Heads up ref watch (Carey) (Argyle complain to FA)

[Tim Roughton]

Am disappointed by this decision because, in my opinion, it unfairly undermines the referee and wrongly vindicates the ranting Evans.

I can't find a report explaining the tribunal's decision but I have gleaned this from the written report of Carey's unsuccessful appeal for his red card versus MK Dons in September. This is a quote from that report:

"In order for a claim of Wrongful Dismissal to be successful the Player and his Club must establish by the evidence it submits that the Referee made an obvious error in dismissing the Player".

First point: it is the appealing club that brings the evidence before the tribunal – so, as Lundan Cabbie says, there is no way that Peterborough were going to volunteer the fan's footage that clearly shows Shephard moving out if his way to block Carey with a raised arm. A definite yellow and, arguably, a red.

Second point: the evidence must show an obvious error by the referee. Even if the tribunal only saw the main footage, I don't see how that shows an obvious error. The footage is inclusive. Whilst you can’t really say the main footage proves Shephard's guilt, neither can you say that it proves his innocence. To be evidence that no serious foul play occurred, the footage would have to conclusively show that Shepard did not move out of his way to block Carey and that he did not raise his arm into Carey. The footage shows neither of things. In these circumstances, the only correct thing left for the tribunal to do was to refuse the appeal.

 

[jollygreenjohn]

Am disappointed by this decision because, in my opinion, it unfairly undermines the referee and wrongly vindicates the ranting Evans.

I can't find a report explaining the tribunal's decision but I have gleaned this from the written report of Carey's unsuccessful appeal for his red card versus MK Dons in September. This is a quote from that report:

"In order for a claim of Wrongful Dismissal to be successful the Player and his Club must establish by the evidence it submits that the Referee made an obvious error in dismissing the Player".

First point: it is the appealing club that brings the evidence before the tribunal – so, as Lundan Cabbie says, there is no way that Peterborough were going to volunteer the fan's footage that clearly shows Shephard moving out if his way to block Carey with a raised arm. A definite yellow and, arguably, a red.

Second point: the evidence must show an obvious error by the referee. Even if the tribunal only saw the main footage, I don't see how that shows an obvious error. The footage is inclusive. Whilst you can’t really say the main footage proves Shephard's guilt, neither can you say that it proves his innocence. To be evidence that no serious foul play occurred, the footage would have to conclusively show that Shepard did not move out of his way to block Carey and that he did not raise his arm into Carey. The footage shows neither of things. In these circumstances, the only correct thing left for the tribunal to do was to refuse the appeal.

Totally agree with this. Evans created a very effective smokescreen though.A "Buckler" and "Horrendous" referee, he said the referee had agreed with him it was the wrong decision made by the linesman who was too far away, quoted Channel 5 and Sky Sports as saying it was the wrong decision. Called out Carey as a diver etc etc. A barrage of propaganda in fact.
I would love to know who the appeal panel of three were that made that wrong decision and send them that other view of the incident. Too late but just so they were aware of it.
Consolation in the 3 points but hate it when the loud mouth bullying Evans gets his way.

 

[davie nine]

Great interview with Steve Evans where he confirms that Peterborough have put in the appeal. Expects it to be overturned. Seems like we've got a new player called Josh Carey. If anything Josh fouled his player. Referee says he went on the linesman's call but now says shouldn't have been a card. Derek would have been sat in his flat on Saturday night with his glass of wine thinking it was never a red (the card not the wine). Taylor has been fined by the club for the penalty scuffing.

Peterborough FC

For those who haven’t read this full thread (see page 2).

It is very frustrating that Peterborough have had sympathy ‘throughout football’.

Time for Evans, Sky and C5 to apologise to PAFC.

 

[Pogleswoody]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

That video does appear to suggest a straight red card was correct but I doubt Peterborough would have presented that as evidence even if they had it available because doesn’t support their case. What we not privy to is the referee’s report. The hearing have decided that video evidence doesn’t match what the ref is claiming had happened.

In that case I feel sorry for the referee.

But .... the referee didn't see it happen 'live'. He never glanced, never deviated his run, turned his head or blew his whistle!! Yes it was an offence but not one the ref could give 'evidence' on. Lino maybe? 4th official (is he supposed to make decisions?) but, if the ref was asked: 'What did you see?' Then the answer is 'Sweet FA guv!!' :facepalm:

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

That video does appear to suggest a straight red card was correct but I doubt Peterborough would have presented that as evidence even if they had it available because doesn’t support their case. What we not privy to is the referee’s report. The hearing have decided that video evidence doesn’t match what the ref is claiming had happened.

In that case I feel sorry for the referee.

But .... the referee didn't see it happen 'live'. He never glanced, never deviated his run, turned his head or blew his whistle!! Yes it was an offence but not one the ref could give 'evidence' on. Lino maybe? 4th official (is he supposed to make decisions?) but, if the ref was asked: 'What did you see?' Then the answer is 'Sweet FA guv!!' :facepalm:

The referee is quite entitled to take advice from his team. It seems in this case he has done just that and openly admitted to doing so in his report.

Your question about the 4th official. No, he doesn’t make decisions but he can assist the referee to make a decision. You’ll say it’s the same thing but the laws suggest otherwise.

 

[Dreamgreen]

Apologies if this is elsewhere but ... slightly surprisingly, to me at least, they win the appeal for the rollerball tackle on Carey.

 

[Kevb77]

Probably as it certainly warranted a red via a second yellow, there then would have been no recourse to appeal. It wasn’t a straight red IMHO, hence it has been overturned.

 

[Stiffler]

Now this must be Steve Evans Oscar winner
https://youtu.be/l-L-fJCoJuo

 

[Pogleswoody]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

That video does appear to suggest a straight red card was correct but I doubt Peterborough would have presented that as evidence even if they had it available because doesn’t support their case. What we not privy to is the referee’s report. The hearing have decided that video evidence doesn’t match what the ref is claiming had happened.

In that case I feel sorry for the referee.

But .... the referee didn't see it happen 'live'. He never glanced, never deviated his run, turned his head or blew his whistle!! Yes it was an offence but not one the ref could give 'evidence' on. Lino maybe? 4th official (is he supposed to make decisions?) but, if the ref was asked: 'What did you see?' Then the answer is 'Sweet FA guv!!' :facepalm:

The referee is quite entitled to take advice from his team. It seems in this case he has done just that and openly admitted to doing so in his report.

Your question about the 4th official. No, he doesn’t make decisions but he can assist the referee to make a decision. You’ll say it’s the same thing but the laws suggest otherwise.

If the ref didn't see it and the 4th official 'assisted' him to take action over something he didn't see? That is the 4th official making decisions neh? :think:

 

[cheshiregreen]

The matter may not have ended yet.

Argyle contact the FA in aftermath of controversial Peterborough game

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sport/ ... p_AppShare

 

[The Pilgrim]

The matter may not have ended yet.

Argyle contact the FA in aftermath of controversial Peterborough game

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sport/ ... p_AppShare

It'll be tasty if we get them in the playoffs!

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Evans' comments about Carey before the red card hearing was out of order and it's no surprise Adams is annoyed with the antics from Peterborough and Evans.

It also didn't help that the Herald had a headline earlier this week - 'Is Carey a cheat?' If I was Carey I wouldn't grant them any future interviews.

Argyle fans and probably football fans in general previously had no problem with Peterborough, they were just another club, but now since Evans became their manager the club is tainted by his style and now have a reputation.

 

[Quintrell Green]

I suspect that the FL will acknowledge Argyle's correspondence and ignore it. They do not want to put themselves in a position where the issue / incident continues to run after they have deliberated and made a decision to rescind the red card. I feel the whole process is weak/blighted, where there is a limit to the video evidence, as created by the absence of additional camera angles as seen with SKY PREMIERSHIP games.

 

[Cobi Budge]

Pretty much everything the Herald do is clickbait, surprised the club still bother to grant them access, I stopped looking at the Herald after that Kelvin Mellor hate article.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

I can only assume that the appeals board or whoever they are, are not allowed to use fan videos to make a decision and have to use the official camera. In which case it looks not as bad, however, if they were to have used the video from behind the goal that we have all seen then the decision looks a bit more easy to make.

That video does appear to suggest a straight red card was correct but I doubt Peterborough would have presented that as evidence even if they had it available because doesn’t support their case. What we not privy to is the referee’s report. The hearing have decided that video evidence doesn’t match what the ref is claiming had happened.

In that case I feel sorry for the referee.

But .... the referee didn't see it happen 'live'. He never glanced, never deviated his run, turned his head or blew his whistle!! Yes it was an offence but not one the ref could give 'evidence' on. Lino maybe? 4th official (is he supposed to make decisions?) but, if the ref was asked: 'What did you see?' Then the answer is 'Sweet FA guv!!' :facepalm:

The referee is quite entitled to take advice from his team. It seems in this case he has done just that and openly admitted to doing so in his report.

Your question about the 4th official. No, he doesn’t make decisions but he can assist the referee to make a decision. You’ll say it’s the same thing but the laws suggest otherwise.

If the ref didn't see it and the 4th official 'assisted' him to take action over something he didn't see? That is the 4th official making decisions neh? :think:

Not at all. The referee sent him off, not the 4th official. It’s like when the police have evidence of somebody committing a crime, it is the CPS who make the decision to charge the offender.