Electric Avenue Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 He looks , he swings an arm. That's after the punch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted February 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2014 What punch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 As if west ham are long though with the appeal its bloody ridiculous completely disregarding any authority of the fa. If they win it will open up a new precedent and ruin the game of football even more. The alarming thing is that they have even turned round and said that thy wouldn't do it if not fighting relegation, basically just pick and choosing there argument. Pathetic club run by scum bags... So if Carroll plays against us can we then sue west ham for appealing?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 What punch? Look for Howard Webb's finger. Do you see when he puts it up? Carroll has connected with the punch before that moment, before he swings the right arm around. Watch carefully, Webb moves across the TV image right at the moment Carroll connects a hook with Chico's left buttock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The game against West Ham is on Saturday, so there is no way he will play in that game. There simply isn't time for it to be sorted out before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Check out the West Ham fan in the second row, right of screen below the yellow motif, showing Carroll the red card at the exact same moment as Howard Webb. Edited February 6, 2014 by Con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Glad he isn't play against us but if I was in charge Id ban that clearing in the woods Chico for longer than Carroll for being such a word removed. Edit: Cant even remember what words I used but the swear filter didn't like them! Edited February 6, 2014 by AndyM3000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toela65 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) If West Ham succeed in obtaining an injunction against the FA tomorrow at Court, he will be free to play on Saturday. Good job he's shite. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/westham/article3998272.ece Edited February 6, 2014 by Toela65 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Just posted this in the match thread but hey, The FA have sensationally agreed to arbitration in the Andy Carroll case to prevent West Ham going to the High Court on Friday morning over the striker’s red card. The worst part I've seen so far is Gold saying this: “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.” What on earth makes them believe they are owed anything. The fact that they are openly stating that they wouldn't appeal if they were in a better league position is good enough reason to tell them to piss off in my opinion. You can read the full story here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/andy-carroll-row-fa-bow-3120001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Avfc96 Posted February 6, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted February 6, 2014 Gold, Sullivan, Big Sam, Carroll, their fans, the West Ham way, the Olympic stadium, Brady. I **** hate West Ham, I hope they go down and make themselves look **** stupid in the Olympic Stadium. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even more desperate for a nice big convincing win now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even more desperate for a nice big convincing win now. Better yet, I hope Carroll gets to play and we still thrash them. I wonder what the excuse would be then. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avfc96 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even more desperate for a nice big convincing win now. Better yet, I hope Carroll gets to play and we still thrash them. I wonder what the excuse would be then. He would probably say he told his team to play type 1 hoofs but instead they played type 2 hoofs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Look at his face after he does it. He knows. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Its pretty clear their next few games are big for them. I wonder if the next 3 games were Man Utd Arsenal and Man City followed by Us, Norwich, Southampton, Hull etc would they appeal and try to get the case delayed? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toela65 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think Villa won't be affected. The FA are going to back down to West Ham as their literally terrified of them going to caught and winning due to how it could lessen the power the FA have over the clubs etc. They will reduce it from a 3 game Red card, to a 1 game suspension Red Card I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think Villa won't be affected. The FA are going to back down to West Ham as their literally terrified of them going to caught and winning due to how it could lessen the power the FA have over the clubs etc. They will reduce it from a 3 game Red card, to a 1 game suspension Red Card I reckon. They cant do that. Its either 3 game red card for violent conduct or its a mistake by the ref and nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I think Villa won't be affected. The FA are going to back down to West Ham as their literally terrified of them going to caught and winning due to how it could lessen the power the FA have over the clubs etc. They will reduce it from a 3 game Red card, to a 1 game suspension Red Card I reckon. They cant do that. Its either 3 game red card for violent conduct or its a mistake by the ref and nothing. I really can't see them overturning it. It not only makes the FA look stupid but it also makes the referee look stupid, they've already said it will be upheld so if they go back on what is already their 2nd decision there must be something dodgy going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avflife Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Chico is a massive fanny, but I can't see what legal grounds West Ham think they might have had here. Law 12 is quite specific. A player will be sent off for violent conduct and violent conduct is defined as: Violent conduct A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. He is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person. Violent conduct may occur either on the field of play or outside its boundaries, whether the ball is in play or not. Advantage should not be applied in situations involving violent conduct unless there is a clear subsequent opportunity to score a goal. The referee must send off the player guilty of violent conduct when the ball is next out of play. Referees are reminded that violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intervention. A player, substitute or substituted player who is guilty of violent conduct must be sent off. Howard Webb is the guy who sent Carroll off. The FA ask Webb if, in his opinion, Andy Carroll used excessive force or brutality during his tangle with Chico Flores. Howard Webb says yes. FA uphold the ban. So what do West Ham expect to happen if they bring in a big lawyer? The entire decision is based on the opinion of the referee, and he has already said he stands by his initial decision. How can a lawyer argue against this given that the opinion of a man in an entirely subjective matter? There is no legal definition of excessive force or brutality so how can Webb be wrong? They can't attack his position as having an expert opinion, Webb has refereed an FA Cup final, a Champions League final and a World Cup final. They can't even point to Webb being in the minority on this one because the court of public opinion seems to be in favour of the referee. Personally I think Carroll was unlucky, I wouldn't have sent him off, but that doesn't mean I can't accept Webb's decision to show the red card. Webb can send off Carroll for a swing of the arm that only slighted connected with Chico's 'dancer bun' but couldn't send-off Nigel De Jong for a kung-fu kick on Xavi Alonso in the 2010 WC Final #Webbout. Anyways I personally don't think it was a red but aren't to bothered as he won't be playing on Saturday, hopefully not anyways. Would be a massive boost for them if Carroll is allowed to play and him and Nolan combine like they did against Swansea last week, Baker and Clark will have their work cut-out. Edited February 7, 2014 by Avflife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Really dislike West Ham. Part of me wants him to get off then pick up an injury against us ruling him out for 6 games. (I know thats not a very nice thing to say) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts