Carlisle striker charged with successful deception of ref....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macse15

I know;That wasnt my point - Sidders was saying he had been found guilty unanimously without being charged which I stated was not possible

---

Difficult one, as the article says:

"Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player. Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'. Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."

That suggests all 3 panel members did indeed see him as being guilty in order for the charge to be issued. The player now has to accept the charge or appeal against it. It's a bit difficult to see how an appeal could succeed when 3 panel members appear to have already independently and unanimously decided he dived. It will be interesting to see if an appeal is lodged by the 6pm deadline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite_Pie

Difficult one, as the article says:

"Incidents which suggest a match official has been deceived by an act of simulation are referred to a panel consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player. Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'. Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."

That suggests all 3 panel members did indeed see him as being guilty in order for the charge to be issued. The player now has to accept the charge or appeal against it. It's a bit difficult to see how an appeal could succeed when 3 panel members appear to have already independently and unanimously decided he dived. It will be interesting to see if an appeal is lodged by the 6pm deadline.

---

What about doing the same to a player rolling on the ground holding his face when there as been minimal contact or none at all?
He is cheating and trying to get an opponent sent off, the Rivaldo incident springs to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macse15

No he hasnt. You cant be found guilty of something you havent been charged with

---

FROM SWALE'S ORIGINAL POST:

"Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'.

"Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."

I believe the panel met those circumstances thus the player was charged. Now will come the 'trial'. Where is the problem, Macse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidders

FROM SWALE'S ORIGINAL POST:

"Each panel member will be asked to review all available video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it was an offence of 'successful deception of a match official'.

"Only in circumstances where the panel are unanimous would the FA issue a charge."

I believe the panel met those circumstances thus the player was charged. Now will come the 'trial'. Where is the problem, Macse?

---

The "panel" would be the equivalent of the CPS who decide whether there is a good chance of a successful prosecution. They do not decide whether the accused is guilty

Praps someone should report the "deception" of Paul Farman, the Lincoln City goalkeeper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidders

He already has been found unanimously guilty - that's why he was charged!

---

From what I understand a panel has decided that there is enough evidence to charge him, and as elite says he now has the opportunity to appeal.

My point was purely watching the video evidence he went down far too easily but didn't appear to appeal for anything (from the small clip I saw). He could then appeal and put forward a half decent defence.

Anyone know if these 3 panel members had access to ref reports as well or is it just them watching a clip.

It has been known for a player to tell the ref that what he (the ref) saw wasn't a foul but he (the player) had simply stumbled. If the player hadn't appealed for anything then the player could not be blamed if the ref still gave the penalty. In this case the player knew he hadn't been tripped but said nothing, he doesn't have to say anything, but his silence allowed the ref to be deceived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaxtonLad

It has been known for a player to tell the ref that what he (the ref) saw wasn't a foul but he (the player) had simply stumbled. If the player hadn't appealed for anything then the player could not be blamed if the ref still gave the penalty. In this case the player knew he hadn't been tripped but said nothing, he doesn't have to say anything, but his silence allowed the ref to be deceived.

---

Video refs with maybe 2 or 3 appeals per match for each side and an independent time keeper. Why not use technology in sport when it's available, we do in everything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countygump

Video refs with maybe 2 or 3 appeals per match for each side and an independent time keeper. Why not use technology in sport when it's available, we do in everything else.

---

I'm with you on this. Works for line calls in tennis and has done for years.

Miller made an unsuccessful appeal, so will not face us tomorrow:

"Carlisle United’s Shaun Miller will serve a two-match suspension with immediate effect after his denial of an FA charge of ‘Successful Deception of a Match Official’ was rejected. It was alleged his behaviour in the 35th minute of the game against Wycombe Wanderers on 17 October 2017, in committing a clear act of simulation which led to a penalty being awarded, amounted to improper conduct. He denied the charge, however, it was found proven following an Independent Regulatory Commission hearing today [Friday 20 October 2017]."