McManaman will not be banned for his tackle on Haidara. please log in to view this image I rarely understand the FA's decisions and ignorance to clear problems in the game but I don't even know where to start with this, there's not a single reason I can see for this not being a retrospective ban for 3 games minimum. Even if Haidara hadn't got the ball his foot was going over the top of it and whilst he might not have intended to hurt the guy it's an atrocious challenge.
Edit: Apparently they're saying they can't take action as one of the officials said they saw the incident. Well clearly they didn't have a good view of it and how the **** can they continue to hide behind such a ridiculous rule that allows the rest of the rule book to be totally disregarded in an attempt to protect the officials. Idiots!
Just read it on the BBC we site, utterly pathetic response. I guess Haidara will just have to take the law into his own hands.
Whilst I accept that it may not have been intentional, it is however reckless and dangerous. It seems a nonsense that no retrospective punishment can be meted out. This stupid rule has to change, or at least become more flexible.
But it's not to protect the officials it is to avoid second-guessing all their decisions. I actually agree with the FIFA stance on this - the decision of the referee is final
It's not second guessing though, it's retrospectively punishing serious foul play. The referee's decision isn't final anyway, otherwise we wouldn't have been able to successfully appeal Huddlestone's red card against Norwich at the start of the season and in this case the ref didn't see it, it's the 4th official who saw it. Even if you count the 4th official as the same as a ref, he was 30 yards away, couldn't see the actual contact and would've assumed the ref had a better view of the incident to make a decision as he had no way of knowing Halsey's view was blocked. I don't think anyone believes that the 4th official has a good enough view of the incident and assumes he needs to make the ref aware of something he missed, which means the ruling that there can be no further action because the 4th official saw it a farce. If referee's decisions can be contradicted with successful appeals then there's no reason that bad challenges like that can not similarly be assesed retrospectively whether it's by the referee or or the FA's disciplinary panel. The referee's decision is final on the pitch during the game but it's not after the game where a serious decision like a red card issued can be appealed so there's no reason that shouldn't apply to the very worst challenges that have gone unpunished. It is clearly an attempt to protect the refs and it's clearly wrong to. Refs only get to see things wrong so to allow them to let play go on if they are not 100% sure, knowing that it can be retrospectively punished actually appreciates their position and helps them.
This is where video replays are needed as the ref says he never saw the incident, but the game was stopped anyway for the injury. So like rugby, he speaks to an assistant who watches the incident, confirms its a red card. Takes 10-20 seconds. Football needs to stop being scared of technology.
Could the ref not look at the footage and then say "actually, yeah, thats a red". Then it would still be the refs decision.
If only a ballboy had pretended to be kicked in the midriff by a Wigan player, that would have been sufficient for a 3 match ban for violent conduct.....
The thing is this could happen. It wouldn't be the first time vigilantism has taken place in football for what footballers deem to be out of their hands. Roy Keane being a classic example
YV - excellent argument. I had listened to the FA guy yesterday go on about "re-refereeing" (which is what they call it believe it or not), but as you rightly point out, rescinding a red card is actually doing that!
The big "if" is if McManaman had badly injured Haidara to the extent that he had to miss a large part of the season or even career ending would the FA had acted differently? If no action the perhaps legal preceedings from Newcastle and the player. Its happened before.
That's the thing though it shouldn't have to get to the stage of Roy Keane or Ben Thatcher for the authorities to act. The aim is or should be to prevent serious injury and be proactive rather than reactive. If it takes a player ending up on crutches or worse, a wheelchair, then the game has failed the player himself, football and more importantly society.
DL that is exactly the point of the OP is shouldn't have to get that far. The FA needs to show some backbone and say yes the match officials saw it,but we feel that more action is necessary. Even if it means undermining the lack of action by the ref.
I agree, refs are human I'm not sure why the FA are so against just coming out and saying "the referee got on this occasion". More communication between the FA and fans would lead to less anger, but it's this "pulling the wool over eyes" attempt that winds people up.
But all quasi-legal systems make it easier to undo wrongful punishment than to retrospectively add punishment and the red card can only be rescinded if the referee says he made a mistake as far as I am aware. Why should foul play be treated differently to other mistakes - should the FA be allowed to add a couple of goals if they were wrongly disallowed?
Listened to the guy on Talk Sport last night from the FA who explained the process and reasoning and why they didn't want to re-ref etc. All made a lot of sense and for once Durham couldn't find a lot to say in response. However it raised 3 issues with me: - - What is the difference with this and rescinding a red card??? - surely that's just as much about re-reffing. Arguably more so as the ref has actually made a decision to send off a player where as in this case he didn't even see the incident. - If the 4th official saw it clearly, why hasn't he told the ref it's a red?? - If the 4th official didn't see it clearly enough, how can the fa hide behind the 're-reffing' argument?? Once again the FA shower themselves in glory.
