Blades to appeal BT red card

[Sheff de party]

i know there's technically nothing to lose, but that is pointless.

two footed right in front of the ref. nee chance of having that revoked.

 

[JohnDenver]

Utterly and completely daft. May even be punished for frivolous appealing....

 

[europeanblade]

its not like BT will be scoring goals soon. unless he only plays well when the sky cameras are on.

 

[Foxy]

i know there's technically nothing to lose, but that is pointless.

two footed right in front of the ref. nee chance of having that revoked.

Like you say, there is nothing to lose... so why not?

 

[Sheff de party]

well why annoy the FA and spend any time, effort or money on it when we've bigger fish to fry this wknd.

plus u get an extra game sometimes for frivolous appeals.

 

[alcoblade]

well why annoy the FA and spend any time, effort or money on it when we've bigger fish to fry this wknd.

plus u get an extra game sometimes for frivolous appeals.

Beattie wont be playing for the next 3, 5, 50 or 500 games. It's definitely worth an appeal.

UTB

 

[europeanblade]

Beattie wont be playing for the next 3, 5, 50 or 500 games. It's definitely worth an appeal.

UTB

if he does appeal and wins will he be any use anyway and we all know what happend to that other BT in the play off fianl 2008

 

[SwissBlade]

If its 3 or 4 games that makes no odds.

If its rescinded then we have 1 striker available...

Personally I think it'll be chucked out, but hey, what's to lose... It's all fucked anyway

 

[Kempy]

Couldn't agree more Swiss, first thing i said when the red came out (apart from a few curses) was, that'l be appealed.

Good to meet you on Saturday aswell mate.

UTB

 

[stannyblade]

If he appeals doesnt that mean he can play Friday? The fact he wont be playing for us after his ban means we have nowt to lose

 

[boo radley]

Do you have to pay to appeal? if so maybe BT is paying for it.

 

[Tearstain]

I was thinking about this today and thier player was a good yard or two away from beattie when he made the tackle )personally i think both feet never left the ground) . What got me thinking was how far away would a player have to be before it is deemed not a dangerous tackle?
4 yards? What if a defender next to the corner flag bruce lee style jumped into the air both feet then landed and skidded 6 yards but the ball and player were at the other end of the pitch. ?
At what point does it become dangerous?

Tearstain

 

[Kenilworth]

When you dive in with two feet

 

[madeinsheffield]

Not that I'm sticking up for him as there was no point in a tackle like that, but hasn't Lampard and Gerrard got away with similar tackles in the past couple of seasons?

 

[metalblade]

When two players are running directly towards each other and one decides to go to ground and slide in it follows that he must show his studs to the other player ............. when you do that with both feet you deserve a red card and a ban, it matters not whether contact is made or not, if the Exeter player hadn't have jumped he would at best have got a broken ankle. From a player who is very experienced that was a disgusting challenge, we have all seen horror injuries and he of all people should know better.

 

[super_pig]

the other guy followed through on Beattie though.. shouldn't he have been sent off as well??

 

[mattbianco1]

Beattie won the ball..

Good job he did mind you as a leg break could've been on the cards. For that reason, he won't win the appeal

 

[Kentblade]

Beattie won the ball..

Good job he did mind you as a leg break could've been on the cards. For that reason, he won't win the appeal

For that reason alone I find it incredible that Danny is appealing unless he is desparate for another striker.
Go on prove me wrong Danny, you know more about it than me.
UTB

 

[Pedro Verde]

If you go into ant tackle with 2 feet its a red card, it doesnt matter if you win the ball as far as Im aware its deemed as a dangerous and reckless tackle. As soon as I saw it at the game (I havent seen a replay) I said it would be a red card. In this day and age you cant go into a tackle 2 footed

 

[super_pig]

the FA are so contrary and inconsistent with these appeals he'll just about get off with it

 

[William Large]

If you go into ant tackle with 2 feet its a red card, it doesnt matter if you win the ball as far as Im aware its deemed as a dangerous and reckless tackle. As soon as I saw it at the game (I havent seen a replay) I said it would be a red card. In this day and age you cant go into a tackle 2 footed

How many feet would the ant be able to use before it is deemed dangerous? Could it use 3?

 

[Kenilworth]

It appears the club have dropped the appeal now
Can't blame them really there is no way the FA will overturn that one.

 

[Toronto Blade]

DW saying 4 non football people would sit on the board made it likely he wouldn't have put much hope in an appeal.
They could also add an extra game for a losing appeal.

 

[Guesty]

I can only imagine the extra game is not a concern, though!

 

[jockdodds]

If you go into ant tackle with 2 feet its a red card, it doesnt matter if you win the ball as far as Im aware its deemed as a dangerous and reckless tackle. As soon as I saw it at the game (I havent seen a replay) I said it would be a red card. In this day and age you cant go into a tackle 2 footed

Ok, let's get this straight. Nowhere in the laws of the game does it say that going into a tackle with two feet is a red card. Indeed, nowhere in the laws of the game does it say that a two-footed tackle is even a foul.

The laws do however make a distinction between "playing in a dangerous manner" and "serious foul play".

Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as follows;

"Playing in a dangerous manner is defined as any action that, while
trying to play the ball, threatens injury to someone (including the player
himself). It is committed with an opponent nearby and prevents the opponent
from playing the ball for fear of injury.
A scissors or bicycle kick is permissible provided that, in the opinion of the
referee, it is not dangerous to an opponent.
Playing in a dangerous manner involves no physical contact between the
players. If there is physical contact, the action becomes an offence punishable
with a direct free kick or penalty kick. In the case of physical contact, the
referee should carefully consider the high probability that misconduct has also
been committed.

Disciplinary sanctions
• If a player plays in a dangerous manner in a “normal” challenge, the
referee should not take any disciplinary action. If the action is made with
obvious risk of injury, the referee should caution the player
• If a player denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity by playing in a
dangerous manner, the referee should send off the player"

Serious foul play is defined as follows;

"A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality
against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as
serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the
front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force
and endangering the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
Advantage should not be applied in situations involving serious foul play unless
there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send
off the player guilty of serious foul play when the ball is next out of play.
A player who is guilty of serious foul play should be sent off and play is
restarted with a direct free kick from the position where the offence occurred
(see Law 13 – Position of free kick) or a penalty kick (if the offence occurred
inside the offender’s penalty area)"

So it is down, as always, to a matter of interpretation.

If the ref thought that Beattie's tackle won the ball and made no contact with the player, (as I did) then that would be a "normal" challenge and not lead to disciplinary action. If however the ref thought it was a "lunge from the front with excessive force endangering the safety of the opponent" he should have sent Beattie off.

Nowadays the FA seem to instruct refs to follow the second interpretation, which is why an appeal would be unlikely to succeed.

 

[Toronto Blade]

I can only imagine the extra game is not a concern, though!

The FA has Beattie listed as ,suspended from all first team football until the Club have completed 4 first team matches for a Sending Off in a match played on 05/05/2012.I suppose the extra match is for the previous red card offense.

 

[gavtheblade]

goodbye beattie then

 

[puppet]

Its a travesty, not untypical for us to suffer for fouls that tossers like Gerrard get away with every fucking week. What REALLY sticks in my craw is the overwhelming crap thrown at this thread, surely having Beattie in the squad for the next three gamjes wouldve been better than not? I used to be the board moaner on Viewpoints but at least I had a point, i've never seen such useless, derisory nonsense as i've had to put up with these last few weeks on here - not even Len's trolling!

 

[Selly]

The FA has Beattie listed as ,suspended from all first team football until the Club have completed 4 first team matches for a Sending Off in a match played on 05/05/2012.I suppose the extra match is for the previous red card offense.

Four matches??? I thought you only got 3 for violent conduct...has Saturday's tackle been deemed violent conduct, as opposed to a bad foul???

 

[jamie0114]

There's an extra game as it's his 2nd red card of the season