Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 4:54 pm  

The whole thing stinks to be honest.

As Bullseye said, they've basically just backed the official. He's seen an arm in the face, completely panicked when the Barrow player protested and doubled down with excuses like "I was in shock at seeing someone bite" come off it! How did he survive the community game!! A referee in our second tier of the sport "in shock". Jesus christ!

The angle he has, he has a player in front of him blocking him. The touch judge is actually facing Taufua's face, so he should have the best view, yet didn't see anything.

Ian Smith said biting offences are extremely hard to prove. Yet this referee sees through a body (who funnily enough depite being inches from the incident didn't react) but our referee from at least 10m away spots an apparent "clear bite" that not a single video from muliptle angles, including once to what the ref would have, has picked up.

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:41 pm  

Anyone who has children will know that even their little mouths cause bruising when they bite an arm or leg. I would assume that the Barrow player would have some noticeable bruising immediately after the game, was this evidence recorded by the officials? After all an adult bite is significantly more powerful, so I would expect to see broken skin or bruising of some kind at the very least.

It just seems utterly wrong that a player can plead his innocence but be disciplined without any further evidence other than what was the interpretation of the referee in a split second. I’ve seen the replays multiple times and still don’t see evidence of a clear bite. Madness.

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:51 pm  

What does anyone make of this bit of the Tribunal report?
Am I misreading it?
"The Tribunal directed themselves in accordance with the relevant burden and standard of proof. The Compliance Manager bears the burden of proof and has to establish that On-Field misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation. The standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, of course, a very serious allegation."
But he's guilty??

Re: Barrow at home : Tue Aug 15, 2023 8:04 pm  

Top House Lad wrote:

What does anyone make of this bit of the Tribunal report?
Am I misreading it?
"The Tribunal directed themselves in accordance with the relevant burden and standard of proof. The Compliance Manager bears the burden of proof and has to establish that On-Field misconduct has occurred to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation. The standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is, of course, a very serious allegation."
But he's guilty??

This is the point where we needed to have “lawyered up”. An experienced brief would have picked this apart. Where’s FA when we need him

Re: Barrow at home : Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:27 am  

It's ridiculous. He didn't bite him lets be clear and to make it up to get a player banned lower than a snakes belly.
Why didnt the supposed victim recoil and pull his arm away if he'd been bitten? When did the ref develop x ray vision?

Re: Barrow at home : Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:04 am  

Club to appeal.

[Bullseye]

Re: Barrow at home : Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:08 am  

"The standard of proof is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is basically a "get out clause" for the disciplinary committee. You can have a reasonable doubt the bite occurred and still be guilty - as has been found in this case. Bringing in a lawyer might not have been worth it when you consider this.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: Barrow at home : Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:32 am  

The ref was adamant about what he saw and that trumps everything else. The appeal would need to prove the referee is mistaken or bent and that aint going to happen.

Re: Barrow at home : Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:56 am  

Agree with the above. I don't think any of us think there's enough evidence to find him guilty. Unfortunately the disciplinary know they'll be throwing the young ref under the bus due to his insistence he "clearly saw a bite". So unless we have clear video evidence showing the last couple of seconds Via play didn't show of the incident, I don't think we'll have the decision overturned.

I think they club are fighting this on principle and fair play to them. I think a players had a miscarriage of justice from a referee panicking and doubling down on his mistake.

Interestingly he's not refereed since the Barrow game. Maybe he's still recovering from the "shock" of seeing the bite...

Re: Barrow at home : Fri Aug 18, 2023 10:23 am  

Pumpetypump wrote:

The ref was adamant about what he saw and that trumps everything else. The appeal would need to prove the referee is mistaken or bent and that aint going to happen.

Absolutely spot on. Good to see im not the only one who doesnt have rose tinted specs on.
The majority of clueless fans seem to think we are in the high court not the RL diciplinary. Ref says he saw it, end of. Theres no requirement to prove or disprove anything.

That being said its worth an appeal as there s nothing really to lose and with the clowns we have running the game you never know we migh just get him back a game or 2 early