FA Watch

[SboroBlu]

Sunderland v Wolves match today. Referee intially indicated a minimum of 5 minutes. In that time a goal was scored (which took 40 secs to restart play) and a substitution which took a further 30 seconds which in total, if you are going off the rules that were last Sunday, should mean that the game should at a minimum, stop at 96.10. It finished at 95.13.

Basically no added time was added on the this game for a goal, and a substitution (an extra 13 secs if we are being picky)

Why was it added at Old Trafford?!

Didn't they state if the goal was scored in added time, no extra time will be added, thats why it wasn't added in the Sundrland/ wolves game, it was added for the rags because we scored 5 secs before the end of normal time.

Substitutions they are still supposed to add 30 secs on

 

[MikeF]

Interesting observation from Graham Poll in the Mail today about the challenge by Malouda on Melchiot, surely he should be called up before the FA now???

 

[Ricster]

Another one thats outside our remit, but interesting nonetheless is the charges laid against Millwall and West Ham this morning for a "failure to ensure their supporters didn’t throw missiles, harmful or dangerous objects onto the pitch."

I wonder if a few higher profile clubs will face the same actions.

Also interesting in terms of the Adebayor hearing is that Junior Stanislaus who twice ran over to the Millwall supporters to celebrate West Ham goals seems to have got off without any FA action.

Surely this example can still be used as it in the FA's durastiction?

 

[Chris in London]

From our side of things we've said that we won't be taking up anything outside of Premier League games yet, so this one disappears under the rada unforunately. But it's exactly the type of incident we want to know about.

Mark

Mark,

If I may make the suggestion, why not keep a tally of the separate incidents that DO go 'under the radar'? Your campaign is about inconsistency. I appreciate why you want to restrict it to PL games, but the fact that West Ham and Arsenal are guilty of the same offence (one admittedly on a larger scale than the other) but only West Ham get charged is I would have thought precisely the point. Being able to wrap up your point with 'and, just for good measure, here is a selection of similar inconsistencies in the Carling Cup' (etc) is simply more grist to the mill.

 

[Colins Bellend]

Not read full thread does anyone know if rags have been charged with the fan running on and the Garrido incident,just wondred with Milwall West Ham being charged

 

[Theo555]

I know we are concentrating on the premiership but this incident has really shown me how bloody incosistent and almost corrupt the FA are.
'Dear Adam
Thank you for contacting The Football Association.
The referee confirmed in his report that he did not see the incident involving Mascherano during the match, so upon review he decided he would not have issued a red card for this offence. Therefore we shall not be taking any further action against the player.
Kind regards
The Football Association

Name: Theobald, Adam
Subject: Mascherano
I have not yet heard of the punishment handed out to Mascherano for his elbow in the Leeds tie of the Carling Cup. I seem to remember Adebayor was fast tracked because it was blatant. So to ask for consistency and fairness I presume Mascherano will be fast tracked and banned for the next 3 matches starting this weekend? It was blatant, and the cameras have picked it up and the referee missed it - exactly the same as the Adebayor incident.'

This was blatant and yet just overlooked - sorry to go over old ground but how can nothing be done here???

 

[SboroBlu]

Are there any updates as it all seems to of gone quiet

 

[sam the drummer]

Behind the scenes at the mo, but we have a slick new coming soon page on fawatch.org ;)

 

[0103]

I notice that the ref didn't see the Malouda challenge last week, and that the FA looked at it but decided to take no action.

Anyone see it? Red card worthy?

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Hi guys

Not really read or kept up with this thread too much but have read the last few pages and already had an idea of what it's about.

For what it's worth (nothing), I think this is a brilliant idea and if done correctly it will, not might, come up with all sorts of inconsistencies.

Football is the major sport that is most guilty, by far, of pandering to certain teams. I believe that a lot of it is through shear sycophancy, fear and intimidation and not deliberate corruption. However, it just does not go on to such a significant extent in other sports - and the examples that you will find in other sports are rare and almost exclusively limited to on field officials not having the strength of mind not to be influenced.

Unfortunately football has much more officials which conform to this stereotype and, even worse, in football it extends to those that officiate the game off the field.

I'd love to help but really would struggle to find the time to commit to something at the moment. Maybe in the future.

Anyway, I just wanted to say 'stick with it' and add my support to this. If done correctly and with good standards it could expose a sport that has become so up it's own orrifice and so entralled to certain influences that it has lost sight of the central remit of any sport - complete and utter even handed application of the rules.

You'll have to bear in mind though that in a couple of years time with the inevitible success, the game is so messed up that City will start to benefit from such pathetic bias. That's hardly the point though.

ps: why wouldn't League Cup games be included? FA bans apply to them (Adebayor banned for Fulham, etc). Willful misapplication of the deliberately included flexibility in the laws is out of order whenever it occurs.