Jump to content

Trial by television


pinkeye

Recommended Posts

Guest Slippery Sam

This defence that they can't do anything because the referee saw it is such a load of s***. They didn't let that stop them with Ben Thatcher and once precedent has been set, they can't go back on it and keep peddling that as an excuse.

 

The FA can ask the ref to review the decision. It is then up to the ref to decide if what action he took was appropriate. This is exactly what happened in the Thatcher case you mention. So, this Rooney business absolutely stinks as, without any doubt, it is either the FA or Clattenburg being shit scared to offend Manchester United. End of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did).

 

He didn't though, and has lied to The FA.

 

The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them.

 

He hasn't lied to FA, he said that he took appropriate action based on what he saw at the time.

 

I don't think he's allowed to say "based on what I've since seen on TV I've changed my mind" is he? I thought the appropriate action thing was based on what he thought he saw at the time.

 

Yes, then The FA can judge whether the action was appropriate with the help of TV replays, with the advice of the referee I believe. The fact that he told The FA today that he felt he took the appropriate actions says to me that was some kind of review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just another case whereby the FA choose not to act because their referee saw and acted upon the incident.

 

Just goes to show how stupid a rule it is.

 

Yep, didn't the referee have a word with Barton when he punched that player in the stomach?, the FA still acted afterwards and banned him.  Just another example of them using the rules to best suit their agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did).

 

He didn't though, and has lied to The FA.

 

The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them.

 

He hasn't lied to FA, he said that he took appropriate action based on what he saw at the time.

 

I don't think he's allowed to say "based on what I've since seen on TV I've changed my mind" is he? I thought the appropriate action thing was based on what he thought he saw at the time.

 

Yes, then The FA can judge whether the action was appropriate with the help of TV replays, with the advice of the referee I believe. The fact that he told The FA today that he felt he took the appropriate actions says to me that was some kind of review.

 

I don't think the FA decide whether the action was appropriate, I thought that was down to the referee to decide, based on what he thought at the time?

 

If not then sorry, I honestly don't know the letter of the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Clattenburg he didn't have a great angle, so he could have easily said that he didn't see the elbow (which I don't think he did).

 

He didn't though, and has lied to The FA.

 

The FA can give Rooney a punishment if they really want to, but they can keep bringing out the filth that they do, to make it easy for them.

 

He hasn't lied to FA, he said that he took appropriate action based on what he saw at the time.

 

I don't think he's allowed to say "based on what I've since seen on TV I've changed my mind" is he? I thought the appropriate action thing was based on what he thought he saw at the time.

 

Yes, then The FA can judge whether the action was appropriate with the help of TV replays, with the advice of the referee I believe. The fact that he told The FA today that he felt he took the appropriate actions says to me that was some kind of review.

 

I don't think the FA decide whether the action was appropriate, I thought that was down to the referee to decide, based on what he thought at the time?

 

If not then sorry, I honestly don't know the letter of the law.

 

I think they ask the referee, then he basically 'advises' them, and they take his word when it suits them and bring out another excuse when it doesn't.

 

It's clear that the referee did not take the appropriate action and he would have known that when he spoke to The FA today, unless he lives in a cave (County Durham?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad he got off, we need to keep the big teams big and make sure the likes of manu have their best players available at all times. Tbf Manu have suffered enough this season, it would be wrong to punish them further.

 

I'm glad he got off because he's my fantasy captain and he's on a double gameweek.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Article 77 (specific jurisdiction) states: The Disciplinary Committee is responsible for

 

a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials' attention;

b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee's disciplinary decisions;

c) extending the duration of a match suspension incurred automatically by an expulsion (cf. art 18, par. 4);

d) pronouncing additional sanctions, such as a fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted JH, surely the Rooney incident would fall under that section?

 

The FA claim this as being "mistaken identity" cases only, but that is the specific wording so in reality, they could overrule any decision they state to be an "obvious error" if they wanted to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted JH, surely the Rooney incident would fall under that section?

 

The FA claim this as being "mistaken identity" cases only, but that is the specific wording so in reality, they could overrule any decision they state to be an "obvious error" if they wanted to.

 

Seems incredibly ridiculous if that is one of the main reasons the Disciplinary Committee exists and they're choosing to shy away from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples:

 

- Ben Thatcher - yellow card for challenge on Pedro Mendes - later banned for eight games.

- Saulius Mikoliunas - "dived" to win a penalty in a Euro 2008 qualifier against Scotland - penalty was given but he was later banned for two games.

- Kyle Lafferty - went down, pretending to have been headbutted by Charlie Mulgrew - Mulgrew's red card was rescinded and Lafferty was banned for two games.

- Milos Krasic - Dived to win a penalty against Bologna - was later banned for two games - "The referee made an error because of a dive by the Juventus player."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spotted JH, surely the Rooney incident would fall under that section?

 

The FA claim this as being "mistaken identity" cases only, but that is the specific wording so in reality, they could overrule any decision they state to be an "obvious error" if they wanted to.

 

Seems incredibly ridiculous if that is one of the main reasons the Disciplinary Committee exists and they're choosing to shy away from it.

 

Exactly. It's also amazing that the FA don't even draw attention to this ruling in these situations, they just refuse to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the current rule makes sense. There's a significant difference between acting on something that the ref hasn't spotted at all, and over-turning his judgement on something that he has seen. The principle of upholding the ref's decision, fallible though it may be, is very important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posthumous probably does mean after death but, I couldn't think of a word that meant after the event or something...  Did you not know what I meant?  :shifty:

 

Retrospective or Retrospectively  :pow:

 

Thanks........  logged for future usage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the current rule makes sense. There's a significant difference between acting on something that the ref hasn't spotted at all, and over-turning his judgement on something that he has seen. The principle of upholding the ref's decision, fallible though it may be, is very important.

 

You concede the fallibility inherent in the process, yet give no reason as to why you think it is important that process is maintained. Given the topic title, subsequent video footage should be one of the areas that empower the FA imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good topic for a thread - it's a shambles of a situation with the media having so much control, but fairly typical/predictable of the FA to conduct business this way.

 

Whoever smacked Koscielny around the head (after his/Szczesny's howler) will get away with it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...