Dan Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 I guess it's also down to Carroll's perceived image as a "rough guy", who can be somewhat foul-mouthed when required - even though he seems to have changed his lifestyle around. Maybe there's still a certain bias against him playing into the whole affair, too. Oh no doubt. Don't get me wrong he wasn't completely innocent in it all, I think it was an honest, albeit slightly aggressive challenge. It was never ever worth a card, let alone a red that has failed to be overturned. The FA have literally admitted they condone simulation. It's an absolute disgrace.
AKCJ Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 https://twitter.com/ChicoFlores12 It seems he's as much of a **** off the field as he is on it.
Unabomber Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 Chico Flores â€@ChicoFlores12 46m They should be more preoccupied with the ugly way their team play football: always making very long passes and never quick short passing. I did laugh at that though.
davieG Posted 6 February 2014 Author Posted 6 February 2014 Andy Carroll: West Ham seek legal route over red card West Ham are to take legal action after failing in their appeal to overturn the red card shown to Andy Carroll during the 1 February win against Swansea. The Football Association upheld the decision which means the England striker is now banned for three games. "There is nowhere to go other than to seek some kind of legal redress," said West Ham co-chairman David Gold. Rules allow clubs to take disputes to arbitration and if necessary to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The FA has refused to comment on the latest development. Carroll, 25, was sent off after clashing with Swans defender Chico Flores during his side's 2-0 victory. He will now miss the Premier League games against Aston Villa, Norwich and Southampton. In apparent reaction to the decision, Carroll, who set up both goalstweeted: "Disgraceful." According to the FA, West Ham failed to prove to a three-man panel that referee Howard Webb had made "an obvious error" in dismissing Carroll after the forward's arm hit Flores's forehead. However, West Ham manager Sam Allardyce was certain that Webb made a mistake. "There has to be somebody to look at that in the cold light of day and say that is certainly not a red card," he said after the win. Gold added: "We are hugely disappointed at the outcome of the process. "The last thing I want to do is going to some kind of legal issue because I think it is a footballing issue. "But we are fighting for our lives. If we were mid-table we would probably get on with it but we are fighting for our lives to retain our Premier League status and we owe it to our fans, we owe it to ourselves. "We are upset, we feel we have been badly treated. "Most judgements are not made by three people, they are made by 12 - that's why they are called juries. "I believe if you had gone to the FA Council and asked the 100 members 75% would have said it was not a sending off, but if you just take three people it may not be representative." West Ham are 18th in the Premier League, one point from safety.
Super_horns Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 A dangerous precedent? He might be back from the ban before anything is heard in court or can it be sorted pretty quickly...
Leicesterpool Posted 6 February 2014 Posted 6 February 2014 A dangerous precedent? He might be back from the ban before anything is heard in court or can it be sorted pretty quickly... I think its just ridiculous, the sending off was harsh but he should have took the one match ban with a pinch of salt, it wasn't like they'd lost the game aswell.
Dan Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Best move for them. He's nowhere near at the level he was at. He's been a good defender but not excellent like he's made out to be. Their defence should be a priority.
Super_horns Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 FA agree to talk - probably get the ban reduced. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/10622406/FA-grants-West-Ham-United-arbitration-over-Andy-Carroll-red-card.html Probably then get himself sent off anyway or score a winning meaning another team goes and threatens legal action....
Jimothy Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 I think its just ridiculous, the sending off was harsh but he should have took the one match ban with a pinch of salt, it wasn't like they'd lost the game aswell.Firstly it's a 3 match ban. And no they didn't lose that game but it's the effect on the next 3.And it wasn't just harsh it was ridiculous. Even if they upheld the red for intent they should have pulled up Flores on bringing the game into disrepute. But Flores get nothing for his outrageous play acting. Fair play to West Ham I say, somebody has to stand up against these idiots at the FA and show them how their ruining the game. West Ham and Swansea are both in a relegation battle, and whilst West Ham lose their star striker for three games, Swansea get to play an important member of their back 4, all because the Swansea player cheated. That could have a detrimental effect on West Ham's season and help Swansea pull away from the relegation scrap.
Fox92 Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 FA now reconsidering after West Ham threatened legal action.
surrifox Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 FA now reconsidering after West Ham threatened legal action. a great way to run the game - the porn peddlers start to sound litigious and the FA backtrack- what next the courts to rule on whether the ball crossed the line or a player was wrongly adjudged offside?
Leicesterpool Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Firstly it's a 3 match ban. And no they didn't lose that game but it's the effect on the next 3. And it wasn't just harsh it was ridiculous. Even if they upheld the red for intent they should have pulled up Flores on bringing the game into disrepute. But Flores get nothing for his outrageous play acting. Fair play to West Ham I say, somebody has to stand up against these idiots at the FA and show them how their ruining the game. West Ham and Swansea are both in a relegation battle, and whilst West Ham lose their star striker for three games, Swansea get to play an important member of their back 4, all because the Swansea player cheated. That could have a detrimental effect on West Ham's season and help Swansea pull away from the relegation scrap. Didn't once West Ham cheat a few seasons ago by playing two eligible players! and should have been docked points! instead they were fined leaving Sheffield United to get relegated!
Fox92 Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 surrifox, on 07 Feb 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:a great way to run the game - the porn peddlers start to sound litigious and the FA backtrack- what next the courts to rule on whether the ball crossed the line or a player was wrongly adjudged offside? Yeah, I thought the same to be fair.
AKCJ Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Am I seeing this right? I read this in 4-4-2 last month and laughed out loud on the train.
davieG Posted 7 February 2014 Author Posted 7 February 2014 Am I seeing this right? Remote from reality.
MC Prussian Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Am I seeing this right? Sky - when television controls you.
Tincy Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 Am I seeing this right? You sure are, they've been out for a few months now
Leicesterpool Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 West Ham lose their 2nd appeal.. they should double the suspension even more
Corky Posted 7 February 2014 Posted 7 February 2014 they should double the suspension even more How can you double something even more?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.