http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22653484 I do agree with the concern that officials will be reluctant to give a red card but if they're not certain then they shouldn't give it anyway. Lets hope it's introduced and soon. It's nice to see the FA making a good decision
Not before time, if it happens. It might make some of the more incompetent of our officials sharpen up their act. It would be nice to know that some of the more ludicrous decisions we have seen this season, and in many seasons before, would be overturned by an F.A. panel.
I don't see any disadvantage to this. Strange coincidence that it's being brought in just after Ferguson's pissed off, though. A number of his players benefited from match officials overlooking their mistakes after being allowed to view them on video. The most glaring example was probably this: [video=youtube;o8V845zmQbQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8V845zmQbQ[/video] Our old mate Clattenburg at his finest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22653484 The photo of that tackle looks worse each time you look!, the sole of a footballers boot shouldn't be making contact above the knee, McManaman's leg is locked straight too making it even worse, no give. If that was below the knee it could've been another David Buust imo.
It would be great in principle for the FA to follow rugby's lead by having "citing commissioners", who monitor games and pick up on fouls missed by the refs after the event, but the danger in football is that the refs will be undermined further by this. We will still have the same arguments about certain clubs or players being favoured and the FA not using the powers fairly or consistently. The FA are very keen to support the officials so they won't welcome complaints that it has been shown that ref X failed to spot the foul on player Y at the time and had he done so, it would have had an effect on the outcome of the game. So I suspect any retrospective powers will be used very sparingly (when they can't deny the obvious) and we will all have to continue to accept the lie that the officials on the pitch do a great job.
Yes, but that's exactly the problem for them. The F.A. Have realised that the cameras are everywhere, and show every incident from every possible angle. There is no denying the obvious anymore. So, I feel that they are very reluctantly bowing to the inevitable.
Nothing will change Whether it's corrupt Richard Scudamore forcing ill Spurs players to face West Ham because David Dein is his friend or corrupt Howard Webb allowing Balotelli's foul on Parker or sending Adebayor off for trying to win the ball, this is only meant to benefit Man U, Man C, Chelsea and Arsenal
Disagree. For the reasons I gave above. It is next to impossible to deny what the entire world can see - and from several different angles. I don't doubt that the F.A. would have been more than happy with the status quo, but modern technology has forced their hand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23292735 The pigeon steps towards sensible new rules have begun. There's still plenty of leeway for the likes of Clattenburg to cheat and say Rooney assaulting another player didn't deserve a red card, of course, but we'll get a better idea of who the most honest refs are with this.
This is good news, it could mean that dirty players like Charlie Adam and Suarez get more deserved bans for the many career threatening tackles they make. Sewerez in particular has got away with at least 5 red card tackles, through a combination of inept refereeing and constantly giving Liverpool players the benefit of doubt.
Although you are implying an anti-Spurs conspiracy (you aren't the only club that's been hard done by, see Rule E20 Blackpool/Wolves) I get the gist of what you are saying and partially agree. Although its a good initiative (principally), it still gives scope for overt partiality. We will still probably see Ivanovic banned for 3 matches for the same thing Rooney/Gerrard escape bans for.
Well that optimism was short lived. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24355751 Basically the amendment means that when a referee doesn't see an incident and the other officials are a long way away then they can take retrospective action. However, if a ref sees any of an incident then it cannot be retrospectively punished, even if he'd have had to have x-ray glasses to see it and it's an incident they'd consider serious enough that it carries a 3 match ban minimum. As I said on the Chelsea board, I'm not particularly annoyed about Torres getting away with it. What annoys me is that it looked for a brief moment like they were actually trying to reduce the number of dangerous play and violent conduct incidents that go unpunished. Really the amendement isn't an amendment at all, just a clarification of it's already inadequate rule.
That FA decision today has to be among the worst they've come up with ever - and that is a prestigious list indeed! To say that the incident was all part of the original coming together so cannot be retrospectively punished is nothing short of cowardice. Clearly (and this is accepting that there should not be retrospective punishment in general, when I think there should), it would be easy to interpret the gouging as a separate incident, particularly as they accept that it was not seen by the officials. Sounds far more like an excuse for not punishing rather than a reason. Clearly a red card offence (and a particularly bad one) has been committed, and the FA have declared that such assaults are now OK providing part of the incident has been seen, even if the important bit has not. Does anyone else agree how stupid this sounds? How does this work if a lesser player than Verts goes down and rolls around the pitch screaming as I'm sure many would have? How does this work if someone does it to a Chelsea, Man City or Man Utd player? How does this work if someone does something else that was not seen, yet 'part of the original incident' - perhaps spitting at the other player or biting them? Would it have made any difference if he had drawn blood? There are just so many unanswered questions that the FA have set themselves up for, and given players the opportunity to mount a ridiculous defence 'the incident in question was actually part of an earlier incident' etc. Utterly pathetic FA. Again. So follow my logic here and tell me if I'm wrong. You can now commit any offence you want, providing that specific offence was not seen by an official at the time, even if there is clear video evidence that it happened, even if in itself it is a red card offence, *providing* something happened just before it, no matter what that was, which was seen. Is this right?
The F.A. are weak. Football is so high profile that any controversy is headline news for weeks. So they duck issues. Rugby (both codes) doesn't have these concerns and is keen to ensure that its house is in order. Such a physical sport needs its rules to be rigourously enforced. It has generated a culture where officials are respected and breaches of any rules result in severe punishments. Few games in rugby are remembered for what the ref did or didn't do. Football should take note.
Terrible decision, but had AVB spoke out strongly at the time maybe Torres wouldn't have got off. Instead he let Jose manipulate the agenda against Jan. Had the incidents been reversed then Jose would have been straight on the attack over the 'scratch 'n gouge'. As would have SAF, etc. Don't expect justice to take its course AVB, I'm afraid the 'manipulators' win time and again.
Howard Webb Chris Foy Mark Clattenberg Three very good reasons why The FA's stance on referees being infallible makes no sense.
