Benwell Lad Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Rules and laws have to be applied fairly and uniformly otherwise they are not rules and laws. Commendable as it may be to have offences retrospectively punished when evidence is provided, unless the same rule applies to all cases it is farcical justice. It would seem that certain incidents and certain teams are picked on by the TV and media kangaroo courts while others are allowed to escape without mention. If this form of justice is to prevail then it must be applied evenly and that means the FA would have to scrutinise every game for evidence of offences which go un-noticed and not just rely on pundits and journalists to cherry pick incidents involving their least favourite teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Lol Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Totally agree but it will never happen. Fergie wouldn't allow it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 "I'm never going to talk to the press again!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 What Id say is that a player shouldn't be punished retrospectively unless it's 100 per cent clear he's guilty. I don't think that's the case with Williamson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Who is escaping? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Totally correct, I've been saying for ages that we need a weekly video panel to review every single game for diving and cheating. No idea why the FA are so reluctant to implement it. It does seem they are going on what gets most press attention at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Totally correct, I've been saying for ages that we need a weekly video panel to review every single game for diving and cheating. No idea why the FA are so reluctant to implement it. It does seem they are going on what gets most press attention at the moment. really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Totally correct, I've been saying for ages that we need a weekly video panel to review every single game for diving and cheating. No idea why the FA are so reluctant to implement it. It does seem they are going on what gets most press attention at the moment. really? Well I know the reasons that are talked about - frightened of Fergie and chums etc etc - but I don't see why that should be the case. If anything you would think that the busybodies at the FA would be keen to assert their authority. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 This big club thing is bit shite imo the reason they dont get done is much because in most games they do most of the attacking & have more possession. It is no surprise Williamson & Colo got done in game we were blitzed by Bolton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 It does seem to me that the media get on their high horse about certain incidents and highlight them to such an extent that they cannot be ignored whilst other incidents escape notice. I'd like to think that the disciplinary body are reviewing every game for such cases rather than just reacting to the ones that the media express outage to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 It does seem to me that the media get on their high horse about certain incidents and highlight them to such an extent that they cannot be ignored whilst other incidents escape notice. I'd like to think that the disciplinary body are reviewing every game for such cases rather than just reacting to the ones that the media express outage to. Do they have a process to do that though? I didn't think they did... it all seems too random for that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 It does seem to me that the media get on their high horse about certain incidents and highlight them to such an extent that they cannot be ignored whilst other incidents escape notice. I'd like to think that the disciplinary body are reviewing every game for such cases rather than just reacting to the ones that the media express outage to. seems a bit harsh though that in the championship a team might lose a player for three games because the game was on sky and hence more cameras when an identical occasionis missed if the game just have highlights coverage and hence fewer cameras. also is this going to be for every possible disciplinary incident if so we are going to need much much bigger squads to cope with all the suspensions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 That is the FAs current 'process' though - watch who the BBC or Sky whinge about and charge them unless they (a) are one of the 'big 4' or (b) excessively rich. It's the inconsistency that's pissing me off though. The rule of retrospective punishment has been unofficially changed by the FA this season to be ruled out if the ref says that he saw the incident but didn't think it was worth punishment (DeJong) when we've been told for years that it was introduced as a back up if the referee missed something untoward or gave an incorrect red card. At the weekend the ref obviously saw something, not unlike Bedtner's foul on Williamson a couple of weeks back, as he decided to have a bit of a word with the player. But then the FA step in and decide to review it? And let's face it - Howard Fucking Webb being given an opportunity to punish us yet again. The cunt isn't going to pass that up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 This is the document about their processes: http://thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/DisciplinaryProcess_2006.ashx/DisciplinaryProcess_2006.pdf Haven't read it yet like! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider Jerusalem Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 From the document - "Applies to the more serious sending-off offences (violent conduct, serious foul play, spitting, offensive/insulting/abusive language or behaviour) where the match officials did not see the incident. The purpose is to put the player in the same position as if the incident had been seen by the match officials. The Compliance Department is guided by the referee’s view of whether the incident merited a dismissal." Or in other words 'Admitting thier incompetence or bias' which they are always going to do - re Rob Styles vs Habib Beye. Or Howard Fucking Webb having a word with Williamson, so he had seen something he wanted to talk to him about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 It's a bit of a piss-take that they are able to rely on video replays when determining retrospective bans but they refuse to entertain their use for decisions during the game... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I guess that process is fair enough, but I want to know how they realise an incident would have been dealt with 'if seen by the match officials'. Do they routinely review the footage of every game, or do they rely on TV pundits? If the latter, then it's a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Totally correct, I've been saying for ages that we need a weekly video panel to review every single game for diving and cheating. That's the only way to deal with cheating, diving and all round petty behaviour. 3 match bans need to be dished out for thing to get better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I guess that process is fair enough, but I want to know how they realise an incident would have been dealt with 'if seen by the match officials'. Do they routinely review the footage of every game, or do they rely on TV pundits? If the latter, then it's a joke. I'm with you, I'd like this to be cleared up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Incidents not seen by the match officials but caught on video How it works Applies to the more serious sending-off offences (violent conduct, serious foul play, spitting, offensive/insulting/abusive language or behaviour) where the match officials did not see the incident. The purpose is to put the player in the same position as if the incident had been seen by the match officials. The Compliance Department is guided by the referee’s view of whether the incident merited a dismissal. The processes mirror the timings and sanctions that would apply had any of the match officials seen the incident and the referee then sent the player off. A charge must be issued within two working days of the incident, with a response due from the club within one day of receipt of the charge. When a charge is issued, a set penalty is offered (eg. three matches for violent conduct). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Only semi-answers your question though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Only semi-answers your question though. Plus they change the rules when it suits them anyway e.g. Ben Thatcher. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfella Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 Totally agree with the OP. The Williamson incident was hardly mentioned until Sunday morning when Chris fuckin Kamara decided to get on his high horse about it. As we all know, the pundits on all channels range from the shockingly lame (i.e Kamara), to the ridiculously biased (anyone hear Kevin Phillips in last nights makem match?) The only way the use of video evidence will ever be fair, is if there is an independent panel (much like the pools panel) scrutinising the unedited foootage from all the cameras of every game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 I've no gripe with the rules the FA put in place, it's the non uniform application of them which makes the whole thing farcical. At the moment there is no uniformity whatsoever, as we ourselves have seen this season and it seems to be left to TV studio sofa warmers to highlight who the FA should consider charging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted November 23, 2010 Share Posted November 23, 2010 It's a bit of a piss-take that they are able to rely on video replays when determining retrospective bans but they refuse to entertain their use for decisions during the game... Absolutely ridiculous. But I suppose this is the Football Association we're talking about after all...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now