TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

So a guy who has zero previous gets the same ban as someone who has a file of history thicker than War and Peace?

Top work FA.

I don't think the FA take any 'previous' in to consideration. Each case is dealt with on its own merits.

I can't wait to read the reasoning behind this.

Matt.

Sadly the aptly named FA is a pretty crap organisation run by old men with blazers who have presided like Nero over the decline of the beautiful game in England.

jonnyfive wrote:Yes, we should definitely focus on motive. Because no guilt should ever be attached to amoral, irrational and antisocial actions otherwise.
It is acceptable for bored teenage hoodies to happy-slap a granny? "No motive: probably didn't happen."
I can't believe you make any pretence towards intellect.

I've only just seen this, but I feel this point must be answered. It would be as wrong to say "There was a motive: it must have happened" as it would be to say "No motive: probably didn't happen". But the question of motive, the presence or absence of it, in a situation such as this is something of a red herring.

More important is criminal intent or, rather, in this case the knowledge that a particular act is wrong (this is the principle of mens rea in law). And it should be obvious to all but the youngest child or the mentally ill that biting somebody is a wrong thing to do, regardless of motive.

Which means that the focus must be solely on what evidence is available to the FA to prove (in their eyes, probably on a balance of probabilities) whether or not such an offence occurred (remembering that we're talking here not about a criminal offence as such but an offence against the laws of the game).

ferrarilover wrote:I can't wait to read the reasoning behind this.

Matt.

Below on the FA site. Written reasons need properly picking apart if tweets by the aggrieved instead of a witness statement satisfies the tribunal. Did Banks even say it was a bite or was it just a 'someone took a chunk out of me''? Genuine question that, as the tweet highlighted at Sky Sports report on this ban doesn't even mention a bite. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news ... r-10-games

http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/20 ... rge-proven

Rjc70 wrote: Below on the FA site. Written reasons need properly picking apart if tweets by the aggrieved instead of a witness statement satisfies the tribunal. Did Banks even say it was a bite or was it just a 'someone took a chunk out of me''? Genuine question that, as the tweet highlighted at Sky Sports report on this ban doesn't even mention a bite. http://www1.skysports.com/football/news ... r-10-games

http://www.thefa.com/news/governance/20 ... rge-proven

I guess the club will want to review the "evidence" that this panel has considered. If it doesn't include written statements then the evidence is surely just a Twatter moan from "Ollie" Banks, a phone call from a publicity seeking journalist and a grainy video? Surely the club must appeal.

So do we have grounds to terminate his contract without paying him now he's been found guilty? As he's out of contract in the summer and can't play past this Saturday (unless we appeal which I think is pointless as the FA won't reverse the decision) then there's no reason to keep him around.

Of course if we do sack him, he might find it difficult to pick up a new club as he will take the 10-game ban with him and his reputation will be in tatters. Unless we tell him that we will stick by him and keep him on the payroll - but only if he commits to us next season on reduced terms irrespective of what division we play in. I don't expect many fans to be happy with that scenario, but he'd be a damn good player to keep at Conference level.

We should appeal, solely in order to keeping him playing for us as long as possible, and thereby saving us from relegation. Everything the club says and does from now until the season's end should be directed towards this one objective.

ferrarilover wrote:I can't wait to read the reasoning behind this.

Matt.

Reasoning behind this is pretty obvious. He bit the other player. Biting rather taboo, hence a lengthy ban.

Gullscorer wrote:We should appeal, solely in order to keeping him playing for us as long as possible, and thereby saving us from relegation. Everything the club says and does from now until the season's end should be directed towards this one objective.

I completely agree with that. Other clubs bend the rules to suit themselves, go into administration and reappear stronger. We should leave no stone unturned to stay in the league. If this means diving, appealing to get an opposing player booked or sent off, we should do it. No room for moral high horses now. Look at Argyle.

Gullscorer wrote:We should appeal, solely in order to keeping him playing for us as long as possible, and thereby saving us from relegation. Everything the club says and does from now until the season's end should be directed towards this one objective.

Ah I didn't realise we had a game next Tuesday. Yes I agree then. Appeal so he can play against Bury, although I imagine the appeal would be heard by the time we play Newport.

gullintwoplaces wrote: I completely agree with that. Other clubs bend the rules to suit themselves, go into administration and reappear stronger. We should leave no stone unturned to stay in the league. If this means diving, appealing to get an opposing player booked or sent off, we should do it. No room for moral high horses now. Look at Argyle.

I cannot begin to explain just how much I disagree with all of this. The moral high ground is the one thing have left, and even that is slipping away now thanks to the bitey incident.
I rarely watch Match Of The Day now, so incensed do I become with all of the diving and waving of imaginary cards.

PhilGull wrote: I cannot begin to explain just how much I disagree with all of this. The moral high ground is the one thing have left, and even that is slipping away now thanks to the bitey incident.
I rarely watch Match Of The Day now, so incensed do I become with all of the diving and waving of imaginary cards.

If it is moral high ground + relegation or same morals as most other clubs + league status then I choose league status any day.

Appeal - Ask for dental proof.
Arrange for a new Midfielder loan.
Ladabie then plays against Bury and puts in his last shift of the season. Scores the winner!
Appeal fails.
Fine Ladabie 10 weeks wages.
Spend Ladabies club fine on the new loanie.