Wolves vs Arsenal

[Kent Ref]

It means ex players believe MO was wrong to issue a red card.

The Gunners appealed against the decision to send off the 18-year-old and an independent regulatory commission upheld their claim of wrongful dismissal, the Football Association confirmed.

They have concluded MO was WRONG to DISMISS the player? They are making a verdict on the ref here i feel.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Quote from the FA Handbook (Disciplinary Regulations).

'A Regulatory Commission that considers a claim of wrongful dismissal is concerned with only the question of whether any sanction of a suspension from play is one which should be imposed in view of the facts of the case. This role is not to usurp the role of the Referee and the dismissal from the field of play will remain on the record of the Club and the Player.'

 

[Runner Ref]

I thought introduction of VAR would be a good thing, on hindsight it has caused more issues than it solves, I would rather we went back to to ref only and you accept we are human and we make the best intended decision on the one time view we get.

I don't have an issue with a panel overturning decisions where suspension is involved, rescinding or adding. They are not criticising the ref, they are just saying with further evidence we can see why you made the decision you did, but on balance need to adjust the impact on the player for future games.

What do you mean by further evidence? VAR has the further evidence as well. But because of how poorly they have rolled VAR out, they spend most of their time with their hands tied behind their backs.

Let’s be honest, they’re saying they believe the officials got it wrong. As we can’t turn back time, they can’t take the red card back, they can merely just withdraw any further suspension. And they only do that if they think the officials got it wrong.

 

[Kent Ref]

Quote from the FA Handbook (Disciplinary Regulations).

'A Regulatory Commission that considers a claim of wrongful dismissal is concerned with only the question of whether any sanction of a suspension from play is one which should be imposed in view of the facts of the case. This role is not to usurp the role of the Referee and the dismissal from the field of play will remain on the record of the Club and the Player.'

Does it not equate to the same thing? Why would you serve no suspension if the ref was correct to send off?

 

[Runner Ref]

Does it not equate to the same thing? Why would you serve no suspension if the ref was correct to send off?

It’s a nice way of saying they believe he/she got it wrong. They aren’t going to remove a suspension they believe the referee was correct on.

 

[CaptainsPlease]

Does it not equate to the same thing? Why would you serve no suspension if the ref was correct to send off?

It’s a nice way of saying they believe he/she got it wrong. They aren’t going to remove a suspension they believe the referee was correct on.

Edited: To be fair - the regs go on to say 'A claim will only be successful where the Regulatory Commission is satisfied that the Referee made an obvious error in dismissing the Player.'
So it is rather contradictory to say the referee's role is not usurped

 

[Kent Ref]

The difference is that the Commission is not answering whether the referee was correct or not in Law. The question it considers is whether a suspension would be harsh given the particular circumstances. A referee can dismiss a player correctly in Law, but a suspension still be considered unduly harsh.

IF MO was right why has the commission chosen to undermine him?

IF you are guilty of SFP you deserve a ban - right?

The BBC article states Arsenal appeal for wrongful dismissal and this was overturned.

So i understand what is "wrongful dismissal"? Wrong in law or just morally wrong?

 

[CaptainsPlease]

IF MO was right why has the commission chosen to undermine him?

IF you are guilty of SFP you deserve a ban - right?

The BBC article states Arsenal appeal for wrongful dismissal and this was overturned.

So i understand what is "wrongful dismissal"? Wrong in law or just morally wrong?

Yeah I edited my post, they do have to believe an obvious error has occurred! With the caveat that they are not referees determining this.

 

[Runner Ref]

The Premier Leagues own statement says they have upheld a claim of wrongful dismissal. That is a nice way of saying they believe he got it wrong.

Would be interesting to see if they were 100% in agreement or if one of them felt MO was correct.

 

[one]

It means ex players believe MO was wrong to issue a red card.

I don't believe you. If the case then it will be the first time in the history of football that players/ ex players don't agree with a referee decision. No?

 

[RustyRef]

Bizzare section on the Sky Sports website where it says Arsenal will have to appeal the red card, I thought it would be an opinion piece by some young journalist but nope, just Sky telling us Arsenal have to appeal to get the red card overturned something which every single fan knows anyways.

Honestly the media coverage on this is making this is the biggest injustice ever and I have no doubts because he's young and English is a factor in this.

That's probably because Arteta said he didn't think they'd have to appeal it and it would be overturned anyway, which clearly was never going to happen.

 

[RustyRef]

The Premier Leagues own statement says they have upheld a claim of wrongful dismissal. That is a nice way of saying they believe he got it wrong.

Would be interesting to see if they were 100% in agreement or if one of them felt MO was correct.

No it doesn't. It says that an independent regulatory commission (i.e. by definition, not the FA) has upheld a claim of wrongful dismissal, but don't let the truth get in the way of a narrative that you want to peddle. That independent panel will have almost certainly been made up of three ex-players or ex-managers, with nothing other than very basic understanding of the laws, it doesn't make the decision incorrect.

The written reasons will be published, which will include the names of the panel members and what the vote split was.

 

[RustyRef]

IF MO was right why has the commission chosen to undermine him?

IF you are guilty of SFP you deserve a ban - right?

The BBC article states Arsenal appeal for wrongful dismissal and this was overturned.

So i understand what is "wrongful dismissal"? Wrong in law or just morally wrong?

If you make a decision and a manager and two players think you are wrong does that mean you were wrong? These appeal hearings aren't heard by qualified ex-referees, they are almost always consisted of three ex-players or managers. They are not fit for purpose, and that is something I have been banging on for years if not decades. It is akin to ex-criminals sitting on appeal hearings, on the basis they know the system.

 

[Kent Ref]

If you make a decision and a manager and two players think you are wrong does that mean you were wrong? These appeal hearings aren't heard by qualified ex-referees, they are almost always consisted of three ex-players or managers. They are not fit for purpose, and that is something I have been banging on for years if not decades. It is akin to ex-criminals sitting on appeal hearings, on the basis they know the system.

I thought they had one ex ref on them.

Maybe the panels should have 2 ex refs and 1 ex player / manager.

 

[one]

What say you for what would have been the verdict if this 'independent' regulatory commission was made up of 3 ex referees (not disgruntled ones)?

 

[Runner Ref]

No it doesn't. It says that an independent regulatory commission (i.e. by definition, not the FA) has upheld a claim of wrongful dismissal, but don't let the truth get in the way of a narrative that you want to peddle. That independent panel will have almost certainly been made up of three ex-players or ex-managers, with nothing other than very basic understanding of the laws, it doesn't make the decision incorrect.

The written reasons will be published, which will include the names of the panel members and what the vote split was.

Wow, talk about being pedantic.

And MO sending the player off & VAR not intervening doesn’t make it correct, either.

No need to get touchy because the majority haven’t agreed with you.

 

[RustyRef]

Wow, talk about being pedantic.

And MO sending the player off & VAR not intervening doesn’t make it correct, either.

No need to get touchy because the majority haven’t agreed with you.

Not getting touchy, I'm being factually correct, perhaps a trait you could consider trying.

 

[RustyRef]

I thought they had one ex ref on them.

Maybe the panels should have 2 ex refs and 1 ex player / manager.

That is the key match decision panel, not independent review panels. Two very different things.

 

[Runner Ref]

Not getting touchy, I'm being factually correct, perhaps a trait you could consider trying.

Isn’t it weird that out of all the admins on here, it’s only you that ends up in arguments with people.

As I said, most people don’t agree with you on it being a red.

 

[RustyRef]

What say you for what would have been the verdict if this 'independent' regulatory commission was made up of 3 ex referees (not disgruntled ones)?

It would certainly have a lot more credibility, caveat being that the ex-referees had kept up with the laws. If you have to pass a laws of the game exam to referee at senior levels, why should you be able to determine that a referee's decision was incorrect if you haven't passed the same exam. That just doesn't happen in any other walk of life.