Digne ban downgraded to one game

Why Dermot Gallagher is allowed to comment on his ex colleagues is beyond me.

The FA need to have more control over the media and sleazy agents.

They must have done some odd deal.

The FA “Look you lot, you need a suspension, you're a bunch of hackers...we need blood for all the ‘cryarsing' teams in the league.

Us “How about one game?”

The FA “Sure that works for us. Deal”

So for me, it was a yellow no more, so as a second yellow, then a ban fir 1 game makes sense.

I thought the ref should have used better judgment on the day. He should have took Digne to one side and given him a very stern warning and a yellow, like in the good old days. The fact that Walker-Peters screamed and was play-acting like his career was over definitely sold the referee down the river .

Coupled with the reaction of Walker Peters, who carried on as if nothing had happened, such was the non-severity of the accidental collision. If he had sustained what he made it out to be, he would have been out of the game for several weeks.

If I had an understudy like his, I would not want to give him too many opportunities either

I don't understand the rational either but welcome the outcome. After retrospective action against Nissse for example I was half expecting them to double the ban

At Christmas if you are top you get given the easiest schedule etc. easy draws in the early rounds of the cup.

The brochure is a good read. It's pays to be top.

Edit: Or at least I would do had James not subsequently made the following post!

Good on Carlo for getting in their ears after the game, just like another certain club, not too far away.

If picked Newcastle will a good test for Nkounkou hopefully.

He must have been sent off for violent conduct, then downgraded to a professional foul.

Although I don't see how as it wouldn't meet the criteria of a professional foul.

Lucas Digne will now be fined by the FA.

If I were to get sent off in my local league, I would face a £55 fine.

As Lucas Digne is a Premiership player, he gets fined. £55.

Surely the FA could review this, fine top flight players more for red and yellow cards and pump it back into grassroots football.

Regards the laws of the game and VAR, then I'm not too sure any more, as every games having a different stance, and translation of what is or isn5 breaking the rules.

I don't recall the use of VAR, on this incident and just like the RS, game, they failed to use it against Sanecand Robertson.

God knows what could happen at Newcastle.

Footballs a simple game but now the rules as applied are becoming ridiculous, to contempt of the laws.

Does any body think the referees and their governing bodies, are tested and accredited on the rules of the game in the EPL?

Myself, I don't think so.

Still for EFC to show bounce back ability at The Toon.

Surely DCL, won't be isolation for this game, and lessons will be learnt for the manager, coaches and players.

Let's hope so.

We didn't contest the red card only the excessive nature of the punishment. Arguing what he'd been sent off for and the ban weren't commensurate with each other.

Looks like a smart move from us to allow the FA to show some leniency without quashing the authority of the original decision. I believe if we'd contested the card, it would have been upheld. Both the referee and VAR agreed it would be extremely rare to overturn a call unless it was completely in error.

I'm not defending the ref but that kinda makes sense if the rules of a red is as some say...

If it's not a three match ban then they've decided that it wasn't reckless or violent.

But it's still a red card and one match ban? What for? Have they downgraded it to a professional foul with 4 covering players?

This is a half pregnant type answer.

I get that we specifically appealed the punishment, but the panel reviewed the tackle right? And they decided it didn't warrant a 3 game ban. If it didn't warrant a 3 game ban then it didn't warrant a 1 game ban.

But - I'll take the 1 match ban as others have on this thread as a sign that Everton is not beyond receiving some fair(ish) treatment. It is recognition that Kevin Friend was too hasty in his decision.

Although Everton players should have realised by now that tackling players from behind is an instant free kick and in many cases a yellow card. So it is time Everton players stopped the madness of tackling from behind, that may lead to a serious injury.

Bill I might misunderstand you but the referee didn't give the three match ban.

For it not to be rescinded is a complete farce considering Son's challenge on Gomes was reckless, high and dangerous. Reminds me of when Niasse got punished for simulation and no-one else gets done. Absolute joke.

Yet people are still venting about it. Enough already.

However the actual contact from Digne was worse than Son's on Gomes. The damage was done in the Gomes tackle by the way he landed.. it was a freak.

Anyway.. I've no idea whether Digne was deliberate or not, only the man himself knows. But given the benefit of the doubt, one game ban seems a fair result.

Digne doesn't break stride. He doesn't stretch in order to stamp on Walker-Peters, he just carry's on running. No malice whatsoever. No attempt to kick, trip or injure Walker-Peters.

Looked much worse than it was and made to look worse due to the ‘performance' by Walker-Peters, who's interpretation of a fatally wounded soldier in a second-rate B-movie was worthy of a BAFTA at least.

Whilst I rather agree with Mike Gaynes when he laments the reference to the Son tackle on Gomes, for me the fact is the only one on this thread who has called it right is Ciaràn McGlone #67.

First thing I did after the game was watch the Son tackle in slow motion. It wasn't high (toe height), didn't look malicious or premeditated. As Ciaran said, the fall caused the damage and maybe the collision with Aurier.

Digne's foot rakes the Achilles tendon of Walker-Peters above the ankle, and though not intended, could easily have caused a long-term injury.

Imagine that tackle on an Everton player, resulting in injury. We would have wanted a six-match ban at least!

Friend wasn't "looking" to punish us, he just called it as he saw it. A one-match ban is a good outcome.

Gomes caught Son's face with his arm and Son was angered by that. You could quite clearly see the look of anger on his face when he then went for Gomes. Freak or not, Son had lost his temper and went for Gomes.

With regard to the conspiracy paranoia. We'd gladly drop that if only everyone wasn't out to get us. :-)

Tossers!

Nothing to see here.

It was an accidental clash and so straight yellow! No immediate ban but watch out for the accumulation of yellows!

I appreciate the need for due care but when players go down pretending to have been kicked in the head when in fact it was hit by the ball it really does make one sceptical about every apparent injury.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an eminently suitable parable for todays game.

I never said that the referee advised a 3-match ban.

After a game the referees report goes to the FA and they decide under the laws of the game on the outcome of yellow cards, or red cards and any other infractions occurring before, during or after the game.

The laws stated are:

(a) If a player is sent off for a professional foul (eg, holding a player back when through on goal or a second bookable offense), they will be handed a one-match ban.

(b) Straight red cards for dissent will result in a two-match ban while dangerous tackles or violent conduct will result in a 3-match ban which can be raised to four or more games in extreme cases.

(c) Incidents of racism will certainly result in a ban longer than three-games while a red card for spitting triggers an automatic 6- match ban.

To me the FA disciplinary committee after receiving the referee's report and at Everton's request have examined the incident have decided that this was in a grey area between (a) and (b) and a one-match ban was sufficient. Referee's don't ban players on the next game or games the FA disciplinary committee decide on that.

The relevance of the Son tackle is whether it was deliberate, which it patently was. The injury caused should not be relevant to the referees because there is no consistent cause and effect for these challenges. In some ways, it could be said to be always reckless to deliberately trip a player in full flow because you just have no way of knowing how they may fall and injure themselves.

With Digne's challenge, the issues are was it deliberate or not, and if deliberate did he rake the calf or Achilles?

I never thought Son intended the injury that resulted from his challenge (whether his kick made the damage or not) but did think it was deliberate and so could be assessed as reckless.

I don't think you could in any way downgrade Digne's punishment unless there was sufficient doubt that it was a deliberate challenge. If it was accidental, then it can't deserve worse than Son's deliberate foul, but somehow only one player was completely exonerated.