Jump to content

Ashley Cole red card appeal

Started by Qaz , Dec 29 2007 02:58 PM

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
Qaz
Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:58 PM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
Explain to me if I am missing something here................

The FA have an appeal system in place so that players who are incorrectly sent off can have their red card appealed, am I not right?...........

Can someone explain to how on hell the Ashley Cole sending off apeal has been rejected by the FA?. I'm at a loss for words here. Ashley clearly did not handle the ball, the decision is clearly wrong. How on earth did the FA panel (or whoever it is that decides these things) with the benefit of unlimited action replays which clearly show Cole did not handle the ball reject the appeal?

Quite frankly, it beggars belief...................

Can someone please explain to me what I am missing?, surely I have to be missing something. The FA can't be that stupid...........right?

#2
jack h
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:00 PM

    First Team Squad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
i also cant believe it can be turned down but to be honest i never thought for one second we would win the appeal

#3
Qaz
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:50 PM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip

"jack h":26f2qpc8 said:

i also cant believe it can be turned down but to be honest i never thought for one second we would win the appeal

But how exactly could we NOT win the appeal?

Its and open and shut case. Ashley Cole was sent for handling the ball and replays clearly show he didn't, it's not one of those decisions which are open to interpretation. Either he did handle the ball or he didn't and he clearly did not.

#4
Backbiter
Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:21 PM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
You obviously don't watch the same footage that the TalkSh!te presenters watch. Apparently it was a 'blatant handball to prevent a goal being scored' and they think Chelsea should be fined for having the cheek to appeal.

#5
Qaz
Posted 29 December 2007 - 05:05 PM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
If there is a real chance that Cole handballed then so be it, fair decision. Maybe it wasn't as clearcut as I thought.

#6
The Moos
Posted 29 December 2007 - 05:19 PM

    An Untouchable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
It wasn't a handball.
Our appeal was rejected simply because we're Chelsea and not "lovely Liverpoop".

The FA can go f*ck themselves.

P.S. Thank God I'm not the manager of Chelsea. We would get so many fines.

#7
Lofty
Posted 29 December 2007 - 05:25 PM

    An Untouchable

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip

"Qaz":qnllg672 said:

If there is a real chance that Cole handballed then so be it, fair decision. Maybe it wasn't as clearcut as I thought.
In the first place, the penalty should only have been awarded if it was beyond for doubt that Ashley Cole actually handballed it, which it wasn't. Of all the replays I've seen, from some it's inconclusive , others look as if the ball clearly hit his chest. In other words, the referee cocked it up. But the FA aren't going to admit that, are they.

#8
abramovich
Posted 30 December 2007 - 02:00 AM

    Bored billionaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
I wonder what is the percentage of the appeals that actually succeed. It seems that it's not worth even bothering because they(FA) never seem to admit the ref was in the wrong.

#9
AmericanBlue
Posted 30 December 2007 - 05:56 AM

    New Signing

  • Members
  • Pip
It clearly looked like a bad call to me.  This is a concept that is hard for me to understand as an American fan.  I think that the NFL has been much improved with the introduction of instant replay.  It really does not disrupt the flow of the game as much as one would think.

#10
Qaz
Posted 30 December 2007 - 10:54 AM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
Ahh yes, the instant replay debate.

You've just opened a can of worms :sign0195:

#11
loz
Posted 30 December 2007 - 10:56 AM

    The Schoolmaster

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip

"AmericanBlue":teu9n851 said:

It clearly looked like a bad call to me.  This is a concept that is hard for me to understand as an American fan.  I think that the NFL has been much improved with the introduction of instant replay.  It really does not disrupt the flow of the game as much as one would think.


The NFL never flowed in the first place!

#12
Backbiter
Posted 30 December 2007 - 12:50 PM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip

"loz":3acn06al said:

"AmericanBlue":3acn06al said:

It clearly looked like a bad call to me.  This is a concept that is hard for me to understand as an American fan.  I think that the NFL has been much improved with the introduction of instant replay.  It really does not disrupt the flow of the game as much as one would think.


The NFL never flowed in the first place!
Here endeth any debate about the relative impact of instant replays on football compared to cricket, rugby and NFL.

#13
mad_mac
Posted 30 December 2007 - 07:41 PM

    Choose your Leaders, and place your trust!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
Donator

I think a replay would be useful in something like this.  It would only take a second, and seeing as it is being used in this instance to send someone off, and give a penalty, I would rather take a minute to see if that was the case, rather than have the ref balls it up, and the have the FA completely reject any reasonable claim because they don't want to over-rule their precious refs

#14
sweet waffle
Posted 30 December 2007 - 08:56 PM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
What with Zat Knight getting sent off in a contentious way in the game as well (it was a foul and therefore a red as he was the last man Mr O'Neil) we were never going to win the appeal, the FA would have been seen as pandering to the big clubs or at least that would have been the spin the media would have put on it. And all this talk of instant replays is b*llocks, think about it people, if there were instant replays then Kalou's goal yesterday wouldn't have stood. I really do think these kind of decisions even themselves out over the course of a season, I know it sounds twee but it does seem to work out that way.

#15
Kev123
Posted 30 December 2007 - 11:34 PM

    First Team Squad

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip

"sweet waffle":pvdttyav said:

What with Zat Knight getting sent off in a contentious way in the game as well (it was a foul and therefore a red as he was the last man Mr O'Neil) we were never going to win the appeal, the FA would have been seen as pandering to the big clubs or at least that would have been the spin the media would have put on it. And all this talk of instant replays is b*llocks, think about it people, if there were instant replays then Kalou's goal yesterday wouldn't have stood. I really do think these kind of decisions even themselves out over the course of a season, I know it sounds twee but it does seem to work out that way.


Thing is waffle I would rather win fair, sure a win when we didn't deserve it (offside, bad penalty, dive) is nice, but only because the bad decsions happen to us as well, so when we get a call in our favour, it feels like sweet revenge, we feel entitled to have a bad decision go our way, as we've had our share of **** ones. On the other hand, if ALL the replayable decisions were made fairly, for and against us, I would have no problems with it. Like you said it evens itself out, so for the games where we would have won with a bad call but didnt because of the replay, there will be games we would not have won, but did, because of the replay. So technically the same thing, except the calls that would even themselves over the season are FAIR, and not the bad decisions.

#16
The Moos
Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:50 AM

    An Untouchable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
One thing I can't really understand is this:

Carvalho and Cole are both sent off in the same game. Both recieve straight red cards and not two yellow.

But Cole is now back.
We lost the appeal but he still only got suspended for one game instead of three {SMILIES_PATH}/300.gif

Have I missed something?

#17
BlueBeard
Posted 01 January 2008 - 11:38 AM

    First Team Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip

"Qaz":2od5b5f9 said:

The FA can't be that stupid...........right?

The FA can, and frequently are that stupid. Worse, they're corrupt and incompetent, although not quite in the same league as UEFA or FIFA - yet. Two-faced, lying, cheating c*nts, the lot of 'em - they must all have scouse genes! {SMILIES_PATH}/w**k2.gif

#18
abramovich
Posted 02 January 2008 - 12:37 AM

    Bored billionaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip

"The Moos":nuffkxuj said:

One thing I can't really understand is this:

Carvalho and Cole are both sent off in the same game. Both recieve straight red cards and not two yellow.

But Cole is now back.
We lost the appeal but he still only got suspended for one game instead of three {SMILIES_PATH}/300.gif

Have I missed something?

Three game suspension only applies if the red card was given for the foul that is considered a violent conduct.
Cole's handball or should i say what Dowd perceived to be a handball didn't fall into that category, hence it's only one match ban.
Back to General


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. The Shed End - Unofficial Chelsea FC Forum
  2. → Chelsea Forums
  3. → General