Retrospective inaction?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The FA has no choice if Chris Foy or any of the officials saw it and took no action at the time. They can't do anything - the FA are not to blame here.
 
tomw19 said:
The FA has no choice if Chris Foy or any of the officials saw it and took no action at the time. They can't do anything - the FA are not to blame here.
Click to expand...

Not in this case: "It follows confirmation referee Chris Foy saw at least part of the incident and acted on it during the match" (from the BBC article)
 
tomw19 said:
The FA has no choice if Chris Foy or any of the officials saw it and took no action at the time. They can't do anything - the FA are not to blame here.
Click to expand...

It's one of the strangest rules I've ever heard. I understand they're going by the book here, but it clearly needs to be rewritten. It's a blatant wrong that needs to be righted.
 
tomw19 said:
The FA has no choice if Chris Foy or any of the officials saw it and took no action at the time. They can't do anything - the FA are not to blame here.
Click to expand...

This is not true. Ben Thatcher got a yellow card for his assault on Pedro Mendes and he was retrospectively punished in addition.
 
Surely no other sport has such a bizarre rule. I know rugby players can be cited retrospectively on video evidence regardless of what action the ref takes at the time, so why don't they bring in a similar rule in football?

My feeling is that once goal line technology has shown its value, other changes will follow, and this one should be first in line. Punish diving retrospectively as well.
 
Football is a joke at times compared to other sports. As is the refereeing.
 
The skate pitch invasion was entirely the fault of the Brentford stewards and the action of someone callled Simon Moore, the blue phew were completely innocent.
 
IMO if a refs inaction over a bad tackle is because they didn't get a good look at it, there should be a way of reviewing the decision, and such a review would be an aid to the ref not a judgment against their work.

Sure the FA can't, and shouldn't, allow all of a refs decisions in a match to be reviewed, but on the fairly few occasions that very dangerous tackles go unpunished, or lightly punished, there should be some way of reviewing the decision.
 
That's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Not a case of ref's fighting against technology, but using it and being humble enough to accept that on a few occasions they would be benefit from taking a better look at an event after the match.
 
Not offended, but what's the warning for? Was trying to post on iPad but had server crash page, refreshed screen and selected yes to resubmit data. Certainly didn't plan to post the same comment (last post) 4 times. Sorry
 
tomw19 said:
The FA has no choice if Chris Foy or any of the officials saw it and took no action at the time. They can't do anything - the FA are not to blame here.
Click to expand...

Joe Steinberg said:
It's one of the strangest rules I've ever heard. I understand they're going by the book here, but it clearly needs to be rewritten. It's a blatant wrong that needs to be righted.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is a recent rule brought in so as not to undermine referees. However, what it ends up doing is seeming to hide behind a referee's decision. Whilst the FA are not to blame, one could suggest that by bringing in a poor ruling they are entirely culpable.

BTW, tomw19 is correct PSF, it is true. I think the rule came in this season, hence why Ben Thatcher was punished several seasons ago. Look it up if you need confirmation.
 
The law is certainly an ass in this case - surely the FA must be cringing at their own self-inflicted impotence in these cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back