Mental. Absoloutely Mental!

[lennypops]

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systems make it easier to undo wrongful punishment than to retrospectively add punishment and the red card can only be rescinded if the referee says he made a mistake as far as I am aware.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?

No. But that does not imply that serious foul play and violent attacks should not be punished. Here is a situation where you can rectify a wrong. Arguments that come down to "Well if you can't correct all mistakes (e.g. wrongly disallowed goals) then you should correct none of them" are totally wrong-headed.

When the FA has the opportunity to enhance and improve the refereeing of the game it should be taken. More common sense, more likelihood that cheating can be dealt with retrospectively will not undermine officiating of games but enhance it.

Won't refs have an easier time of it if players knew that pulling the wool over the ref's eyes by diving or elbowing someone when the ref can't see WILL get caught later on?

If I were a ref I would love to know that there was this mechanism whereby players could be punished retrospectively - less benefit to them in trying to trick me or do stuff I can't see.

The whole "undermining the ref's authority" argument seems to take a rather 19th century idea of authority. Authority should not be mutually exclusive with the ability to correct mistakes - to increase accuracy and improve outcomes.

 

[PowerSpurs]

No. But that does not imply that serious foul play and violent attacks should not be punished. Here is a situation where you can rectify a wrong. Arguments that come down to "Well if you can't correct all mistakes (e.g. wrongly disallowed goals) then you should correct none of them" are totally wrong-headed.

When the FA has the opportunity to enhance and improve the refereeing of the game it should be taken. More common sense, more likelihood that cheating can be dealt with retrospectively will not undermine officiating of games but enhance it.

Won't refs have an easier time of it if players knew that pulling the wool over the ref's eyes by diving or elbowing someone when the ref can't see WILL get caught later on?

If I were a ref I would love to know that there was this mechanism whereby players could be punished retrospectively - less benefit to them in trying to trick me or do stuff I can't see.

The whole "undermining the ref's authority" argument seems to take a rather 19th century idea of authority. Authority should not be mutually exclusive with the ability to correct mistakes - to increase accuracy and improve outcomes.

Actually Lenny, I wholly agree - but FIFA's long-standing view that mistakes shouldn't be corrected, only omissions (ie things the ref didn't see) is not completely ridiculous as some posters seem to think.

 

[No Kane No Gain]

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?

That's altering the game retrospectively which is obviously unworkable and ridiculous. With fouls that warrant a ban and go unpunished at the time it's a case of lessening the mistake, just like rescinding red cards less than trying to make any kind of amends to the result of the game. Again it's not about punishing poor refereeing decisions, they are what they are and you can't start adjusting the outcomes of games after the full time whistle. What you can do is recognise that referees only get one look at a situation and rescind/apply bans to reflect the rules of the game. The funny thing is, I'm sure there will be lessons taken from this and not many are blaming the officials so it wouldn't be undermining them in anyway.

Actually Lenny, I wholly agree - but FIFA's long-standing view that mistakes shouldn't be corrected, only omissions (ie things the ref didn't see) is not completely ridiculous as some posters seem to think.

It is mad to have one rule about an official seeing an incident to automatically overrule anyother in the game no matter how serious the incident.

When the FA chose to tenuously apply a principle like games not being re-reffed over punishing dangerous play on the field it's clear they've lost the plot. Even Blatter, who was against goal line technology on the principal that the game should be able to be played at all levels in the sameway, has realised that clininging to these principals can be to the detriment of the game.

 

[Spur of the Moment]

Rugby Union, for all it's staid and conservative roots, has shown the way. Video replays for try's and post match retrospective punishments have been working well for years now - but there again, there always has been a totally different treatment of officialdom from players.
It is pure pomposity that football authorities the world over believe that to innovate is to denigrate!!!

 

[NSIS]

When all the hypothesising etc is done, it comes down to, does the player deserve to be punished for what he did? The answer is clearly, yes. He wasn't, and that means something is wrong and should be corrected.

 

[notsosmartspur]

Dave Whelan hasn't endeared himself to anyone with his view, coming from an era when it was only considered a 'bad' tackle if the fibula was poking out of a sock, its not that suprising.

For the Chelsea fan, a lot of if's on your 4th official comments, I can tell you a definite, in most cases they're furthest away, unless it happens in front of the dugout, he won't be better placed than the other 3.