Carroll's ban upheld

davymcfc said:
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
Markt85 said:
And it also sends a clear message to young kids that if someone brushes your hair your entitled to con the ref and hold your face in extreme agony.

It was a tussle and a yellow at worst,
The Swansea manager even admitted it wasn't a red.

The FA have to be seen to back there man Webb and were never going to show some balls and punish the real cheat, Chico Flores.

Joke decision

It is a joke decision. It pales into insignificance compared to some of the shit Rooney's got away with!
100% agree with this.

That another player has got away with worse is no argument whatsoever.
This isn't 'Sending Off Top Trumps'.
You will always have anomalies where inconsistent refereeing means that some players who should be red carded stay on the field.
If Carroll had done this to Silva, I doubt folk would be leaping to his defence, but for some bizarre reason West Ham seem to be half the forum's second team.
 
TCIB said:
I made a gif of the incident here...

[bigimg]http://s11.postimg.org/ra731cae9/gif_im_color_dither_32_179d010584.gif[/bigimg]

He knew what he was doing the cheeky bugger hehe :)
Nice GIF TCIB.

Two things to note which will support the agreement of intent :

1, Look at Carol's face as how swings his arm, appears t be a deliberate swipe - he knows what he was doing and he knows where Flores is

2. Look at Webbs position he has a clear view from the same angle as this camera. He can see what we see plus hear (probably) a scream/shriek/yell, call it what you will and in the heat of the moment had to make an immediate decision, for me he made the correct decision.

All that said I do think Florres dived or acted to feign an injury. I strongly believe that despite Carol getting a straight red for intent, the FA should be able to retrospectively punish Florres for simulation or feigning an injury as well and give him a one match ban too.
 
West Ham now taking legal action as it was not overturned, pathetic to be honest.

Andy Carroll: West Ham seek legal route over red card
West Ham are to take legal action after failing in their appeal to overturn the red card shown to Andy Carroll during the 1 February win against Swansea.

The Football Association upheld the decision which means the England striker is now banned for three games.

"There is nowhere to go other than to seek some kind of legal redress," said West Ham co-chairman David Gold.

Rules allow clubs to take disputes to arbitration and if necessary to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

A year to forget
In the 12 months from the start of March 2013 to the end of February 2014, Andy Carroll will have played only 15 games, scoring four goals (if the club do not overturn the ban).

The FA has refused to comment on the latest development.

Carroll, 25, was sent off after clashing with Swans defender Chico Flores during his side's 2-0 victory.

He will now miss the Premier League games against Aston Villa, Norwich and Southampton.

In apparent reaction to the decision, Carroll, who set up both goals tweeted: "Disgraceful."

According to the FA, West Ham failed to prove to a three-man panel that referee Howard Webb had made "an obvious error" in dismissing Carroll after the forward's arm hit Flores's forehead.

However, West Ham manager Sam Allardyce was certain that Webb made a mistake.

"There has to be somebody to look at that in the cold light of day and say that is certainly not a red card," he said after the win.

Gold added: "We are hugely disappointed at the outcome of the process.

"The last thing I want to do is going to some kind of legal issue because I think it is a footballing issue.

"But we are fighting for our lives. If we were mid-table we would probably get on with it but we are fighting for our lives to retain our Premier League status and we owe it to our fans, we owe it to ourselves.

"We are upset, we feel we have been badly treated.

"Most judgements are not made by three people, they are made by 12 - that's why they are called juries.

"I believe if you had gone to the FA Council and asked the 100 members 75% would have said it was not a sending off, but if you just take three people it may not be representative."

West Ham are 18th in the Premier League, one point from safety.
 
I don't think it's petty they should name the panel for a start, the sight of clattenburg with his arm around shriek was clear for all to see that their is inequality in every dept of football, the sanctioning if adebayor before the 4/3 derby is just another, Watkins was on talkshite minutes after the game saying the lad would get banned,their is a lot if skulduggery and backscratching in the corridors of power, their should be more openness starting with naming the panel on visa applications sanctions FFP etc, west ham are fighting for their existence in the premier with a view to moving to the new stadium, the card should have been relegated to a yellow then their would have been none if this.
 
Fuck me.

Count your blessing Spammers. Rescued by Sir Trev over Tevez and Mascherano, Bought by a pair of art film producers who you've fallen for their "true fans" BS rather than their wait to fuck off after selling your ground for huge profit, along with the added bonus of BFS coaching you. Now you want to take the FA to court arguing 3 games without the pikey will relegate you. Allowing Allerdyce to screw your team has done that already.
 
It's a harsh red considering the minimal force in the swing and the reaction of Flores but plenty of softer red cards have been upheld, Carroll knew exactly what he was doing and West Ham are acting like a bunch of spoilt kids. Accept the ban and grow up, if it was someone else but Carroll I might have some sympathy.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.