What stinks the most is the process by which the FA are alerted to incidents. Surely they can have one of their own people review video footage of each game every weekend and not rely on being sent footage from someone else, if that's what I've understood has happened.
I think that came about after incident with Torres? If that's the law change we're talking about then the spirit and wording of that change was to do with off the ball incidents, as in those where the ref was looking the other way. Of course, the FA could say otherwise but the wording was clear.This rule was changed in 2013 with a stray elbow example being cited which was 'secondarily' to the actual challenge for the ball.
Its a nonsense to suggest the FA cannot charge Aguero under their own rules. You are misleading people.
I don't find it unreasonable that refs don't see every detail but I do find it unreasonable that not seeing every detail is now being used as the definition of not seeing something. If someone is looking at something, surely it's reasonable to suggest they saw it. If not, then it's pointless having witness statements as you could always argue that they didn't see what they Thought they saw. It all gets a bit ridiculous. Is it not also unreasonable that someone else is being asked to pay the price for the ref 'not seeing' something in these circumstances?
Media exposure will inevitably highlight things, I don't think that's worth worrying about as long as each is properly reviewed. The last part is going to be personal opinion.
Even then, it still has to go to the ref, and then to the panel of other refs before charge is brought. What we don't know is if there are 20 incidents a week reviewed every week.
Surprised you aren't on the panel franksinatra. Where did you view the original incident from?Im sorry I cannot agree with that. Football moves at such a fast pace its impossible to view everything and retrospective punishment is required.
The prime example is the sliding tackle. How often do you see the coming together of players and its only with TV footage its evidenced that a player has gone studs up and is looking at the player rather than the ball?
It is required, but its the inconsistency and the fact televised matches and media coverage seems to influence these charges rather than a standardised retrospective view of all games and incidents.
Surprised you aren't on the panel franksinatra. Where did you view the original incident from?
I think that came about after incident with Torres? If that's the law change we're talking about then the spirit and wording of that change was to do with off the ball incidents, as in those where the ref was looking the other way. Of course, the FA could say otherwise but the wording was clear.
The media will help highlight things but again it's consistency that's the issue here. Phil Bardsley could've snapped Silva's leg in two yet the panel afterwards completely ignored it.
Perhaps the PL should enforce a rule whereby incidents missed by the officials are forbidden from being discussed by Sky etc. in their post match analysis because they are prejudicing the case.
I agree with all of that. The refs do need help and it's reasonable to use video evidence when the ref hasn't seen the incident. There are questions about the media's role, as you say, but that's another matter. But if we're at the stage where it's reasonable to argue that the referee doesn't see every aspect of something that he's looking at, and use that as grounds for a charge, then we're almost at the point where referees become obsolete.Im sorry I cannot agree with that. Football moves at such a fast pace its impossible to view everything and retrospective punishment is required.
The prime example is the sliding tackle. How often do you see the coming together of players and its only with TV footage its evidenced that a player has gone studs up and is looking at the player rather than the ball?
It is required, but its the inconsistency and the fact televised matches and media coverage seems to influence these charges rather than a standardised retrospective view of all games and incidents.
Im sorry I cannot agree with that. Football moves at such a fast pace its impossible to view everything and retrospective punishment is required.
Simple question really, where did you view the original incident? I will offer some choices. From your home, via MOTD, live from the ground, three days later on Sky or maybe some other answerWhat are you on about?
I agree with all of that. The refs do need help and it's reasonable to use video evidence when the ref hasn't seen the incident. There are questions about the media's role, as you say, but that's another matter. But if we're at the stage where it's reasonable to argue that the referee doesn't see every aspect of something that he's looking at, and use that as grounds for a charge, then we're almost at the point where referees become obsolete.
Mariner could have nipped this in the bud by admitting he saw it (under any reasonable definition of the word). He didn't want to look like a poor referee so he fudged it by saying he didn't see it and now he looks like a liar.
Anyway, as the poster above said, we've still got enough to do 'em. The pressure is most certainly on them now to get a result.
This is the problem absolutely. Retrospective action and particularly who is charged (and who isn't) should be the one area where they can get close to absolute consistency but it is just as inconsistent as the refereeing during a game which is fucking bonkers. They should either painstakingly go through every minute of every game afterwards looking for incidents and acting on everything or just get rid of retrospective action. What we have at the moment is the worst of everything where things only tend to get looked into if Sky flag things up. Also, the whole "referee saw it" lark should be fucked off because that has just become a joke. Either something happened and wasn't dealt with properly or not.The media will help highlight things but again it's consistency that's the issue here. Phil Bardsley could've snapped Silva's leg in two yet the panel afterwards completely ignored it.
Perhaps the PL should enforce a rule whereby incidents missed by the officials are forbidden from being discussed by Sky etc. in their post match analysis because they are prejudicing the case.
6 game ban it is then...one or two outlets saying he may escape a ban,,metro for what its worth is one of them