banned players

[carefree]

noticed that ian foggy is sie dine

and psl have a fair share of banned players too! ben lawrence 112 days, jamie graham 112, days brett bellamy 35 days, dwaiyne rankin 7 days all starting 3/9/07

think jamies was well out of order 35 days should have been it, he pushed his head up against bobby patterson in the infamous 1-1 draw with moulton v the heros of lincoln rd, love to know what paul gale wrote for this to happen.

[royalmail]

Word going round is that Ian has only got 5 games. Far too severe for Jamie. 35 days would have been fairer. Anyone heard about what was dealt out to the Moulton players. That would be interesting !!!!!!!

[The Harrox]

So you saying that maybe players should get banned for NOT being sent off??????? :stpd:

[royalmail]

Fair point. I got my facts wrong. Hold my hands up !!!!!! Although saying that I think the swing the Moulton player had at Jamie warranted a red.

[carefree]

jamies 112 days has been upheld by county, the reasons why? paul gale said in his report that jamie graham after being TACKLED! then turned around and headbutted a moulton player which caused a mass confrontation of other players! which lead to another red card.

maybe i was dreaming on the day but wasn't it only ben that got involved???

am i seeing this with a blinkered view?

i thought that jamie indicated to headbutt, but to the back of bobby's head which wasn't even a tap more a coming together of heads.

even bobby said after the game in our club house that he wasn't even aware that jamie had head butted him, ( this bit jamie told me so only bobby knows if its true) even though it won't change things i would like to know what others who watched this game thought about this incident?

and after reading paul gales report my views on him have changed big time! mole hills into mountains comes to mind.

THANX PAUL :stpd:

[Cham1]

Al Come on mate. You have to remember that it is in the opinion of the referee when incidents occur and not the opinion of the supporters or the manager. I agree it is a big blow to your club that Jamie is banned for 112 days. However you learn everyday in life and perhaps next time he will simply walk away from this sort of incident. I personally have alot of time for Paul, as I do yourself and I think it would be a shame if you let this one incident cloud your judgement of a very good consistant referee.

[carefree]

opinions mark isn't that what this site is about? well this is mine, i have accepted the 112 days. but it is still out of order if a ref can not write down what happened correctly which leads to a much longer ban then normal and even worst when the FA dish out s double standard bans! this is the 1st time that jamie graham has been sent off, i have defended paul gale in the past and if others who watched this game think i have stated it wrong then fair do's. lets hear what they think eh? e.g ben thatcher man city elbows mendes knocks him clear out where he is carried off the pitch (still out cold) to hospital.

result 8 match ban 4-5 weeks for a pro player!!.

other str8 red cards for pro's 2 game ban!!

jamie graham retailates to a bad tackle push's his head into the back (not front as gale states) of the other player and not even a full blown head butt in anyway!!. 16 weeks ban.

the playing rules are the same for both yeah? so why is the punishment not???

[Cham1]

Now this opens a can of worms that in my opinion should have been addresses agaes ago and hopefully will be addressed in time. I have always said that the bans that players receive should be based on games and not days. For example being banned for 35 days in August can be a bigger ban then say 35 days in mid December when it is likely that a player may not miss any games. I would be more in favour of game bans. Still think it would be a shame that you think less of Paul though.

[Tommy Trophy]

Having been at the game and seen very clearly all that happened I would argue all day long that Jamie did not deserve to be banned for that long - yes tackle was not good and a yellow card which was given - Jamie over-reacted and back of the head as Al says - 14 days for me would have been about right.

However Ben totally lost the plot - top bloke who I have a lot of time for but whatever the length of ban no-one could have argued.

As in life all about swings and roundabouts?

[pmcvey]

The suspensions handed out at grass routes level of football are somewhat excessive in my opinion.

If Jamie had been playing in the UCL premier division, or equivalent step 5 or step 6 league (UCL Division 1), he would have been given 3 games, end of story, the suspension then increases by one game for any subsequent red card received during the season.

The FA have done a great job in bringing in the punishment in games its just a pity this couldnt be extended to step 7 leagues as well.

I am not condoning the actions of any individuals concerned just expressing a view that football should have a consistent approach no matter what level you play at

[Cham1]

I agree Paul. I believe there are plans to bring this in for season 2008-2009. How it will be policed I don't know. As I said earlier even 14 days at the beginning of the season in the PDFL would see a player in the Premier Division miss upto 5 games, whilst at Christmas and New Year this could be none.

[Celtic 2, The Mighty Gers 4]

Well seeing as everyone else is giving there opinion i might as well chipin.
From what i hear prob a harsh sentence, but lets also remeber the intention was there in the 1st place. If all players reacted to a bad challange then we would all be on street crime uk!! Its part of the sport the odd bad challange here and there and really couldnt have been that bad as it was only worthy of a yellow.
Lets also remeber that the police can also be involved in these things and by the sound of things poss players were lucky not to have any charges brought against them.
Cast your memory back to Duncan Ferguson think about 1992, Rangers V Raith Rovers, He headbutted player and as a result was charged with assault and given a short prison sentence.
Just my opinion tho.

[carefree]

your opinion shaun yes, but if you wasn't there you can't really judge how bad the tackle was now can you?. striking out is wrong simple yeah? but is the treat of striking out the same as the attack then? as you seem to think it is? i think not! the red mist clouded jamie for a spilt second but he stopped before any real harm come to another player. did you think when ben thacher got a yellow card for his attack on mendes it was right then?

im thinking about robbing a bank today but maybe i'll change my mind when i get there and go for a beer instead.

oh no i hope i don't get 10 years for thinking this now!!!

[Cham1]

No Al the Ben Thatcher tackle was dreadful and should have been punished more severely by the referee. THe FA did however take action against the referee Dermot Gallagher and further action against the player retrospectively. Al I know the penalty on Jamie might seem harsh in your view but as I said in an earlier post he will have learnt a very harsh lesson when he returns

[No 3]

Played in the game and I think that a 112 day ban is absolutely ridiculuous, I said on here not long after the game that it was a bad tackle that warranted a card that began proceedings, the psl forward retaliated but didnt headbutt anyone, to me he just squared up to the player who had kicked him, nothing more. A 14 day ban would be more than enough.

[Carrots]

With so many witnesses at the game syaing it was not a head butt cant believe no appeal has gone into the Northants FA
Surely with a 112 day ban at stake it must have been worth it

[Celtic 2, The Mighty Gers 4]

Carefree you are correct i can not judge as i was not there, but like i said just my opinion. Also like to point out that did say sounds like a very harsh punishment for Jamie but like i said if evrybody reacted to a bad tackle then we would always have a free for all with players. Not defending the referee but do remeber all refs do have a responsibility to try and protect all 22 players on the pitch, and lets also remeber its a sport that we all enjoy playing or why would we play it.
Also at what point did i ever defend Ben Thatcher for what he did to Mendes, that was assault and certinally think a harsher punishment should have been served.

[royalmail]

Think the problem with appealing is the Northants FA have it in black and white from the refs report (which is wrong) and I can't see them going against him due to the worry that he'll be another that will say he's not being backed and quit !

[Cham1]

Think the problem with appealing is the Northants FA have it in black and white from the refs report (which is wrong) and I can't see them going against him due to the worry that he'll be another that will say he's not being backed and quit !

What must not be forgotten is that any decision made by any referee is "In his or her opinion" They do not sit as judge and jury. Their duty is to report the fact as they see them. It is then upto the county FA to decide the charge and penalties as well as carry out any appeal.

[carefree]

shaun ' the odd bad tackle which couldn't have been that bad as it only got a yellow card' that bit yeah?

the ben thatcher bit meant that ref's do get it wrong as he only get a yellow for the mendes affair, so by what your saying this tackle couldn't have been that bad either. so do you understand were im coming from yet?

anyway the yellow card thing don't really matter now and is done with.

as for appealing i let sports sec explain that one for you all. (thats if you want to Brian) as i don't want to get any of it wrong.

mark it is pauls job to report the facts not his opinion ( which im sure he did). and it would seem by postings other then mine that he saw the head butting totally wrong as everyone else so far has seen it different, and that includes moulton player no..3, now would you agree to that now? :soo:

[Mick B]

Not going to comment on the sendings off as I wasn't there but in my opinion the sentences seem very harsh. What I will say is that normally appeals don't work but on the odd occasion decisions are reversed, just ask Frank Gloster, he got his red card recinded despite admitting swearing at a ref, so sometimes the commitee does go against the ref.

[Cham1]

Al I have not commented on the incident involving Jamie directly as I was not there. However the most used term in the Laws of Association Football is "In the opinion of the Referee". If the referee in question saw any incident in a particular way then that is what he will report. In any case an attempted headbutt is in my opinion just as bad as one that is carried out. Both are violent conduct and punishable with a dismissal. The length of any ban is a risk any player takes when he is caught infringing the laws of the game in such a way.

[carefree]

it wasnt an attempt mark, he didnt aim and miss. the offence is the same you say? yes it would seem the punishment is the same but i think i would rather be on the end of an 'warning coming together of heads' then a full blow headbutt. and i agree that nither is acceptable but for jamie he might have well planted it full on as the ban is the same yeah??

intension or not, just a warning head to head or not, it counts as the same?

will others reading this think ' well i might as well land one full on if i ever got in the same boat as jamie as the punishment is the same'

this isn't a dig at you mark but its hardly the same is it?

[Cham1]

Perhaps not but in the laws of the game it is still violent conduct and as such could lead to a suspension of this length