HellasLEAF
Well-Known Member
To try and show that they are fair and even handed - just before they find him guilty and ban him.
this
To try and show that they are fair and even handed - just before they find him guilty and ban him.
I agree completely.I think there are two distinct issues there.
1) The use of any technology than can improve the gathering of factual evidence (including video replays)
2) How subjective evidence (also including video replays) is interpreted in a retrospective manner
I think Rugby does a great job with video evidence, and the referee spells out all the factors he's looking at - I don't think it detracts from the game, and it's every bit as fast as football.
I don't think technology has detracted from Rugby, Tennis or Cricket. I'm happy with the progress.
But then there's this issue of subjective evidence. Intent is hard to prove, and we have commentators making assumptions like 'if he forms a fist, then it's an intentional elbow' - and yet lots of people form a fist when exerting energy - like a short sprint or jumping, or bracing themselves. We have so much footage, it would be almost impossible to review everything - which begs the question, how did the FA come to review Aguero? what was the process? Did they look at every match and make a list of incidents to investigate? Did they receive a complaint from West Ham? Or did the media shove it in their faces and force the issue?
I would like to see a 'on report' style system where a ref can signal that an incident needs to be looked at at the earliest opportunity. The entire crowd should know this during the game. Whilst the game continues, a 3 man panel review the evidence and decide if the ref needs to review it. If he does, at the next break in play, he reviews the footage and makes a final decision. Otherwise, that's the end of the matter. Basically the panel are checking if there's anything at all to seriously review - but the ref still has the final say. It happens there and then, not days later after the media have gone to town.
:) cheeky bastardBookies favorites yeah. I'm guessing due to home advantage. They were evens and we were 2/1 so I had a piece of that.
Is there any right of appeal? If so, it might get him IN the derby, even if he gets 4 matches after that!
BTW, I see MOST of the media has already said he is banned, even though no hearing yet! Is it fair accompli, just because they are having a hearing?