FA Watch

[Jordie]

working okay for me just now.

But doesn't seem to have been updated for several months. A shame cos it started up with so much promise.

I think they meant the idea of it isn't working not the actual website.

I made some comments to the FAWATCH when they first started it regarding simplifying the website and although acknowledging my comments they didn't act upon them.
I still maintain it is not simple enough for the average football fan. That's not to say the average fan is not very bright, it just needs to be more to the point without all the waffle to make more of an impact.

 

[LCBblue]

Bumped RE Gerrard.

Disgusting, if he does not get a 3 match ban and a fine for that I will...

...actually no, it wont surprise me one bit. Cheeky scouse bastard will probably get away with it. If I got caught in the street doing that to a randomer and was caught on CCTV with evidence I'd be getting done for GBA or GBH, just because its Steven Gerrard whats the difference really?

How many games left for Ade's ban btw? Is this the last game against Fulham?

 

[DTeacher]

Bumped RE Gerrard.

Disgusting, if he does not get a 3 match ban and a fine for that I will...

...actually no, it wont surprise me one bit. Cheeky scouse bastard will probably get away with it. If I got caught in the street doing that to a randomer and was caught on CCTV with evidence I'd be getting done for GBA or GBH, just because its Steven Gerrard whats the difference really?

How many games left for Ade's ban btw? Is this the last game against Fulham?

Don't you know yet?

He got away scot-free AGAIN.

 

[jamiegrimble]

Unbelievable! Apparently the ref saw the incident not worthy of a yellow card,it only warranted a word with Saint Steven, so no retrospective action can be taken by the FA in the light of all the video evidence,because the Ref alledgedly dealt with the incident on the pitch.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Unbelievable! Apparently the ref saw the incident not worthy of a yellow card,it only warranted a word with Saint Steven, so no retrospective action can be taken by the FA in the light of all the video evidence,because the Ref alledgedly dealt with the incident on the pitch.

Attwell makes one cock-up quickly followed by another. He is the most incompetent referee to blow down the whistle, once somebody pointed out which end yer stuck in yer mouth.

 

[Eds]

This morning I read that the FA cannot take retrospective action on any offence if the ref has seen it and acted upon it. That being the case I assume that is the get out clause for refs and the FA. The FA say 'you saw that', the ref replies 'yes' and everyone forgets about it. How convenient. However what happens when the ref says he saw it but the FA say actually you made the wrong decision. The player is punished but the ref isn't. It's a win win situation for the ref and The FA. Corrupt unlikely, usless at their jobs highly likely!

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

This morning I read that the FA cannot take retrospective action on any offence if the ref has seen it and acted upon it. That being the case I assume that is the get out clause for refs and the FA. The FA say 'you saw that', the ref replies 'yes' and everyone forgets about it. How convenient. However what happens when the ref says he saw it but the FA say actually you made the wrong decision. The player is punished but the ref isn't. It's a win win situation for the ref and The FA. Corrupt unlikely, usless at their jobs highly likely!

Spot on - herein lies the crux of the matter - until the FA get some cojones and decide they can override a decision (or lack of one) the only option is to demote the ref which they won´t do in this case but have on others
Ex - players panel to decide on stuff like this - simples!

 

[the goats backside]

Bang on Eds, it appears the fa decide who they want banned and not, then chat to ref and they all then sing from the same corrupt sheet, its a disgrace its beyond a joke now, i am losing faith in our great game. Changes have to be made

 

[Ricster]

This morning I read that the FA cannot take retrospective action on any offence if the ref has seen it and acted upon it. That being the case I assume that is the get out clause for refs and the FA. The FA say 'you saw that', the ref replies 'yes' and everyone forgets about it. How convenient. However what happens when the ref says he saw it but the FA say actually you made the wrong decision. The player is punished but the ref isn't. It's a win win situation for the ref and The FA. Corrupt unlikely, usless at their jobs highly likely!

Tell Ben Thatcher that.

 

[True_Blue69]

This morning I read that the FA cannot take retrospective action on any offence if the ref has seen it and acted upon it. That being the case I assume that is the get out clause for refs and the FA. The FA say 'you saw that', the ref replies 'yes' and everyone forgets about it. How convenient. However what happens when the ref says he saw it but the FA say actually you made the wrong decision. The player is punished but the ref isn't. It's a win win situation for the ref and The FA. Corrupt unlikely, usless at their jobs highly likely!

Tell Ben Thatcher that.

I know what youre saying, but in all fairness Brown didnt have a seizure by the side of the pitch and have to be rushed to hospital! Still doesnt hide the fact that Gerrard should have been banned, we all knew he wouldnt be though.