Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Violent conduct my arse. At the very least they should have reduced the suspension to one for ungentlemanly conduct or something, it'd still be very harsh but I could just about accept it, but a three match suspension for that is utterly ridiculous.
Taylor kicked out so its a red card, the fact he kicked as hard as Simon Church has nothing to do with it, players seldom get sent off for pushing another player in the chest, which is what their keeper did. I do think however, that Taylor should have just received a one match ban, but thats probably because I support Charlton.
It's not a kick - how is it a kick, just cos he moved hos legs doesn't mean he was kicking - do you kick out at the ground every time you stand up from a chair?
I dont make up the laws of the game, I just sit at my desk, doing a bit of work, looking at CL, drinking tea, eating food and farting. Oh and if they wanted to be picky, Taylor was studs up.
Soft as it may have been I can see why they didn't overturn Taylor's red. However any offence he is deemed to have committed pales into insignificance when you look at the violent kick made by Sykes. I really have no idea how he is not on a similar charge to his team mate.
As I understand it the disciplinary committee still haven’t announced a punishment for Finley.....could it be there is some ‘higher authority’ looking at it......Mmmmm I wonder?
As I understand it the disciplinary committee still haven’t announced a punishment for Finley.....could it be there is some ‘higher authority’ looking at it......Mmmmm I wonder?
He has until tomorrow (I think) to appeal. If he doesn't, they will announce a decision, but if he does, he will get a personal hearing which may not happen until next week.
As I understand it the disciplinary committee still haven’t announced a punishment for Finley.....could it be there is some ‘higher authority’ looking at it......Mmmmm I wonder?
He has until tomorrow (I think) to appeal. If he doesn't, they will announce a decision, but if he does, he will get a personal hearing which may not happen until next week.
I think it's 6pm tonight and if he appeals that he should have his punishment increased!
Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Violent conduct my arse. At the very least they should have reduced the suspension to one for ungentlemanly conduct or something, it'd still be very harsh but I could just about accept it, but a three match suspension for that is utterly ridiculous.
The difference is quite obvious.
Taylor had studded boots on his feet and the goalkeeper did not have studded gloves on his hands.
Taylor started all the unnecessary shenanigans, exactly as he did against Walsall.
He stood behind the goalkeeper, then infront obstructing him.
You are not allowed to obstruct the goalkeeper and you certainly are not allowed to kick/aggressively push the goalkeeper with your studded boot.
It was Taylor's actions and Taylor's alone that caused the fracas and whilst he may have been fortunate to get away with it he didn't.
I hope he learns from his stupidity and concentrates more on playing football in future, instead of continually trying to wind up the opposition.
He wound them up until they lost control. He can have little complaint.
Bit of an umpire's call situation for me. Maybe a bit soft for a red, but too much contact to justify overturning it.
Very surprised that Sykes hasn't been called to book too as well as the onslaught after the penalty award. Methinks the FA is protecting the referee too much. Overturning multiple cards and calling 3/4 players in suggests a failing on the refs part. I wonder if they (unconsciously) just corrected the two most obvious mistakes...
I think what might have sunk Taylor is that the referee actually spoke to him before all the shenanigans started.
It gave them an ideal excuse to uphold the ban.
Sykes is a lucky boy though given that they're going after the other bloke.
Exactly, if there had been no warnings, no other players involved and Taylor wasn't a wind up merchant to the opposition and also to the officials, he may have even just got a warning or a yellow.
However, he was warned, he was winding up all and sundry. It wasn't his first offence, it was an accumulation. He was screaming at players to put them off (according to fans sitting in the East) and he did cause an almighty fracas.
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
I'm actually a little surprised the club appealed given that footage.
Maybe but Taylor was going to be a massive loss so it was a gamble which unfortunately never came off. However if nothing else some justice was done with Finley charged and facing punishment albeit Sykes seems to have been a very lucky boy.
"We have carefully reviewed all the footage from various angles. In our opinion Lyle Taylor, landing with the keeper on top of him, pushed the keeper off him with his foot. While we accept the contact was minimal and not likely to have hurt the keeper, we consider that Taylor had no good reason to make that movement since the keeper was already moving away from him, and had only landed on him because Taylor deliberately backed into him in the first place. We therefore found no grounds to overrule the referee's decision"
If the FA issued such an explanation, I would accept it, but they don't. They treat us with contempt. And they wonder why they in turn are treated with contempt.
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
Which means that yes they DID think it was a red card. That's exactly what it means. And by the letter of the law, it was.
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
But that is clearly not the case.
The lino saw it happen and made a decision at the time. He had no part of the review.
The panel was asked if there had been any obvious error and they said "no" so they agreed it was a red card offence.
You and others keep bring in other offences at that or other games but they are irrelevant. The question is about what Taylor did and what he did was kick out, studs raised and made contact. It was a sending off offence.
I think that if it had been an AS player doing the same to Philips the views would be very different.
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
Which means that yes they DID think it was a red card. That's exactly what it means. And by the letter of the law, it was.
I think the point that several lifers have made is that they have to see substantial evidence to overturn an on-field decision, and they don't like doing it. So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't. Even if they thought that on reflection a yellow card would have been fair, they still won't overrule the red. The question they ask isn't 'Is it a red', it's more 'Is they enough evidence to overturn the red, which is slightly different. But I'm only really going on what others have said. In this instance the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, so there might be something wrong with the system.
There were a group of Stanley players intimidating the lino - not really clear why this was allowed to go on? If Solly hadn't been there I'm not clear how far they would have gone.
Why they all stayed on the pitch is beyond me?
I think there was the undoubted potential for it to lead to a homicide.
At the very least it would have been a violent attack on the linesman.
Thank god for Solly.
Deserves a knighthood.
Think they'd been taking lessons off Millwall.
Absolutely. Those roughian players from Bermondsey have a rich tradition of killing football officials.
Or at least trying to.
The first time I was taken to the Den as a young lad, Millwall were playing Aston Villa, October 1967. Norman Burtenshaw was the ref.
Millwall lost 2-1 to Villa and as the ref blew the final whistle many of the crowd invaded the pitch, surrounding the ref and beating him to the ground unconscious.
And thus began my initiation into the Millwall mentality.
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
Which means that yes they DID think it was a red card. That's exactly what it means. And by the letter of the law, it was.
I think the point that several lifers have made is that they have to see substantial evidence to overturn an on-field decision, and they don't like doing it. So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't. Even if they thought that on reflection a yellow card would have been fair, they still won't overrule the red. The question they ask isn't 'Is it a red', it's more 'Is they enough evidence to overturn the red, which is slightly different. But I'm only really going on what others have said. In this instance the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, so there might be something wrong with the system.
You are not taking into account that Taylor had been winding up the opposition and also winds up the officials. Taylor had just been warned by the ref, but he still continued in the same vein. His studding of the goalie was his final action. Perhaps the officials are also wise to the fact that he does this sort of nonsense every game ? You reap what you sew.
What a scummy team Accrington were, happy we sucker punched them with a late pen.
They were, but let's not forget that it was Taylor that started it all by design. Apparently, some fans think he won't be as good a player, unless he continues with all this nonsense.
Based on the video it's obvious why the goal was disallowed as Taylor clearly makes a back on the keeper. He then has a slight kick out. Not the crime of the century but in the laws of the game that can be viewed as violent conduct and that is why the appeal is unsuccessful.
Still unclear what the Lino saw what the keeper did, but based on the video unlike Taylor their is nothing you can see what he does violent conduct and that is why his appeal was successful.
How the FA have not dragged in the 15 based on that is frightening
There were a group of Stanley players intimidating the lino - not really clear why this was allowed to go on? If Solly hadn't been there I'm not clear how far they would have gone.
Why they all stayed on the pitch is beyond me?
I think there was the undoubted potential for it to lead to a homicide.
At the very least it would have been a violent attack on the linesman.
Thank god for Solly.
Deserves a knighthood.
Think they'd been taking lessons off Millwall.
Absolutely. Those roughian players from Bermondsey have a rich tradition of killing football officials.
Or at least trying to.
The first time I was taken to the Den as a young lad, Millwall were playing Aston Villa, October 1967. Norman Burtenshaw was the ref.
Millwall lost 2-1 to Villa and as the ref blew the final whistle many of the crowd invaded the pitch, surrounding the ref and beating him to the ground unconscious.
And thus began my initiation into the Millwall mentality.
Did they attempt to kill him or give him a good old fashioned shoeing?
Those were the days.......and, anyway, I said the players had a rich history. It's par for the course for the fans.
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
It was more like pushing the keeper off with his foot, than a kick. Never a red card.
Well a qualified assistant ref and a panel of experts say it is.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
I don't agree with that. They just decided not to overturn the decision, which is slightly different.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
Which means that yes they DID think it was a red card. That's exactly what it means. And by the letter of the law, it was.
I think the point that several lifers have made is that they have to see substantial evidence to overturn an on-field decision, and they don't like doing it. So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't. Even if they thought that on reflection a yellow card would have been fair, they still won't overrule the red. The question they ask isn't 'Is it a red', it's more 'Is they enough evidence to overturn the red, which is slightly different. But I'm only really going on what others have said. In this instance the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, so there might be something wrong with the system.
But that is all conjecture with some Charlton bias thrown in.
They do overturn decisions ie the AS keeper and the Pompey player.
As for "So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't." is just a flawed argument.
He did move a muscle, he did kick out, he did make contact so why would they rescind it when there was no "obvious error" which is the criteria used by the panel.
It's not a jury in the high court, it's a football disciplinary panel. He kicked out, he's apologised, we have to cope without him for three games after which he should be fit and rested.
The original TV gantry pics look less obvious. The club with hindsight probably should have not provided the new angle and destroyed that bit of film. But it's done now I guess.
Comments
Thats a free kick to the opposition anywhere on the pitch
Oh and if they wanted to be picky, Taylor was studs up.
Taylor had studded boots on his feet and the goalkeeper did not have studded gloves on his hands.
Taylor started all the unnecessary shenanigans, exactly as he did against Walsall.
He stood behind the goalkeeper, then infront obstructing him.
You are not allowed to obstruct the goalkeeper and you certainly are not allowed to kick/aggressively push the goalkeeper with your studded boot.
It was Taylor's actions and Taylor's alone that caused the fracas and whilst he may have been fortunate to get away with it he didn't.
I hope he learns from his stupidity and concentrates more on playing football in future, instead of continually trying to wind up the opposition.
He wound them up until they lost control. He can have little complaint.
It gave them an ideal excuse to uphold the ban.
Sykes is a lucky boy though given that they're going after the other bloke.
It was because Taylor was obstructing the goalkeeper from getting to the ball, as he does continually and gets pulled up for it frequently.
Very surprised that Sykes hasn't been called to book too as well as the onslaught after the penalty award. Methinks the FA is protecting the referee too much. Overturning multiple cards and calling 3/4 players in suggests a failing on the refs part. I wonder if they (unconsciously) just corrected the two most obvious mistakes...
However, he was warned, he was winding up all and sundry. It wasn't his first offence, it was an accumulation.
He was screaming at players to put them off (according to fans sitting in the East) and he did cause an almighty fracas.
Possibly a foul, but an instant red card? Nope I don't think so. Look at all the dreadful challenges you see each week either live or on the TV that go unpunished, much worse than what Taylor did.
Correct decision might be yellows for Taylor and the keeper, but a red for the 14, although his 'assault' wasn't seen at the time. You can see him checking that the lino wasn't watching before wading in.
If the centre half/keeper/N E 1 other did that anywhere on the pitch, it’s a red.
If the FA issued such an explanation, I would accept it, but they don't. They treat us with contempt. And they wonder why they in turn are treated with contempt.
The lino saw it happen and made a decision at the time. He had no part of the review.
The panel was asked if there had been any obvious error and they said "no" so they agreed it was a red card offence.
You and others keep bring in other offences at that or other games but they are irrelevant. The question is about what Taylor did and what he did was kick out, studs raised and made contact. It was a sending off offence.
I think that if it had been an AS player doing the same to Philips the views would be very different.
It's a shame but Taylor shouldn't have done it.
But I'm only really going on what others have said.
In this instance the punishment is way out of proportion to the crime, so there might be something wrong with the system.
The first time I was taken to the Den as a young lad, Millwall were playing Aston Villa, October 1967.
Norman Burtenshaw was the ref.
Millwall lost 2-1 to Villa and as the ref blew the final whistle many of the crowd invaded the pitch, surrounding the ref and beating him to the ground unconscious.
And thus began my initiation into the Millwall mentality.
Taylor had just been warned by the ref, but he still continued in the same vein.
His studding of the goalie was his final action.
Perhaps the officials are also wise to the fact that he does this sort of nonsense every game ?
You reap what you sew.
Apparently, some fans think he won't be as good a player, unless he continues with all this nonsense.
Still unclear what the Lino saw what the keeper did, but based on the video unlike Taylor their is nothing you can see what he does violent conduct and that is why his appeal was successful.
How the FA have not dragged in the 15 based on that is frightening
Those were the days.......and, anyway, I said the players had a rich history. It's par for the course for the fans.
They do overturn decisions ie the AS keeper and the Pompey player.
As for "So if Lyle hadn't moved a muscle they might have over rescinded it. But because he didn't they won't." is just a flawed argument.
He did move a muscle, he did kick out, he did make contact so why would they rescind it when there was no "obvious error" which is the criteria used by the panel.
It's not a jury in the high court, it's a football disciplinary panel. He kicked out, he's apologised, we have to cope without him for three games after which he should be fit and rested.