Match Day Thread Leeds Utd v Liverpool Match Thread

Gessa · Sep 16, 2021

I’m pleased we sent a video in questioning Klopp’s role in it. Shame they didn’t reply to that in the report

2 pennth · Sep 16, 2021

Gessa said: ↑

Football Association Regulatory Commission (the ‘Commission’)

in the matter of a Wrongful Dismissal/ Excessive Punishment claim brought by Leeds United AFC (the ‘Club’) on behalf of Pascal Augustus Struijk (‘PS’)

Regulatory Commission Decision

1. These are the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent Regulatory Commission which sat on Tuesday 14th September 2021 via Microsoft Teams video conference.

2. The Commission members were Mr. Stuart Ripley (Chairman), Mr. Marvin Robinson and Mr. Alan Knight all three of whom are Independent Football Members of the FA Judicial Panel.

3. Mr. Paddy McCormack of the FA Judicial Services Department acted as Secretary to the Regulatory Commission.

4. The Commission were advised on the Laws of the Game (LOTG) and their application by Mr. Steve Dunn of the Referee Advisory Panel. In particular, the Laws relating to Law 12: S1 Serious Foul Play and the factors considered by a Match Official when determining such an incident. Mr. Dunn of the Referee Advisory Panel remained available to answer questions with regard to the Laws of the Game, however took no part in discussions concerning the actual specifics of the case or the Commission’s decision.

5. In order for a claim of Wrongful Dismissal to be successful the Player and/or his Club must establish by the evidence it submits that the Referee made an obvious error in dismissing the Player. The burden rests on the Player and/or his Club to prove this.

6. The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.

7. The relevant incident took place in the Leeds United AFC v Liverpool FC Premier League fixture on Sunday 12th September 2021.

8. In his Official Report Form the Referee, Mr. Craig Pawson, stated, “I have to report that I, as the Referee sent off Struijk, Pascal Augustus of Leeds United AFC Under Law 12 section: S1

9. In support of its claim the Club submitted four video clips of the incident that showed the incident from numerous angles and distances both at normal speed and in slow motion. One of the videos focused on the reactions and behaviour of the Liverpool Manager, Jurgen Klopp following the incident in question. The videos were accompanied by a letter dated 14th September 2021 signed by Mr. Angus Kinnear, the Club’s Chief Executive, for and behalf of the Club. The Letter from the Club set out in detail why, in the opinion of the Club, the dismissal of PS was wrongful. There was also a video submitted by The FA with multiple angles of the incident that was provided to the Club to assist the claim.

10. The IFAB Laws of the Game definition of Serious Foul Play is as follows: A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

11. The following practical information which is given to Match Officials was also considered: • Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?

• Can the player legitimately play the ball without putting his opponent at undue risk?

• What degree of speed or intensity is the player using when making the challenge?

• What is the distance the player has travelled to challenge for the ball?

• Is the player making the challenge off the ground/airborne and in control of his actions?

• What was the position of the feet of the player making the challenge?

• Did the player lead with his studs showing when making the tackle?

• Does the player show clear malice or brutality when making the challenge?

• Does the challenge clearly endanger the safety of the opponent?

This list is not exhaustive nor is it a requirement that all elements are made out to satisfy the offence. 4

12. The Commission viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and considered carefully the written submissions from the Club, with the practical information and the relevant IFAB LOTG definition from Mr. Dunn in mind.

13. The video footage of the incident showed the ball arriving at the feet of the Liverpool player, Harvey Elliott (‘HE’), who takes the ball slightly across the path of PS who is tracking back. From just behind HE, PS takes to the air and makes a scooping challenge / tackle in an attempt to take the ball away from the advancing HE. PS emerges with the ball and immediately lays it off to a team mate. HE goes to ground and is seriously injured as a consequence of PS’s trailing leg coming down heavily on his ankle. PS is dismissed by the Referee.

14. The Commission were split 2:1 as to whether the Referee had made an obvious error in sending off PS for Serious Foul Play. The majority view was that PS had endangered the safety of HE by lunging in to the challenge in the manner that he did, from behind HE. PS did not make first contact with the ball with his leading right foot, the ‘tackling foot’. It was, in fact, his trailing left leg that had made contact with the back of both HE’s legs, with his left upper shin coming down onto the ankle of HE, prior to his left knee/thigh making contact with the ball, seriously injuring HE in the process. The majority view was that PS was not fully in control of his airborne attempt to take the ball away from HE and the ‘tackling right foot’ only made contact with the ball, after full contact with HE was made, and the ball had come off PS’s left knee, and as such he had unduly endangered the safety of HE in a manner that could be categorised as Serious Foul Play. Thus, the Referee had not made an obvious error in dismissing PS.

15. The minority view was that PS had made a challenge that one sees often in football and that the contact and subsequent injury caused to HE was simply an unfortunate accident. This particular member feels that a certain level of endangerment exists in every tackle or challenge made on the football pitch, fair or otherwise. The challenge made by PS did not unduly endanger the safety of HE over and above the inherent level of endangerment that will always exist when two players come together in a physical challenge. To the mind of this Commission member PS was entitled to make the scooping challenge in the manner that he did, he was not out of control and did not show any malice or brutality and as such the Referee had made an obvious error in sending PS off.

16. Thus, by a 2:1 majority decision the claim for Wrongful Dismissal was deemed to have failed.

17. With regard to the Club’s claim in the alternative that application of the Standard Punishment would be excessive in the circumstances, the Commission members were unanimous that there was nothing extraordinary about the incident that could justify a reduction from the Standard Punishment.

18. Pursuant to the relevant Regulations, this decision of the Regulatory Commission is final and binding, and there shall be no right of appeal from decisions made by Regulatory Commissions under Fast Track 4 or Fast Track 5.

Stuart Ripley Regulatory Commission Chairman

14th September 2021
Click to expand...

What a load crap

Leedsoflondon · Sep 16, 2021

Gessa said: ↑

Football Association Regulatory Commission (the ‘Commission’)

in the matter of a Wrongful Dismissal/ Excessive Punishment claim brought by Leeds United AFC (the ‘Club’) on behalf of Pascal Augustus Struijk (‘PS’)

Regulatory Commission Decision

1. These are the written reasons for a decision made by an Independent Regulatory Commission which sat on Tuesday 14th September 2021 via Microsoft Teams video conference.

2. The Commission members were Mr. Stuart Ripley (Chairman), Mr. Marvin Robinson and Mr. Alan Knight all three of whom are Independent Football Members of the FA Judicial Panel.

3. Mr. Paddy McCormack of the FA Judicial Services Department acted as Secretary to the Regulatory Commission.

4. The Commission were advised on the Laws of the Game (LOTG) and their application by Mr. Steve Dunn of the Referee Advisory Panel. In particular, the Laws relating to Law 12: S1 Serious Foul Play and the factors considered by a Match Official when determining such an incident. Mr. Dunn of the Referee Advisory Panel remained available to answer questions with regard to the Laws of the Game, however took no part in discussions concerning the actual specifics of the case or the Commission’s decision.

5. In order for a claim of Wrongful Dismissal to be successful the Player and/or his Club must establish by the evidence it submits that the Referee made an obvious error in dismissing the Player. The burden rests on the Player and/or his Club to prove this.

6. The role of the Regulatory Commission is not to usurp the role of the Referee and to simply re-referee the incident.

7. The relevant incident took place in the Leeds United AFC v Liverpool FC Premier League fixture on Sunday 12th September 2021.

8. In his Official Report Form the Referee, Mr. Craig Pawson, stated, “I have to report that I, as the Referee sent off Struijk, Pascal Augustus of Leeds United AFC Under Law 12 section: S1

9. In support of its claim the Club submitted four video clips of the incident that showed the incident from numerous angles and distances both at normal speed and in slow motion. One of the videos focused on the reactions and behaviour of the Liverpool Manager, Jurgen Klopp following the incident in question. The videos were accompanied by a letter dated 14th September 2021 signed by Mr. Angus Kinnear, the Club’s Chief Executive, for and behalf of the Club. The Letter from the Club set out in detail why, in the opinion of the Club, the dismissal of PS was wrongful. There was also a video submitted by The FA with multiple angles of the incident that was provided to the Club to assist the claim.

10. The IFAB Laws of the Game definition of Serious Foul Play is as follows: A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play. Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.

11. The following practical information which is given to Match Officials was also considered: • Does the player have a chance of playing the ball in a fair manner?

• Can the player legitimately play the ball without putting his opponent at undue risk?

• What degree of speed or intensity is the player using when making the challenge?

• What is the distance the player has travelled to challenge for the ball?

• Is the player making the challenge off the ground/airborne and in control of his actions?

• What was the position of the feet of the player making the challenge?

• Did the player lead with his studs showing when making the tackle?

• Does the player show clear malice or brutality when making the challenge?

• Does the challenge clearly endanger the safety of the opponent?

This list is not exhaustive nor is it a requirement that all elements are made out to satisfy the offence. 4

12. The Commission viewed the available footage of the incident on numerous occasions and considered carefully the written submissions from the Club, with the practical information and the relevant IFAB LOTG definition from Mr. Dunn in mind.

13. The video footage of the incident showed the ball arriving at the feet of the Liverpool player, Harvey Elliott (‘HE’), who takes the ball slightly across the path of PS who is tracking back. From just behind HE, PS takes to the air and makes a scooping challenge / tackle in an attempt to take the ball away from the advancing HE. PS emerges with the ball and immediately lays it off to a team mate. HE goes to ground and is seriously injured as a consequence of PS’s trailing leg coming down heavily on his ankle. PS is dismissed by the Referee.

14. The Commission were split 2:1 as to whether the Referee had made an obvious error in sending off PS for Serious Foul Play. The majority view was that PS had endangered the safety of HE by lunging in to the challenge in the manner that he did, from behind HE. PS did not make first contact with the ball with his leading right foot, the ‘tackling foot’. It was, in fact, his trailing left leg that had made contact with the back of both HE’s legs, with his left upper shin coming down onto the ankle of HE, prior to his left knee/thigh making contact with the ball, seriously injuring HE in the process. The majority view was that PS was not fully in control of his airborne attempt to take the ball away from HE and the ‘tackling right foot’ only made contact with the ball, after full contact with HE was made, and the ball had come off PS’s left knee, and as such he had unduly endangered the safety of HE in a manner that could be categorised as Serious Foul Play. Thus, the Referee had not made an obvious error in dismissing PS.

15. The minority view was that PS had made a challenge that one sees often in football and that the contact and subsequent injury caused to HE was simply an unfortunate accident. This particular member feels that a certain level of endangerment exists in every tackle or challenge made on the football pitch, fair or otherwise. The challenge made by PS did not unduly endanger the safety of HE over and above the inherent level of endangerment that will always exist when two players come together in a physical challenge. To the mind of this Commission member PS was entitled to make the scooping challenge in the manner that he did, he was not out of control and did not show any malice or brutality and as such the Referee had made an obvious error in sending PS off.

16. Thus, by a 2:1 majority decision the claim for Wrongful Dismissal was deemed to have failed.

17. With regard to the Club’s claim in the alternative that application of the Standard Punishment would be excessive in the circumstances, the Commission members were unanimous that there was nothing extraordinary about the incident that could justify a reduction from the Standard Punishment.

18. Pursuant to the relevant Regulations, this decision of the Regulatory Commission is final and binding, and there shall be no right of appeal from decisions made by Regulatory Commissions under Fast Track 4 or Fast Track 5.

Stuart Ripley Regulatory Commission Chairman

14th September 2021
Click to expand...

What’s clear is they weren’t judging Pascal’s tackle or whether it was a foul but only had the referee made an obvious mistake, hiding behind the injury that he hasn’t (completely ignoring he played on until the reaction of the Liverpool players) and then Klopp. Yet Son’s tackle that put Gomez out for a similar amount of time for poor Harvey Elliot, had his red overturned

Gessa · Sep 16, 2021

Leedsoflondon said: ↑

What’s clear is they weren’t judging Pascal’s tackle or whether it was a foul but only had the referee made an obvious mistake, hiding behind the injury that he hasn’t (completely ignoring he played on until the reaction of the Liverpool players) and then Klopp. Yet Son’s tackle that put Gomez out for a similar amount of time for poor Harvey Elliot, had his red overturned
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense to anyone but Klopp, Parsons and 2 of the 3 panel. So that's a majority of about 3 million to 4 but the 4 win, just about sums it up.

OLOF · Sep 16, 2021

Imagine if Struijk was Black,
Diane Abbapotamus and David Lammy would be shouting 'Racist' from the rooftops of the commons

Jammy 07 · Sep 16, 2021

OLOF said: ↑

Imagine if Struijk was Black,
Diane Abbapotamus and David Lammy would be shouting 'Racist' from the rooftops of the commons
Click to expand...

Don't you ever have a night off from spouting ya diversive bollocks.

It's not a question by the way.

Whitejock · Sep 16, 2021

Leedsoflondon said: ↑

What’s clear is they weren’t judging Pascal’s tackle or whether it was a foul but only had the referee made an obvious mistake, hiding behind the injury that he hasn’t (completely ignoring he played on until the reaction of the Liverpool players) and then Klopp. Yet Son’s tackle that put Gomez out for a similar amount of time for poor Harvey Elliot, had his red overturned
Click to expand...

Correct. If the rules of law had been used, Struijk would have been let off, as his 'offence' must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt', and it clearly wasn't, as one of the board wasn't convinced. Unless we go to the Court of Arbitration of Sport in Switzerland, that's it.

I'm slightly disappointed that we didn't mention the ref playing on, yet contradicting himself later by saying he immediately knew it was a red. Deffo worth a mention at the session to show that even he wasn't sure - the cnut. Equally, Klip Klop should have been up before the beaks for coming onto the field - but we never mentioned it.

If I was Radz, I'd make a public - very public - declaration that we never, ever want this guy to referee us again, partly because of the incompetent Struijk red card, but mainly because Klip Klop invaded the park & was not disciplined for it (unless I'm mistaken). Nothing will come of it as we fall under FA law in the dedicated 'Leeds Law' subsection. Nothing new there, then.

wakeybreakyheart · Sep 16, 2021

Jammy 07 said: ↑

Don't you ever have a night off from spouting ya diversive bollocks.

It's not a question by the way.
Click to expand...

He is correct of course

Infidel · Sep 16, 2021

Jammy 07 said: ↑

Don't you ever have a night off from spouting ya diversive bollocks.

It's not a question by the way.
Click to expand...

Please can you explain what you mean by “Diversive bollocks” ?
I thought his point was quite to the point in this unbalanced racist world we live in.

Old Git · Sep 16, 2021

OLOF said: ↑

Imagine if Struijk was Black,
Diane Abbapotamus and David Lammy would be shouting 'Racist' from the rooftops of the commons
Click to expand...

Southgate would be picking him for England

OLOF · Sep 16, 2021

Jammy 07 said: ↑

Don't you ever have a night off from spouting ya diversive bollocks.

It's not a question by the way.
Click to expand...

No, why, what the **** has got to do with you?

Irishshako · Sep 17, 2021

OLOF said: ↑

Imagine if Struijk was Black,
Diane Abbapotamus and David Lammy would be shouting 'Racist' from the rooftops of the commons
Click to expand...

It would have been overturned immeadiately

Irishshako · Sep 17, 2021

OLOF said: ↑

No, why, what the **** has got to do with you?
Click to expand...

You've upset his slave sorry servant

Irishshako · Sep 17, 2021

If this is the case then why wasn't half the Burnley side not sent off. Personally if I could I'd take this further, bollocks to the you can't appeal this decision. We should bring up all the other tackles against us recently and show video evidence. Another bent decision from a corrupt old boys club. FFS just when you think the bias against this club has stopped.

Jammy 07 · Sep 17, 2021

OLOF said: ↑

No, why, what the **** has got to do with you?
Click to expand...

Public forum mate.

It's all to do with me if I so choose.

Jammy 07 · Sep 17, 2021

Infidel said: ↑

Please can you explain what you mean by “Diversive bollocks” ?
I thought his point was quite to the point in this unbalanced racist world we live in.
Click to expand...

Can't be arsed to be honest.

Just my opinion to which I'm fully entitled.

Irishshako · Sep 17, 2021

Jammy 07 said: ↑

Can't be arsed to be honest.

Just my opinion to which I'm fully entitled.
Click to expand...

Can we keep politics on the politics thread, thank you.

Infidel · Sep 17, 2021

Irishshako said: ↑

Can we keep politics on the politics thread, thank you.
Click to expand...

here here

Irishshako · Sep 17, 2021

Infidel said: ↑

here here
Click to expand...

ellandback · Sep 17, 2021

OLOF said: ↑

Imagine if Struijk was Black
Click to expand...

Match Day Thread Leeds Utd v Liverpool Match Thread

Gessa Well-Known Member

2 pennth Well-Known Member

Leedsoflondon Well-Known Member

Gessa Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

Jammy 07 Well-Known Member

Whitejock Well-Known Member

wakeybreakyheart Well-Known Member

Infidel Well-Known Member

Old Git Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Jammy 07 Well-Known Member

Jammy 07 Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Infidel Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator

Share This Page

About Us

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Match Day Thread Leeds Utd v Liverpool Match Thread

Gessa Well-Known Member

2 pennth Well-Known Member

Leedsoflondon Well-Known Member

Gessa Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

Jammy 07 Well-Known Member

Whitejock Well-Known Member

wakeybreakyheart Well-Known Member

Infidel Well-Known Member

Old Git Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Jammy 07 Well-Known Member

Jammy 07 Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Infidel Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

ellandback Well-Known Member Forum Moderator

Share This Page

ellandback Well-Known Member
Forum Moderator