blonde poker forum

Questions.....

FA will recind Gibbs?
Retrospect ban OX?

What would happen if OX scored 4 today?

What happens if ox scores midweek?

Yes
Yes

Nothing could happen.

Will be banned before then.

Couldnt chelsea appeal on result based on ox shouldnt have been on the field?

I'm sure they would, but see no possibility of it ever getting thru.

Case for subbing the ref? His head wont be focussed, knowing he is reffing rochdale next week!?

The shot was not on target ergo it should only have been a yellow anyway as it did not prevent a clear goalscoring opportunity.

 ;letsparty;

 ;danafish;

rotflmfao

I might be wrong but Im not sure that the ox will be banned however yes Gibbs will get off because of mistaken identity.

Ox will be banned, the red card transfers when mistaken identity as per dermot gallagher on sky

Yes defo. As the ref didnt act upon his foul.

Presumably because the ref. saw the incident?  ::)

Disagree with this in some respects.

If Ox didn't know that it wasn't going wide he shouldn't be allowed to rely upon that fact to save himself.

And he obviously didn't :)

Yeah I agree, he tried to cheat, should be sent off imo.

The Observer must have employed the ref as the sports editor:

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/JCtheMessiah/BjZqAZ9IMAAfdF4.jpg)

I think that's a little harsh.

He actually tried to dive and head it and then instinctively thrust a hand out to tip it when he couldn't reach it with his head. I don't believe it was a premeditated dive to handle the ball.

Is that really an instinctive reaction ?

Lol instinctive. Blatant deliberate handball. Deffo red

Instinct or otherwise he obviously did it because he thought the ball was going in.

Seems pretty obvious and 'equitable' that he can't now rely on the fact it was going wide to avoid a red card. Obviously in this case it's moot because the red card simply transfers in cases of mistaken identity but generally  i think this should be the rule.

The FA have confirmed that both Kieran Gibbs and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain are free to be selected by Arsenal for tomorrow’s game against Swansea.

Referee Andre Marriner mistakenly sent off the left-back after Oxlade-Chamberlain’s handball and after appealing both the wrongful dismissal and the red card itself, Arsene Wenger can call on both players tomorrow.

In a statement, the FA said:

An Independent Regulatory Commission today heard two claims from Arsenal, one of mistaken identity and the other of wrongful dismissal, both in relation to Saturday’s game against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

The commission ruled that the dismissal of Kieran Gibbs was a case of mistaken identity and transferred this to his team-mate Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain.

Subsequent to deciding this matter, the commission then considered Arsenal’s claim for wrongful dismissal in relation to Oxlade-Chamberlain. This claim was upheld, meaning Oxlade-Chamberlain will not serve any suspension with the standard punishment withdrawn with immediate effect.

Missed opportunity to dent G2L's finances I reckon.

Neither player banned. Didnt see that one coming!

Im quite surprised the do good brigade haven't been up in arms  and asking for the ref to be hanged for getting two black guys mixed up!

Arsene knows, he said he was confident of no ban.

Cue tirade from BigAngst.

Why the hate?

Just because I am being proved right. There's just noooo neeeeeed.

He obviously cheated. Just like all players cheat all game. Its an obvious yellow rather than red.

What it does show is how completely their heads had gone by then that he was trying a diving save..felt sorry for him in terms of where his head must have been at to do that.

His head was just a touch further from the ball than his arm...

And Andre Marriner not banned either.

Seems real.

Re Ox not being banned - gg big club bias. If he played for Southampton he's getting a three game ban there all day.

Haha, so true :-)

Why is it an obvious yellow?

Delib hand ballers is a yellow no ?

I'm not sure. That's what I'm asking. Should it be a yellow because it was going wide? Or should it be a red?

The question is only whether he denied an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Two issues:

Come to equity with clean hands -- can't rely on it going wide if you didn't know. The fact that he does what he does is enough to suggest that he thinks he's stopping a goal scoring opportunity -- which makes out the offence.

Secondly, Arsenal profiting from ref mistake, no way this gets overturned normally. Arsenal don't even appeal it normally either. Sympathy vote because they've been beat 6-0 and refs had a shocker.

Actually, it should be a red. The ref can't  judge whether the ball is going wide, therefore, the defender has assumed it's going in and that should be good enough for the ref.

3-game ban?

You might need to re-read the rule book sir.

Intent is not a factor, if it had been going in it would have warranted a 1-game ban, as it was going wide it's only a yellow, as Marriner cocked it up big-time it's cancelled.

I can't really say anything without it looking like bias, but...

There's two reasons why I don't think the red should have been rescinded:

1) The rules say it should be where the ref made an obvious mistake and Mariner made what was objectively at that speed a reasonable decision. It's only from the one angle on tv that you can see it's going wide. That shouldn't be enough to overturn it.

2) If someone gives me a bag of sugar and tells me it is a kilo of Columbia's finest, I can get stopped by the police and charged with possession of cocaine. What matters is what I think I'm doing, not whether it was actually possible. Ox genuinely believed it was going in and he stopped it with his hand. He should get the penalty that reflects that.

I did lol when I saw that :D

tbf, the ref couldn't even judge he'd touched it.

For mulhuzz, shirly you cant be judged on intent in this case - I'm sure Giroud intended to score at least once but no one gave a goal

you're right, should be one game ban.

justification for player getting let off because Marriner cocked up? One that doesn't involve 'because Arsenal' preferably :)

absolutely can be judged on intent when you're infringing or intending to infringe on the rules.  Giroud scoring is different because normal 'legal' part of game.

Consider this scenario. I'm partnering Big Mike Williamson at the back for Newcastle defending a corner from Arsenal. Ball is whipped in and Giroud just behind me definitely going to score. Now, I decide to put my hand on the ball and intend to punch the ball over the bar (my head can't reach because I'm a fat lad and Giroud is spritely). Unlucky for me though, my aim is shite and it goes in.  Can you now not award the goal and allow me to rely on intent to clear the ball? No. You can't let me rely on facts that are outside my intent or my awareness. Similarly, Ox can't rely on the fact that he didn't need to deflect ball wide. Both Ox and I have to take the consequences as we find them.

One point that everyone seems to be overlooking is that Marriner didn't even blow up for the handball nor did the lino appear to see it from looking at replays.

Marriner appeared to hear something in his earpiece a few seconds later after mourino, terry et al complained, presumably via the 4th official.

I reckon mourino gave the decision.

and you contend this excuses everything?

absolutely nothing wrong with ref consulting on decision.

lol, sorry for your troubles.

I sort of get the point but not entirely. If you tried to use your hand to score you wouldn't get sent off - same diff ?

No but I would love Marriner to tell us who gave it.

when I use my hand to score (as Giroud) I don't intend to deny a goalscoring opportunity though.

The biggest shame about this whole saga is that it has taken away from the fact arsenal turned up for a big pat on the back party and got a proper spanking.



(Pull pin. Stand well back...)

Arsenal turned up ?

it's like when we destroyed a decent Hull side 4-1. All anyone wanted to talk about was our prick of a manager because he headbutted someone.

As a Newcastle fan as I so furious nobody wanted to congratulate us on how good we were, so with that in mind, to all Chelsea fans:

You were fucking magnificent. You absolutely destroyed a very decent Arsenal side and you should be commended for it.

Yeah...about that...

I'm a spurs fan :D

I'd be quite happy if they both lost 6-0 but that can't happen, so I'll have to be content with just arsenal

Really unsure about this descent into reasonable perspectives in a footie thread

I dont think this is the case as far as im aware, the police would test the drugs and if they found it to be sugar even if you thought it was cocaine you would not be in trouble.

Someone told me Tal is a barrister......God help his clients if he is!

I said Barista

weeeeeeeeeeeeee wpwpwpwp

I was shaking my head and tutting as I typed it.

I'm no barrister but I would be pretty sure (around about 99%) that u would not be charged. You would be arrested, the "substance" would be tested and you would be released because it is not illegal to deal sugar.

Should you be convicted of drink driving if you have a couple of beers "think" that you are over the limit and drive but when you are pulled and breatherlized you blow under?? ( I don't in anyway condone drink driving before anyone asks!!)

Ox might of thought he was denying a goal scoring opportunity but he wasn't. Therefore it would be treated as just a deliberate handball which carries a yellow.

And it makes me laugh all this if he played for a smaller club then he would be banned that is complete codshit!!

Lol. Both wrong. Nirvana closer :)

I'm being a little twee, but you would be charged with an attempt of the offence, I believe, so it would need to be selling the stuff.

There is a difference between a legal impossibility and a factual impossibility. Dan, I'm sure there's a dealer somewhere knocking out wraps of sugar for £30 to students with no idea. If he believed it was coke, he is technically guilty in the eyes of the law of a criminal offence. It's a reasonably well held principle in other jurisdictions, I believe (always happy to be put right on these things. Was along time ago that I was at uni)

The reason I believe that you would not be charged is I remember watching one of those police documentaries on tv once where they follow them around with a camera and a numpty bought what he believed to be a wrap of coke or whatever and the police nicked him. He got arrested for possession of a class A drug. When it was tested it turned out to be cornflower pmsl. They had to release he without charge.

Not quite sure how we have got here but it kinda helps me forget how woeful we were on Saturday. I hope the Ox bangs in 2 tomorrow lol

When the police fit people up on drug sales, they get genuine drugs out of the lock up to make sure the buyer has the proper stuff on them.

Yes, that's because like the Americans have felonies and misdemeanors, we have two types in our legal system. Possession of is in one and possession with intent to supply is in the other. You can't be done for conspiracy to exceed the speed limit.

Because if you found it it was sugar you'd tell the police you knew what you were selling.

Stop changing the subject!!!

Here you go:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offences_in_English_law

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-g8pMqiURxxE/UTOPt0aAMYI/AAAAAAAABm0/bOCDXAGbajk/s600/ARSENE.gif)

Unless you have too much amphetamine on you.

look - whilst we're sidelining here.

Tal is correct. You could get knicked for Cocaine possession. That you likely wouldn't be prosecuted is because it wouldn't be in the public interest (probably) to prosecute someone for selling wraps of sugar that he believed to be the finest Peruvian flake.

edit: actually in the case of drug offences it appears to be a little less clear whether sugar would make out the actus reus, but in general his point stands.

Tal is a milkmaid and will get his comeuppence in due course.

I may even set BigAngst upon him if he doesn't behave.

Noted.

Back in the hut.

I know we are talking about made up scenarios but this is just plain ridiculous Tal.

The picture? It was one of the few Wenger gifs that didn't involve a pocket or a zip.

Ignoring all the ignorant speculation about the law, I stand by my argument that the red should have stood.

I was surprised Kaboul had his rescinded the other day, too, tbf

The score.

Lol thought I'd got that through ;)

everytime i get in agatha i conspire to break the speed limit  but i alway fail

Does agatha mind?