Important to emphasise that they're only appealing the length of the ban - ie having seen the replay, even they're not disputing that it was a red card offence on the day. And while obviously "intent" and "he was looking at the ball" don't make any difference when it comes to deciding when to show a red card or not on the day, I do think the FA are supposed to consider those factors when setting the ban length.An appeal though does not, or should not negate the stonewall cast iron fact that from a referee perspective its a red card.
Anyone qualified and or registered as a match official has to recognise this is a red card offence.
Its frightening to even imagine anyone would not dismiss a player in their own game for this challenge.
Liverpools appeal will be based on a claim that there was no intent to injure
Which as referees, we know is irrelavent
Thus very little discussion or debate re the correct call being made is required.
Important to emphasise that they're only appealing the length of the ban - ie having seen the replay, even they're not disputing that it was a red card offence on the day. And while obviously "intent" and "he was looking at the ball" don't make any difference when it comes to deciding when to show a red card or not on the day, I do think the FA are supposed to consider those factors when setting the ban length.
That's only at County level Russ, Step 4 and above they can put in a claim that the standard punishment is clearly excessive.No they aren't. Length of ban only comes into play for discussion when it isn't a standard offence, so when someone over steps the mark. SFP is a set 3 game ban, that isn't open for negotiation. They either need to appeal the actual sending off or accept the 3 game ban, there isn't any middle ground that can be used.
They are absolutely not doing that by reducing the ban length. If they overturned the ban completely, I would agree with you - that is the FA saying that the referee got it wrong. But that's not what's under discussion. The FA and Liverpool are both agreeing that there should be a ban of some sort and therefore, agreeing that Jon Moss was right to show a red card. End of.Surely, if the FA reduce the length the ban they are condoning that sort of challenge and undermining the authority of the match official by effectively introducing a consideration of "intent" which isn't a requirement for the offence as per LOTG?
It will just make referees less likely to dismiss for similar challenges because they know that their decision will be undermined on appeal.
They are absolutely not doing that by reducing the ban length. If they overturned the ban completely, I would agree with you - that is the FA saying that the referee got it wrong. But that's not what's under discussion. The FA and Liverpool are both agreeing that there should be a ban of some sort and therefore, agreeing that Jon Moss was right to show a red card. End of.
The LOTG only requires the referee to dismiss from the FOP for that kind of challenge - it says nothing about SFP being a 3 match ban. After-match punishments are almost always down to competition or FA rules, so if the FA want to reduce the ban as a result of "intent", because "he was looking at the ball" or for that matter, for "players who's surnames begin with M", they're perfectly entitled to do that. It doesn't mean Moss was wrong, it means the standard FA-imposed punishment is too harsh for this specific incident. That's it, don't read too much into it.
You are making the point I was trying to make. The challenge is a red card, and on a referee forum, that's it
We as referees don't need 3 plus pages of debate on the length of the ban, nothing in the slightest to do with football refereeing..
i often get asked after issuing cards, what the ban is going to be.. and my response is always that i have no clue, and that once ive filed the paperwork i have no further input into the process
it might indeed be your take that the sanctions applied should be the concern of the referee but, its clearly not, you are simply on the park to manage the game, apply the LOTG to the best of your ability and knowledge. Whether team A has 3 unregistered players or team B plays a suspended player or team C gets a man dismissed and a 2 match ban, none of this has anything to do with the match referee.
Much the same as the cop car which pulls you over for a random breathalyser test. What happens when it goes to court and so on has nothing to do with the policeman who pulled you, he/she simply submit the facts and let the bodies that govern, well, govern....
That's a false correlation and you know it.You are thinking too narrow minded if you believe that the sanctions applied have nothing to do with referees.
Consider the scenario you have given, where the drink driver gets a weeks ban instead of the standard 12 months....because he claims he "didn't mean" to do it.......that sends a message to all future drink drivers that if you claim you "didn't mean" to do it, you stand a chance of getting a drastically reduced punishment......which erodes the deterrent effect of the punishment.
Exactly the same applies here......if you reduce the standard punishment because someone claims they "didn't mean" to do it, you erode part of the deterrent effect of the punishment.
And that should concern every referee because we are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath, with players not being deterred from those sort of challenges, with the potential for mass brawls when another GK has his face sliced open because of a dangerous challenge.....and when it's a lone referee on a Sunday morning, the fact that he needn't be concerned with the eventual punishments isn't going to much help or comfort whilst they are trying to deal with 22 players kicking seven bells out of each other.
The FA/CFA's have a responsibility towards player safety and shouldn't be reducing standard punishments in cases where players are injured because of dangerous challenges, regardless of how much an offender makes puppy dog eyes and pleads their lack of intent.
If you remain to be convinced, consider the player who was given a reduced ban after "assaulting" a match official because they "didn't mean" to do it......consider how that reduction is none of your concern when he breaks your jaw after you've sent him off, or cautioned him, when had the standard punishment been upheld he would never have been on the pitch in the first place?
It can, and does, happen. Frequently. Players and clubs will plead anything to get bans reduced, putting dangerous and potentially violent players back into the game sooner they should be.
But hey, not our concern, right?
Alongside the fact that prisoners almost always get early release for "good behaviour" or sentences suspended for being "genuinely remorseful". It is down to the powers that be to decide the punishment, not the referee. You apply the laws of the game on the pitch, report the facts afterwards, attend a hearing if you must but at no point will any1 ever say, "hey James, how long should the ban be?" It just isnt within the referees remit.That's a false correlation and you know it.
You are thinking too narrow minded if you believe that the sanctions applied have nothing to do with referees.
Consider the scenario you have given, where the drink driver gets a weeks ban instead of the standard 12 months....because he claims he "didn't mean" to do it.......that sends a message to all future drink drivers that if you claim you "didn't mean" to do it, you stand a chance of getting a drastically reduced punishment......which erodes the deterrent effect of the punishment.
Exactly the same applies here......if you reduce the standard punishment because someone claims they "didn't mean" to do it, you erode part of the deterrent effect of the punishment.
And that should concern every referee because we are the ones who will have to deal with the aftermath, with players not being deterred from those sort of challenges, with the potential for mass brawls when another GK has his face sliced open because of a dangerous challenge.....and when it's a lone referee on a Sunday morning, the fact that he needn't be concerned with the eventual punishments isn't going to much help or comfort whilst they are trying to deal with 22 players kicking seven bells out of each other.
The FA/CFA's have a responsibility towards player safety and shouldn't be reducing standard punishments in cases where players are injured because of dangerous challenges, regardless of how much an offender makes puppy dog eyes and pleads their lack of intent.
If you remain to be convinced, consider the player who was given a reduced ban after "assaulting" a match official because they "didn't mean" to do it......consider how that reduction is none of your concern when he breaks your jaw after you've sent him off, or cautioned him, when had the standard punishment been upheld he would never have been on the pitch in the first place?
It can, and does, happen. Frequently. Players and clubs will plead anything to get bans reduced, putting dangerous and potentially violent players back into the game sooner they should be.
But hey, not our concern, right?