I never read too much into appeal outcomes since I learnt that it was a 3 man panel made up of a player, manager and a ref and majority vote!!!Southampton have won their appeal. Arsenal have not
Up here it’ll eventually go to a panel of 3 former category 1s and needs to be unanimousI never read too much into appeal outcomes since I learnt that it was a 3 man panel made up of a player, manager and a ref and majority vote!!!
Quality post Quaver. Sums up the level of absurdityIt’s concerning that we need an appeal panel when we’ve got VAR.
I think the rhetoric of triple punishment was really more a debate tactic by those who hated the red card/PK combo.The DOGSO-downgrade was always supposed to have been brought in because the triple-jeopardy of a penalty, rest of the game with 10 men and a suspension was seen as too harsh in the cases of non-cynical fouls. Simple solution to that issue is to allow a post-match review panel to remove the suspension if they are confident it was accidental - downgrades it to only double-jeopardy and takes away a huge amount of the complex decision making for the match-day referee.
On the other hand, they are coached that way because so many refs won't give the real foul unless the player goes down. I don't think this issue is as simple as blaming the players. I also agree with @JamesL that it doesn't take much contact on a back leg at speed to cause someone to go down awkardly--in American football, swiping at the trail leg to cause the two legs to cross and the runner to fall is a tackling technique when chasing someone.It isn't that straight forward as there was contact. The problem is that players have been coached from a young age to go down if they feel any contact, many have even spoken publicly about it.
I think the VAR and the appeal panel have different missions. VARi s applying the LOTG to this game. The appeal panel is deciding if there should be post-game repercussions for the players involved. (I just wish the language would be used better that way--the appeal is of the suspension rather than of the red card.)It’s concerning that we need an appeal panel when we’ve got VAR.
I.... actually really like this although you'd still have to have the distinction between a challenge for the ball or not. Lots of DOGSOs are a smaller chance to score than a Pk, but I like the ideaMake DOGSO in the penalty area a red card offence only when the penalty is missed. If teams want to deliberately miss / concede then fine, VAR has already made things artificial.
Not for me. The teams deciding the faith of the offender has much bigger consequences than is obvious on the surface. For example imagine a deliberate miss by a team in the 90th minute who is trailing by one goal but they want to take revenge on the player who would miss the next blockbuster game. Or the impact on betting markets.I.... actually really like this although you'd still have to have the distinction between a challenge for the ball or not. Lots of DOGSOs are a smaller chance to score than a Pk, but I like the idea
That's why the distinction between playing the ball or not would still have to be there, so let's say, playing the ball, PK scored and not reckless - > same as SPA so no card.Not for me. The teams deciding the faith of the offender has much bigger consequences than is obvious on the surface. For example imagine a deliberate miss by a team in the 90th minute who is trailing by one goal but they want to take revenge on the player who would miss the next blockbuster game. Or the impact on betting markets.
One persons manufactured outcome. is another persons tactics. Didn't consider the match fixing possibilities so will withdraw on that basis.Yeah, simply put we don't want 'manufactured' outcomes in the sport and this idea encourages it.
It's being reported as the FA saying the red card was rescinded. That begs the question whether it wasn't DOGSO because Martial was already falling or whether it was a foul at all (i.e. the falling player initiated the contact - which is what reports say, presumably from the FA press release).I think the VAR and the appeal panel have different missions. VARi s applying the LOTG to this game. The appeal panel is deciding if there should be post-game repercussions for the players involved. (I just wish the language would be used better that way--the appeal is of the suspension rather than of the red card.)
It's being reported as the FA saying the red card was rescinded. That begs the question whether it wasn't DOGSO because Martial was already falling or whether it was a foul at all (i.e. the falling player initiated the contact - which is what reports say, presumably from the FA press release).
They appealed against 'wrongful dismissal'. The appeals committee obviously didn't think it was a foul.You don't appeal the sending off, you appeal against the subsequent suspension. The media just incorrectly report it as the red card having been rescinded, that doesn't happen and rather it is just the suspension that is rescinded.