FA's published info on the appeals process) goes on to state:

The Commission are not judging whether the red card is right, wrong or too harsh; they’re only focused on the suspension and whether or not it’s fair, based on the evidence presented.

 

[one]

View attachment 4966

Taken from here https://playtheadvantage.com/2014/02/07/what-a-red-card-appeal-really-means-part-two/

It's seems the term "wrongfully dismissal claim" is in contradiction with the outcome of the claim. If the dismissal was wrong then they should reverse its impact on the game not the afters. The term"Wrongful suspension" would have been a more appropriate term.

 

[Big Cat]

Just makes a nonsense of dismissals. There has to be a 'minimum sanction' in terms of suspension, otherwise there's hardly any point to it. I get what 'wrongful dismissal' should mean, but this fudge is just another way of keeping the megastars on the FOP (in subsequent games) and means that the elite are treated differently from everyone else. Money money money

 

[socal lurker]

Just makes a nonsense of dismissals. There has to be a 'minimum sanction' in terms of suspension, otherwise there's hardly any point to it.

??. Suspension or not, the team plays short in the game being played.

 

[Kent Ref]

There will always be red cards overturned that every referee thinks should stand, simply because the panel is made up of two ex-players or managers and only one ex-referee. The former often see things very differently to how referees do.

An overturned red card absolutely doesn't mean that either the referee or VAR were wrong though. It means that two people who have no qualifications in the laws of the game disagree with them.

Do we know which ex players and referees are on these panels?

 

[Big Cat]

??. Suspension or not, the team plays short in the game being played.

keeping the megastars on the FOP (in subsequent games)

 

[RustyRef]

Do we know which ex players and referees are on these panels?

Don't think there is a set list, rather they are drawn from a panel.