We didn't appeal Naughton's red card

[theShiznit]

If you appeal a red card and you are wrong, they add an extra game ban on. Think it's for wasting time and to stop all teams just appealing.

An extra suspension is not added to every failed appeal.

That is not the case.

It was to stop the pointless appease the player/fans appeals that they were getting.

No way is this frivilous (which is what the appeal has to be deemed to add an extra ban)

 

[talkshowhost86]

No I can see the rationale. If he had fouled him to prevent him taking a shot on goal one-on-one it's a clear red and no one disputes it. You get a red for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity, Naughton denied Nolan's shot going anywhere near the goal. Whether it was handball in the first place and therefore a penalty, I'm less sure as the rule on that seems to change each time the wind blows.

But if it's handball, it's a red just as if he had fouled him when he was about to take a short range shot it's a red.

Yeah it's a fair point I suppose when compared to a foul when through on goal.

It's just not something you ever see. The majority of penalties from hand balls are from shots on goal, and yet none of those are given as red cards.

I remember when we won 3-2 at the Emirates, and we got the penalty from a handball from a free kick. It was a deliberate hand ball from a shot on goal, but I don't think anyone would have thought that was a red card.

 

[theShiznit]

wasn't even deliberate handball unlike this one


which was overturned (after being reattributed to the right man...) as the ball wasn't going in ( the fact he pretended to be a keeper was apparently not relevant...)

Naugthon had his arms up when a person a foot away shot a mishit shot upwards into his chest/arm. His arms were in an unnatural position which is why the pen was given but is not now and never will be a sending off.
In his column Graham Poll felt it should be appealed.

 

[Yid-ol]

wasn't even deliberate handball unlike this one


which was overturned (after being reattributed to the right man...) as the ball wasn't going in ( the fact he pretended to be a keeper was apparently not relevant...)

Naugthon had his arms up when a person a foot away shot a mishit shot upwards into his chest/arm. His arms were in an unnatural position which is why the pen was given but is not now and never will be a sending off.
In his column Graham Poll felt it should be appealed.

That was overturned as it was an obvious error on the ref's part, sent off the wrong man so would always be overturned.

 

[theShiznit]

That was overturned as it was an obvious error on the ref's part, sent off the wrong man so would always be overturned.

No after it was reattributed to the right person it was then overturned.

 

[Coyboy]

Yeah it's a fair point I suppose when compared to a foul when through on goal.

It's just not something you ever see. The majority of penalties from hand balls are from shots on goal, and yet none of those are given as red cards.

I remember when we won 3-2 at the Emirates, and we got the penalty from a handball from a free kick. It was a deliberate hand ball from a shot on goal, but I don't think anyone would have thought that was a red card.

True re the Arsenal game, you see them every so often and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be a red if the ref thinks he has denied a goal scoring opportunity.

The problem isn’t the sanction, it’s the definition of what’s a handball which still seems ill defined and inconsistently applied.

 

[theShiznit]

True re the Arsenal game, you see them every so often and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be a red if the ref thinks he has denied a goal scoring opportunity.

The problem isn’t the sanction, it’s the definition of what’s a handball which still seems ill defined and inconsistently applied.

Handball is apparently the only offence where there needs to be a degree of intent, but then it becomes cloudy for me with the "unnatural position" law where the ball strikes an arm/hand that is not where it should be (like in a museum?)

I don't see how the two can be part of the same law, as who (except for in these wannabe goalkeeper moments) in their right mind ever deliberately handles the ball in the area?

 

[Yid-ol]

No after it was reattributed to the right person it was then overturned.

And why was that? Because the ref messed up and sent the wrong player off. Naughton was the right player to walk so this is diffrent.

 

[theShiznit]

And why was that? Because the ref messed up and sent the wrong player off. Naughton was the right player to walk so this is diffrent.

No you're misunderstanding.

The red card was taken off of Gibbs and given to Alex oxalade Chamberlain (the man what did it) and then the one match ban was scrubbed from AOC because they deemed the ball was not going in.

So neither player served any ban for the incident.

 

[Yid-ol]

No you're misunderstanding.

The red card was taken off of Gibbs and given to Alex oxalade Chamberlain (the man what did it) and then the one match ban was scrubbed from AOC because they deemed the ball was not going in.

So neither player served any ban for the incident.

No, I get it. But the reason both got away with it waa because the ref sent the wrong player off to start with from what I can see.

"The Commission ruled that the dismissal of Kieran Gibbs was a case of mistaken identity and transferred this to his team-mate Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

"Subsequent to deciding this matter, the Commission then considered Arsenal’s claim for wrongful dismissal in relation to Oxlade-Chamberlain.

"This claim was upheld meaning Oxlade-Chamberlain will not serve any suspension with the standard punishment withdrawn with immediate effect."

 

[theShiznit]

No, I get it. But the reason both got away with it waa because the ref sent the wrong player off to start with from what I can see.

So you think they took the 2 wrongs make a right approach?

I don't believe the professional Ref's association abide by that rule...

(at least i hope not)

They said at the time AOC's red card was taken away as it was deemed that the shot was going wide so he was not stopping a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[WestBelfast Spurs]

straight red misses the QPR game

 

[Yid-ol]

So you think they took the 2 wrongs make a right approach?

I don't believe the professional Ref's association abide by that rule...

(at least i hope not)

They said at the time AOC's red card was taken away as it was deemed that the shot was going wide so he was not stopping a goal scoring opportunity.

I don't agree with it, but they found something to go with and used it, we don't have that small little bit to work with.

 

[theShiznit]

I don't agree with it, but they found something to go with and used it, we don't have that small little bit to work with.

No they didn't they overturned it as the ball was going wide, nothing to do with the mistaken identity.

 

[Coyboy]

Handball is apparently the only offence where there needs to be a degree of intent, but then it becomes cloudy for me with the "unnatural position" law where the ball strikes an arm/hand that is not where it should be (like in a museum?)

I don't see how the two can be part of the same law, as who (except for in these wannabe goalkeeper moments) in their right mind ever deliberately handles the ball in the area?

Yeah, I guess other than pure deliberate there is putting your hands in a position where the ball is very likely to hit it and it could easily be avoided; which is why you see defenders with their hands behind their backs. Arguably this is what Naughton should have done but I haven't seen it enough or understand the application of the law enough to say it was a handball. If it were a handball, I can see why he was sent off.

 

[Yid-ol]

No they didn't they overturned it as the ball was going wide, nothing to do with the mistaken identity.

Can you find me something that says because it was going wide? As the quote I have already posted says mistaken identity.

 

[theShiznit]

Can you find me something that says because it was going wide? As the quote I have already posted says mistaken identity.

The post you have put in says nothing of the sort.

It says mistaken identity in regards to Gibbs.

Then that Arsenal subsequently appealed Chamberlain's red in a case for wrongful dismissal which was upheld.

this is nothing to do with the mistaken identity, that was wrongful dismissal

Here's a quote from the Gruniad.

Neither player is to serve a suspension as a result of the incident early in the derby at Stamford Bridge, with an independent regulatory commission confirming on Monday that Gibbs's red card had been a case of mistaken identity and determining that Oxlade-Chamberlain did not warrant a dismissal as Hazard's shot had been drifting wide. Arsenal's appeals were therefore upheld, with the pair available for Tuesday's visit of Swansea to the Emirates Stadium