saturday's sending off.

Hope frivolous doesn't come up.

Right decision in my opinion

I'm not surprised. I hope the referee's assessor is there and tells the truth. Then the fourth official can explain why he didn't bring the referee's attention to the tirade of abuse hurled at Humps as he walked off.
I though we had a respect campaign against abuse............my arse.
The ref might also get a chance to prove he can tell the time as well as add up, but I'm not holding my breath.
Nor am I holding my breath that the FA will find in Ritchie's favour, but I hope they do.

Just watched the sending off online and to me there keeper came out legs first instead of with his hands so was more to blame than ritchie who just went for the ball.

http://www.itv.com/sport/football/facup ... ighlights/
The see what little they show of the game.

I can't see it being anything other than an extra game ban for a frivolous appeal. He slid into the keeper and made contact. The referee saw it and deemed it a red card offence after due consideration. I'm not saying that's the right way to judge it but then when were the FA ever fair or reasonable. Would have been best to forget about it and move on.

Yep and the keeper appeared to go in two footed...............I wonder if he'll get a retrospective punishment.
Not likely.

both humps and the keeper went in feet first, if your going to give 1 a red then the other should have aswell.

You'd expect a striker to go in for that.

A total waste of time and effort.

Why? And why shouldnt Humphreys seek justice when the law enforcers have got it wrong?

If I was Humphreys I would demand the club appeal. It was stupid decision by an idicotic referee.

Justice should be seen to be done.

The FA won't undermine the ref and reverse the decision which is why there is no point.

I can see why the ref gave it at the time, many others would have done the same. Yes it was the wrong decision but c'est la vie.

The FA have never backed us on anything before and I'd be very surprised if they started now.

I understand that but you still cant blame Humphreys for wanting justice.

They rescinded a red card given too a west brom player last monday when they appealed.

I'm fully aware they have rescinded red cards in the past but thanks.

Of course I don't but I still think we'd be better concentrating our energies on other things.

Having said that the official site says it'll be a 3 match ban, thought that was just for violent conduct which this wasn't. MadJohn?

Yet despite you being aware of that you said...

The FA won't undermine the ref and reverse the decision which is why there is no point.

Yet they did only 7 days ago.

The referee wasn't sure about the decision, it took four to five minutes for him to make it and he's actually told Sam Collins he was going to make another one. That should be grounds for appeal alone.

The problem with that PJ is proving it...

Well I can prove it took four to five minutes to make the decision.

They should also complain to the FA about the game last 5 to 6 minutes less than it should of, that wouldn't happen on a Sunday morning. It's evidence that the official was not up to the standard he should have been and may give the appeal more legs.

Very true

Ritchie's red card should be rescinded, their goalie should get a red card for a two footed tackle and we should get an explanation why we didn't get a penalty for that tackle on Ritchie and a further explanation why we didn't get at least nine minutes of extra time and a further explanation as to why no sanctions were taken against their bench for the abuse Ritchie got as he walked off and a further explanation why we were blessed with officials who shouldn't be officiating at this level.
And Chip should get his card wiped out.

Whadya mean I'm biased.....................don't be silly.

I've just watched it about 10 times after it was on Look North, the keepers challenge was poor. Ritchie went for the ball the keeper lacked bravery and went feet first, his trailing leg was also high. Had he went how a goalkeeper normally would with his hands and body I think Humps might even even got to ball first and scored.

Ritchie is very lucky to come out of that without a broken leg himself. Thankfully the keeper hasn't broken anything but it would have been his own fault if he had, it was a cowards challenge.

I have just watched it ten times, pausing it and slowing it down.

Hopefully Pools appeal has similar footage and doesn't rely on a single still photo.

You could tell he was gutted by his face, but you say his studs were raised but he was actually shaping to shoot, if you see the moving footage you can see this. As they are just out to collide the keeper turns his head away and lunges with both feet off the ground, had he not done that Humphreys would have without doubt got a telling touch on the ball. One player was busting to get the ball one was a bit reckless and could have been braver. As a goalkeeper he should have been going with his hands and body, not his legs.

It has nothing to do with who it is, I'd be defending any Pools player in this situation.

He didn't even injure his leading leg the ball was on the keepers right hand side, he hurt his left leg. His leading leg was about shin high.

The keepers challenge was the poorer of the two and contributed to the injury, I understand you are right and everyone else is wrong so I won't peruse the matter any further

So we now are down to judging the whole incident based on a photograph in the mail.
How bloody damned sensible of us.
Have you sent the photo into the FA, Chip..............just so that you are right like.........

well i've watched it several times and both people went for the ball with 2 feet. Neither (or both )should have been punished as they pretty much did the exact same challenge on each other.

If that is the footage the appeal board look at then his card should be rescinded.

Completely 50-50, the keeper came off worst, hard luck.

Let's hope they struggle to get a copy of tonight's Mail.

Picture on back of Mail makes it look like there keeper went in side on and not two footed at all??

Anyway wasnt it Nardiello or that striker from Watford (Henderson?) who did similar and you all slated him?

Pretty conclusively proves that we 'all slated him' IMO.

My point was aimed at Tree's wholly innacurate assesment to the Bunker's reaction of Nardiello's sending off.

Is Mattyrobsonschin really Nardiello cos the majority of the slating on that thread was directed at him

I think Pools would be foolish to appeal. Judging by that footage, Humphreys went in with both feet and with studs showing. The goalie went in sidewards to gather the ball.

If this appeal does go ahead then I expect an additional punishment.

to me it was just a 50/50 ball which both players fully committed to
I think if the challenge had been with a defender and not the keeper, it would have been a yellow card at worst.
in no way did it look like Humphreys was doing anything other than going for a loose ball.

Mr I Is anti-humphreys, he was always going to agree it was a red card

In this instance I would have said the same irespective of the playe involved. You go in two footed against the goalkeeper with you studs showing and you are always going to be off the field.

But it's a still photo Chip taken prior to the players coming in to contact.

You can't say that just after Reid took that pic Humps changed the direction his feet were facing.

Huddlestone of Spurs stamped on a Bolton player at the weekend if the picture had been taken with his foot in one position, you could claim accidental but TV proves Huddlestone changed the position of his foot and the stamp looks intentional after that.

Now Im not saying Humps has changed the position of his foot but I am saying you don't know if he did shortly after that pic was taken.

And regardless the mail want shagging for printing it. They should have lost it. IMHO.

You think the FA are going to use a picture from Hartlepool Mail as part of this appeal?

No I'm not saying that I just saying it may have been best not to use it just an opinion mate. I very much doubt they would use still pictures for anything, freezing video's they may do so can look at things frame by frame but still pictures no.

So if you know they won't use it for the appeal why do they want shagging for printing it?

Appeal rejected.

Didn't see that coming.

It's utterly ridiculous that you get the same ban for a tackle like that one as you do for headbutting someone.

I blame the Mail for printing the picture of the tackle.

Reid out