Should we Appeal?

Wilmersdorf posted a pic on the matchday thread (number 474) which I'm afraid looks pretty damning to me.

 

He wasn’t out of control , feet weren’t off the ground , a foul at most .

 

That picture shows one foot near their player and one miles away from him

 

I agree....but mebbe not miles away!!

 

big Val says we are on his post match interview

 

It actually does.

From The FA website Law 12 Fouls & Misconduct:

And the definition:

Link to the original page:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

I understand your point about excessive force and endangering opponents but the ref adjudged it did, and when you watch it at full speed it's easy to see why he thought that. There's just not enough evidence for them to overturn that call. In the end if Mowatt had hit the planted leg instead of brushed the toe then there would have been a genuine chance of injury.

More than anything I cannot recall a single case of a challenge of that type being overturned on appeal. It's a waste of time and the best possible outcome is them not judging it a frivolous appeal and giving him an extra game.

 

If that was a game between two other teams and someone asked if it's that a red card, I'd say yes. You just can't leave the ground that way with your studs up and come down with both of them like that.

Whether he made contact with the ball or player is fairly immeterial as im fairly sure it's classed as dangerous play?

 

The problem with frame by frame is any athlete when running will at some point during their transition appear to have both feet off the ground. The only thing that stands out to me from these stills is Mowatt's eyes are always focused on the ball, that's the reason why he won the ball. When a player takes man and ball, usually it was their intention to do so. Nothing premeditated in it for me, it was a loose tackle made 70 mins into a battle of a game. Also factor in the amount of games teams are playing, these incidents are bound to happen. Basically blame the FA and the ref for creating the environment for these things to occur. But let's not forget it's a contact sport, and these kinds of tackles go without incident week in week out.

 

Yes, the squealing pig routine and players surrounding Mowett made up the refs mind, i really hate it when players have to resort to that nonsense...

 

What if we appealed and lost but the ban reduced from 3 games to 1 as its deemed.more clumsy than dangerous or does it not work that way?

Its a tough one to call as we will probably all by thinking with our Barnsley tinted glasses on.

 

OK, to phrase it another way he went in studs first. My understanding is that this type of tackle is widely recognised as being classed as dangerous play, regardless of whether the ball is cleanly won, or there is no intention to harm. I can't see any relationship between this and Dike's headed first goal, or his second for that matter.

 

Actually, those stills IMO exonerate him. 1) at no time are the studs "up". 2) his right leg is nowhere near the opponent. In fact there seems to be absolute minimal contact with the opponent with the left leg as it contacts the ball. 3) The talk of high tackle seems a nonsense as his feet remain close to the ground and in fact the ball was on the ground when he made contact with it.
The referee was IMO more influenced by the screaming and rolling i.e. cheating ('simulation' as the FA prefer to call it) which made it look far worse than it was. Most tackles made at speed are two footed inasmuch as your standing leg is bound to follow through and in this case, if these stills are anything to go by, Mowatts right leg misses the opponent by some distance.
Even if they uphold the Red card they should certainly be looking at punishing the the Wycombe player for 'bringing the game into disrepute' since the video evidence clearly shows the contact was minimal and he was feigning serious injury in an attempt to get the opponent sent off, which is exactly what happened. I am convinced if he had just got up the ref would probably have, at worst yellow carded Mowatt. 'Reckless endangerment' is a gross exaggeration of what I saw as an over enthusiastic challenged without malice.
I have to agree though, that since WE cannot even agree on this BB, then it is almost certain that the appeal will fail as officials rarely overturn decisions made at the time that are not obvious errors. Opinions eh?

 

He was going for the ball, not the man, but contact or no contact that doesnt stop it being "dangerous tackle" in the eyes of the ref or the FA. "Studs up", "Studs first", I think everyone understands what that means in the context of this two-footed tackle. You just can't do that and it's been that way for a long time as far as I can recall?

I'd be happy to be wrong, but I'd agree that I cant see it being overturned. They could neatly argue, "The tackle did no harm, but it was two footed, off the ground and risked injury to an opponent". But hey, maybe im just not watching enough football these days!

 

Excellent news, never been happier to be wrong, but goes to show what I know.

 

Told you. God it's boring being right about everything ;-)

 

Me neither. Wrong and happy as Larry!

 

You reds!! Surprised as I am happy.

 

To be honest I'm still gobsmacked they rescinded it for a challenge of that type. But over the moon to be wrong.

In fairness I think it has more to do with Dane and Conway who are incredibly savvy in the way the club represents itself. Big club attitude = Big club outcomes.

Though could you imagine having to tell big Val we weren't appealing?!?