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