On social media has been charged with gross misconduct.

But he can play tomorrow, will Mike play him. Don't think he will.

According to the ‘Gus , still awaiting ref’s report and Inniss sent off for “ intent “. What the hell offence is that? Must have been sent off for violent conduct surely, how do you prove intent to bite? All very strange or badly interpreted/reported.

I always thought gross misconduct was a term in employment law and in football it was just misconduct.

At the risk of talking bollocks, I suggest that the special disciplinary rules which allow most offences to be punished within the EFL Trophy and not apply to the league need a definition of the worst offences such as biting which are not excused sanction in the league. Gross misconduct may the the name for that.

I'm thinking plain misconduct would override the competition rules, just thinking if it's "on social media" with the wrong wording, it's less likely to be true - yet.

Any news? Had until 6o'clock this evening to put in any evidence.

Still no news?

G Guest wrote:At the risk of talking bollocks, I suggest that the special disciplinary rules which allow most offences to be punished within the EFL Trophy and not apply to the league need a definition of the worst offences such as biting which are not excused sanction in the league. Gross misconduct may the the name for that.

Guessing it's gross misconduct because it's an (alleged) attack which can't in any way be justified within the parameters of the laws of the game in the way, say, a leg break due to a tackle could be. Usual FA (or FAW, whoever is doing this for us nowadays) disciplinary hearing stuff but bigger punishments.

IIRC stuff like shoving officials comes under this too. It will be a big deal and around 8 matches, I'm expecting.

In two biting cases involving a couple of players we are familiar with the charge was plain misconduct and the bans were eight and ten games.

I suspect "gross" would kick in if a club then fired a player, but that would be Palace's concern IF he is found guilty.

George Street-Bridge wrote:In two biting cases involving a couple of players we are familiar with the charge was plain misconduct and the bans were eight and ten games.

I suspect "gross" would kick in if a club then fired a player, but that would be Palace's concern IF he is found guilty.

That's an interesting point. Who is the employer of a player who is on loan, especially if the club taking the player is also paying wages? To be clear I don't know.

Beechwood Boy wrote:Any news? Had until 6o'clock this evening to put in any evidence.

.
Given that was the case, does anyone know why we are yet to hear anything? Has the hearing been held yet, or a date set? As of this moment is he eligible for selection Sat?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:In two biting cases involving a couple of players we are familiar with the charge was plain misconduct and the bans were eight and ten games.

I suspect "gross" would kick in if a club then fired a player, but that would be Palace's concern IF he is found guilty.

That's an interesting point. Who is the employer of a player who is on loan, especially if the club taking the player is also paying wages? To be clear I don't know.

The player is employed by both clubs on different contracts.

Apparently we’ve appealed this charge and should hear something this afternoon ....
Admittedly that’s from the ‘Gus so you might want to take it with a pinch of salt

Just confirmed suspended for 5 matches.