Boss Roy Keane says he’s glad he’s no longer playing if Jon Stead’s tackle on Crystal Palace's Freddie Sears is worthy of a four-match ban. Stead’s appeal against his red card at Palace was rejected by an independent FA Disciplinary Commission yesterday, who added an additional fourth match to his suspension as they felt the appeal was frivolous and had no chance of success.

Keane said: “We’re obviously very disappointed. If that tackle deserves four games I’m glad I’m not playing any more.

“It was only a yellow, but that’s what happens. Steady is as honest as the day is long and I’ve seen the tackle over and over again and it’s a yellow card at the most and he ends up being out for the best part of a month.”

The Blues boss says he is as sorry for the player as he is annoyed at losing his on-form frontman at a vital stage of the season: “He didn’t even deserve a three-match ban and we’re disappointed for the player. He’s never been sent off before, but I best say no more. He’s a good striker, we’re going to miss him.”

Keane says he’s yet to analyse why the FA Commission took their decision when most observers, including Palace manager Neil Warnock, felt the decision was harsh: “We got the report last night by email, I’ve not seen it yet. No doubt the words they will use will be that we were only wasting their time, as has happened with other managers. It happened to Steve Bruce recently, it happened to Gareth Southgate last year.

“If it was a bad tackle and we did chance our arm a little I could get my head round it, but I think it’s a yellow at most and nobody’s going to change my mind on that.”

The Town manager admits that the affair will make him think twice before making similar appeals in the future and says he hasn’t had too much luck with similar significant decisions having failed to go his way both on and off the field in his time as a boss: “I’ve been a manager for 100 games at Sunderland and 20 here and I don’t remember many major decisions like that going my way and I could name a few.

“I don’t mind the referee making a wrong decision but to get an extra game on top of that, it’s lucky I’m not paranoid.”

Keane says the player is upset at missing a month’s football: “The boy’s devastated. He’s a striker in a decent bit of form. Four games is a lot. I think I got five once, but four’s a lot for that tackle.”

Stead begins his ban when the Blues travel to Blackpool for the third round FA Cup tie on Saturday.

Photo: Action Images

dobbie73 added 10:52 - Dec 31 If nothing else, Keano might do some nice dropkicks and Matrix-stylee moves on those idiots at the FA if he was up on a charge ....
0

SomershamBlue added 10:56 - Dec 31 Given the inconsistency of the FA, they will probably allow the next appeal made by another club (nomatter what the circumstances) - just to show that they are acting 'fairly'.
0

HighSeasBlue added 10:56 - Dec 31 It's a joke I can't get my head round the fact it was an unlucky sending off which the press/Warnock/Keane all beleive to be a yellow and now Stead, our only striker that knows where the goal is at the mo, is banned until Feb!!
0

Moscow_Blue added 10:58 - Dec 31 Join the campaign for us fans to appeal to a higher body to overturn this ridiculous decision - write to the Independent Football Ombudsman at Contact@theIFO.co.uk
0

Beattie_agrees added 11:00 - Dec 31 Crazy! I think the usual FA pannel must all have Christmas and the New Year off so the decision was made by the cleaning lady and the odd-job man. To add an extra game is very unfair. Clubs should be able to appeal without fear of reprisals if they feel hard done by.
0

bedsitfc added 11:07 - Dec 31 stead only played against QPR because of our appeal and scored 2 goals. i think if he hadn't of scored the ban would have been dropped
0

SomershamBlue added 11:24 - Dec 31 bedsitfc - I hope that you're wrong on that one, as it would indicate a frivilous approach by the FA.....
0

Roosta added 11:27 - Dec 31 Did he make contact with the player? Yes. Did the player admit it was a foul? Yes. Did the referee make an honest decision? Surely yes. The appeal WAS frivilous in that none of the facts were in question, it was a case of interpretation of intent. You CANNOT expect a tribunal to overrule a referee on a matter of pure interpretation, and it's typiclly arrogant of Keane to assume that they would. The ref made a mistake, get over it. This attitude from Keane is at best tiresome, at worst distracting. He should stop mouthing off at everyone and everything and do his job, and stop mouthing off like a petulant teenager.

0

ITFC1985 added 11:28 - Dec 31 I see that Swansea put their appeal to the Wales Football Association and the red card was overturned, maybe we shouldve put our appeal to the WFA, if Swansea (who play in the English League) can chose a different football association to appeal to surely any club can?
0

nobrain added 11:34 - Dec 31 Roosta - "You CANNOT expect a tribunal to overrule a referee on a matter of pure interpretation." Well, I think that you can, if his interpretation (of the rules of the game) is incorrect.
0

roytheboy added 11:37 - Dec 31 It is absolutely ridiculous that the FA (& FA in this case stands for two words that immediately spring to mind) can make such a quick decision without full consultation of respective parties, even more so that they can penalise a player or a club (or indeed us supporters) by imposing a further ban for DARING TO ASK THEM TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL !! who on earth do they think they are ? the rules and the current pathetic system must be reviewed and changed urgently. Well done Roy Keane for the fantastic way that you are turning our team's fortunes around, I always knew you would and said so many times on this site.

0

Roosta added 11:39 - Dec 31 @nobrain - that's my point, the rules of the game don't detail things such as "intent" and "severity". That comes down to the man in black on the day. If it was a matter of fact - mistaken identity or 'did he make contact' then you have half a chance with an appeal. But 'how much of a foul'? Forget it. As soon as someone from the club said "yeah, it was a yellow card" then the appeal was doomed.

0

Roosta added 11:42 - Dec 31 @ gypo - thanks for your informed and eloquent point of discussion. No, I'm not a 'Budgie', and you perhaps need to understand that someone who holds a different opinion to yourself does not automatically support 'the enemy'. Yawn.
0

nobrain added 11:50 - Dec 31 Roosta - my understanding is that the red card was shown for 'serious foul play' - as none of the other criteria for issuing a red card appear appropriate. Surely the FA can decide whether or not a specific tackle constitutes 'serious foul play''? If not, why have an appeal process? They could just state that red cards given for this reason may not be appealed.
0

Roosta added 11:52 - Dec 31 @Roy the boy - well said, while I'm not surprised the appeal was refused (and penalised), the review system clearly needs to be re-evaluated. As a minimum the clubs clearly need better guidance as to the proper usage of the appeals system as there is clearly great confusion as to how it should be employed.
0

Roosta added 11:58 - Dec 31 @nobrain - yup, clearly the appeals process is confusing for all concerned. But in this case I got back to the comments from the club that indicated the tackle might warrant a yellow card. That alone suggests that the tackle was more than an ordinary foul. Once you've conceeded it might be a yellow then you leave the door wide open for it being confirmed as red. It's arguing 'how severe' and I don't think the appeals panel would have any mechanism to judge that, so they had no grounds to change their mind, and hence no option but to call it frivilous. I don't know, but I'm looking at from the point of a car accident. As soon as you admit fault, you leave yourself wide open. If the club had said "it wasn't even a foul, let alone a yellow card and certainly never a red" then they would have a semblance of a case. Not even having that... sorry, for me it was never gonna happen. These notions from Keane that this is some kind of conspiracy though, that's what niggles at me. I just don't understand how such comments will ever help him, his players of the club, and it betrays his inexperience. He doesn't seem to learn how his 'cute soundbites' can be damaging.

0

footyblue added 11:59 - Dec 31 @roosta Jon stead made a very similar tackle in the first minute or so of the game at home to QPR on Monday but all he got was a talking to so therein lies the inconsistency of referees and the F.A. they all work in different directions, I personally dont think it warranted a yellow card lat alone a red but hey ho, But to be punished an extra game for it is ridiculous, dumbfounding even some of these old crinies that run football need to retire, and let some youth on to theses comittee's

0

nobrain added 12:09 - Dec 31 Roosta - I stand by my earlier comments. If the appeals panel has no mechnaism for judging the severity of a tackle and whether it consitutes 'serious foul play', then there should be no appeal allowed against a red card given for that reason. The very fact that they allow an appeal indicates that they are prepared to make that judgement.
0

dirtydingusmagee added 12:15 - Dec 31 Well its history now and we are down a striker who was coming good ,lets hope 2010 see.s Town have some good fortune. COYB HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL YOU TOWN SUPPORTERS,, [optimists,pessimists,whinger's, whiners,Keane in ,Keane out, shake it all about.ya,s all included]
0

Roosta added 12:21 - Dec 31 @nobrain - I think the fact that they describe the appeal as frivilous confirms my interpretation of the decision. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the point is there WERE NO GROUNDS FOR APPEAL in this instance, as none of the tangiable facts were in question. The current rules are a mess as they clearly allow clubs to appeal when there are no grounds, and that is wrong I agree. To penalise with an extra game ban because the process is unclear seems madness, I have to concede that, but again I assume the appeals panel had no choice by their own guidelines. I can't belive that the appeals panel can judge with anything other than facts, and they surely have their own process. It's not personal aginst the club (as seems to be an undercurrent of a lot of comments), and I sure that no-one really thinks it is. @footyblue - I guess the first tackle wasn't judged to have the same 'intent' or 'severity' in the referees opinion. The point I'm making is that the appeals panel can only make judgements on facts, the referee has to make an assessment on less tangiable thinks such as intent and severity. For sure he got it wrong, and yeah it's not fair. You have to assume that you win as much as you lose (has anyone here been upset if a star player wasn't playing against us because of an 'unfair' suspension?). The issue here is that the club doesn't understand the system, and that is what we should be concerned about.

0

nobrain added 12:41 - Dec 31 Roosta - I'd like to see the FA Appeals process/guidelines in order to confirm their definition of 'grounds for appeal'. I looked for it on the FA site, but couldn't find it.....
0

Roosta added 12:47 - Dec 31 nobrain - agreed, and I'd bet the club haven't seen it either! It's similar to the issues seen in cricket over the appeals / reviews over questionable decisions where England have taken about a year themselves to understand when to appeal and when not to. In this case, my assumption is that as none of the facts were in question, there were no grounds for appeal, but everyone still needs to learn the system. This concludes that the club made an appeal without understanding the process, which itself is a poor state of affairs (though not surprising...). Really we should be expecting a statement from the club secretary (whoever that is) who should understand these things inside out.

0

Dowson added 13:34 - Dec 31 join the facebook page "i hate the fa" http://www.facebook.com/pages/We-Hate-The-FA/254286115732?ref=mf&v=info#/pages/W
0

Kantalla added 14:27 - Dec 31 As a long distance supporter (New Zealand), it's really surprising to read how disorganised the disciplinary process is. The extended suspension for failing at an appeal is normal in a number of sports over here. However, that is clear in the appeal process, and you certainly wouldn't have a manager surprised by an extra game if the appeal fails. Hopefully the FA has made it clear that you cannot feasibly appeal interpretation of intangibles, if that is why they have turned down the appeal. Am I right to assume the tackle wasn't suspension worthy at all?

0

Moscow_Blue added 15:05 - Dec 31 roosta and nobrain - I suggest that you look at the FIFA website and the guidance given to referees on interpretation of Law 12. Jon Stead's tackle was "reckless" and merited a yellow card.
0

Blogs 298 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls