A well-known former referees chief has offered clarity over what is likely to happen if Coventry City are to submit an appeal over a Di’Shon Bernard challenge in the FA Cup replay clash between the two sides on Tuesday evening.
Following Jamie Allen’s reported departure from the stadium in an ambulance due to a depressed fracture of his cheekbone, Sky Blues manager Mark Robins became enraged at what he perceived to be a “deliberate” attempt to “leave one on” his midfield player. The former Owls player Robins pushed the authorities to take action, indicating that his team will file an appeal in the hopes of having Bernard ‘cited’ and given a retroactive suspension.
The incident bears resemblance to one that occurred in February of last year at Ipswich Town during a League One match featuring Bernard’s Owls teammate Marvin Johnson. Officials on the scene determined they had not observed the incident well enough to punish the player in real time, but the Wednesday winger was later found guilty of violent behaviour for his altercation with Wes Burns, and he was banned for three matches.
Social media users have seen footage of Bernard’s interaction with Allen, which occurred that evening without any officials getting involved. It does seem to depict a late challenge. The Owls defender’s fate will depend on whether the match officials, who are led by Premier League referee Chris Kavanagh, believed they had sufficiently witnessed the coming together, assuming Coventry decides to move forward with an appeal. If not, additional video will be gathered to provide information to an impartial FA panel. If found guilty, there can be a suspension.
Former Premier League and FIFA listed referee Keith Hackett, who has also served as PGMOL president and is a recognised authority on game laws and procedures, told The Star that the outcome of the referee’s report will have a significant impact on future developments.
Reporters were informed by Robins that Kavanagh had admitted to him that he had not witnessed the incident, and that the referee had expressed his opinion that the challenge was “innocuous” at the time. According to him, there is a greater likelihood of the incident being cited if the officials indicate that they were not there during the event. The FA also has a preference to not get involved or “re-referee” instances that the officials have already handled.
Hackett declared, “That video is inconclusive in and of itself.” “We may all speculate as to what the circumstances might be. The referee is not in a position that makes him or her sellable, nor is he or she close enough to see a purported arm or elbow being deployed against an opponent. The Coventry player’s reaction, which is astonished but doesn’t exhibit any histrionics, does give cause for suspicion. He appears to be in pain, which indicates that communication has occurred.
There is, in my opinion, a considerable deal of suspicion surrounding that challenge. If Coventry files a complaint, I believe the referee will be questioned about his observations. Play continued without awarding a free kick, leaving open the possibility that he hasn’t seen it.
“The FA will look into any complaints made by Coventry. When they query the referee about his observations, they will first want to know if he has seen it. He cannot take action if he has not seen it clearly. What will be telling in this case is not the camera view that we have all seen, which is not very conclusive; rather, it’s what Coventry will produce if they make an appeal and what other camera viewpoints are available.
Most people believe that the FA is reluctant to re-officiate a football game in these circumstances. Nevertheless, if Coventry has unambiguous proof from more camera viewpoints, then that presents a problem. If it proceeds to a panel review, it does leave itself open to the FA looking at it, questioning the referee, and requesting more proof.”
If the incident is to be evaluated, it will probably be sent to a three-person, anonymous panel consisting of former managers and players, which will be led by a fourth body. Any accusation of violent behaviour would result in a minimum three-match suspension that would apply to all tournaments. Like Johnson did last season, it’s thought that Bernard, a young player with no past record for excessive foul play, would get the opportunity to appeal.
Hackett predicts a challenging result for Wednesday: “Personally, I think there is a strong chance he will be cited on this one, but a lot rides on Mark Robins, Coventry City and the officials’ view of the incident,” he stated. “As a team, they have a player with a depressed cheekbone injury, which suggests there has been contact. Suspicion of using excessive force is aroused. That is what they (the panel) are going to be searching for.
“They’ll take the Friday game into mind and handle the whole procedure very quickly. That one is intriguing. Since the damage is what it is, to be honest, I would be shocked if they did not act. However, with these things, you never know.”
Leave a Reply