An independent regulatory commission agreed with the club's appeal that the Frenchman's dismissal against Southampton on Sunday was excessive based on the nature of the challenge on Kyle Walker-Peters.
Had Digne's ban been upheld, he would have been ineligible for the upcoming fixtures against Newcastle United, Manchester United and Fulham but he will now only miss Sunday's trip to St James's Park.
Reader Comments (80)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:13:00
2 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:14:01
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.
3 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:14:31
4 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:17:35
5 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:28:03
6 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:51:05
7 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:51:57
8 Posted 27/10/2020 at 17:59:00
Its a good outcome but weird, as he wasnt going for the ball it cant be serious foul play but only violent conduct, which it wasnt.
They must have done some odd deal.
The FA “Look you lot, you need a suspension, youre 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”
9 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:08:21
So for me, it was a yellow no more, so as a second yellow, then a ban fir 1 game makes sense.
10 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:11:05
11 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:12:09
However, some animals are more equal than others ( apologies to George Orwell ).
My long held view has been that our team will have to be great in order to gain victories against the self styled elite, the officials and the various media streams because they are resistant to change and do not want a new world order. The media fall out following the derby, I feel, underlines this view. COYB.
12 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:13:35
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 .
13 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:13:46
14 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:15:14
15 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:28:16
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.
16 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:33:43
If I had an understudy like his, I would not want to give him too many opportunities either
17 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:33:47
18 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:35:54
19 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:48:15
I dont understand the rational either but welcome the outcome. After retrospective action against Nissse for example I was half expecting them to double the ban
20 Posted 27/10/2020 at 18:51:53
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. Its pays to be top.
21 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:01:58
22 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:05:53
23 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:05:54
24 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:16:49
25 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:19:00
when the time comes.
Meanwhile back at the ranch Gordon has to start now.
26 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:19:38
27 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:20:50
Edit: Or at least I would do had James not subsequently made the following post!
28 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:21:32
29 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:22:50
Good on Carlo for getting in their ears after the game, just like another certain club, not too far away.
30 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:24:25
31 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:24:33
Either it is nothing, a yellow or a straight red. If its the first two then there should be no ban. Like Son.
Very odd indeed. I can imagine someone getting in the ear of the decision making body agitating against us as usual.
32 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:29:52
33 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:31:59
34 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:34:10
Totally unintentional and Digne should not have been banned for any games.
Anyone know who was on the panel ?
If picked Newcastle will a good test for Nkounkou hopefully.
35 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:36:31
36 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:36:39
He must have been sent off for violent conduct, then downgraded to a professional foul.
Although I dont see how as it wouldnt meet the criteria of a professional foul.
37 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:42:39
38 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:42:48
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.
39 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:52:54
Regards the laws of the game and VAR, then Im not too sure any more, as every games having a different stance, and translation of what is or isn5 breaking the rules.
I dont 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 dont think so.
Still for EFC to show bounce back ability at The Toon.
Surely DCL, wont be isolation for this game, and lessons will be learnt for the manager, coaches and players.
Lets hope so.
40 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:58:25
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.
41 Posted 27/10/2020 at 19:59:26
42 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:01:39
I'm not defending the ref but that kinda makes sense if the rules of a red is as some say...
43 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:03:17
44 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:13:16
45 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:14:49
46 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:18:30
47 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:50:20
I think he'd be miles better than Iwobi.
Mind you so would I!
48 Posted 27/10/2020 at 20:58:36
49 Posted 27/10/2020 at 21:07:46
50 Posted 27/10/2020 at 21:20:49
51 Posted 27/10/2020 at 21:29:13
If that was the case presented in the appeal, you can understand how we got a downgrade from 3 games to a 1 match ban. Probably fair on balance.
52 Posted 27/10/2020 at 21:30:55
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.
53 Posted 27/10/2020 at 21:34:54
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.
54 Posted 27/10/2020 at 21:38:44
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.
55 Posted 27/10/2020 at 23:34:08
56 Posted 27/10/2020 at 23:40:14
Bill I might misunderstand you but the referee didnt give the three match ban.
57 Posted 28/10/2020 at 00:18:40
58 Posted 28/10/2020 at 02:35:10
Its confusing because the straight red / 3 match ban combo is reserved for violent conduct/ reckless endangerment sort of things so by reducing the ban they are saying it wasnt as bad as the referee thought (and VAR didnt challenge him) but the red card hasnt been rescinded?
It does seem like a bit of a compromise decision but it is much better than the original 3 match ban.
59 Posted 28/10/2020 at 02:55:08
60 Posted 28/10/2020 at 03:09:44
61 Posted 28/10/2020 at 04:04:30
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.
62 Posted 28/10/2020 at 05:07:33
Yet people are still venting about it. Enough already.
63 Posted 28/10/2020 at 07:15:22
64 Posted 28/10/2020 at 07:28:45
65 Posted 28/10/2020 at 08:02:09
It was an accident but I was too close and it is my fault. Digne was at fault and he got punished. I don't blame the ref for giving it there and then but perhaps there could have been better communication between Friend and the VAR suite, a one match ban is fair.
On Digne, he has had a patchy start after a very patchy end to last season. Switches off far too often. I liked him in the back three with Neils outside .
66 Posted 28/10/2020 at 08:15:32
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.
67 Posted 28/10/2020 at 08:26:03
In the past I believe that that is what would have happened in this case, so perhaps the perception of Everton is beginning to change in the places where it matters.
As John @ (20) says, being top of the league helps.
68 Posted 28/10/2020 at 09:05:34
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.
69 Posted 28/10/2020 at 10:27:00
70 Posted 28/10/2020 at 10:31:33
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 Ciarán 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.
71 Posted 28/10/2020 at 10:45:08
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. :-)
72 Posted 28/10/2020 at 12:12:57
If a player is that injured then HSE should insist he take at least a 10 minute break to fully recover from a bashed hand and also allow the grass to recover from the smacking.
73 Posted 28/10/2020 at 12:34:23
Nothing to see here.
74 Posted 28/10/2020 at 13:16:33
Clearly the KOMMITTEE, decide it was - er neither a red nor a yellow. So now we have a white card, usually used as a SURRENDER signal. This means that the whole decision process in completely flawed because the right hand and the left hand don't know which way to turn.
It was an accidental clash and so straight yellow! No immediate ban but watch out for the accumulation of yellows!
75 Posted 28/10/2020 at 13:33:54
76 Posted 28/10/2020 at 13:39:56
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.
77 Posted 28/10/2020 at 14:20:29
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.
78 Posted 28/10/2020 at 22:48:14
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.
79 Posted 29/10/2020 at 13:57:08
80 Posted 30/10/2020 at 13:29:13
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.