How Does the FA Make Retrospective Rulings?

[Terra Passenger]

I've been trying to find answers to some questions I had about how the FA makes retrospective decisions. The controversy surrounding the incident between Aguero and Reid during Sunday's game where Aguero appears to throw an elbow at Reid but no foul is given at the time piqued my interest in this topic.

These are the questions I was trying to find answers to:

1) Wasn't the concept of retrospective review introduced for off-the-ball incidents where none of the match officials were looking? Marriner is looking right at Aguero and Reid as the incident occurs. Perhaps this is a rhetorical question - but isn't this incident by the very nature of its being on-the-ball with the lead official clearly watching the event unfold on replays outside the purview of retrospective review? Yes, I've read that if it's not in the match report it can be reviewed - but at the least, if this is reviewed it seems beyond the scope of off-the-ball incident review.

2) Is contact necessary for a finding of violent conduct? Aguero clearly does not make contact with Reid as can been seen from some camera angle replays. But is this enough to rule out a retrospective suspension?

3) What visual evidence are the officials allowed to review? Any footage? Just footage from the broadcasters? Which broadcasts are admissible and which are not? For example, if someone's cell phone contains clear evidence on the incident, is that footage reviewable if made available to the FA?

4) Is the referee's match report made public in any way (e.g., in full, or in summary form), or is the report withheld from the general public?

I've tried a bit of google research on the above and couldn't find anything conclusive. The closest I've come to an answer is what appears to be boilerplate text which the FA has released in the past when informing the public of its rulings on such incidents. The text usually reads something like this:

"Off-the-ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees. Each referee panel member will review the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it a sending-off offence. For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous."

Anyhow, if anyone can answer some or all of the above I'm interested in reading about it.

 

[Newman Noggs]

My thorough reading of the rules is; "only incidents highlighted on a continuous loop by Sky can be reviewed.If the perpetrator is wearing a blue shirt - 3 game ban, red shirt - no ban, the referee saw the incident, no, really. (However, Fellaini can be banned because he's shit anyway)" or words to that effect.

 

[fredmont]

I've been trying to find answers to some questions I had about how the FA makes retrospective decisions. The controversy surrounding the incident between Aguero and Reid during Sunday's game where Aguero appears to throw an elbow at Reid but no foul is given at the time piqued my interest in this topic.

These are the questions I was trying to find answers to:

1) Wasn't the concept of retrospective review introduced for off-the-ball incidents where none of the match officials were looking? Marriner is looking right at Aguero and Reid as the incident occurs. Perhaps this is a rhetorical question - but isn't this incident by the very nature of its being on-the-ball with the lead official clearly watching the event unfold on replays outside the purview of retrospective review? Yes, I've read that if it's not in the match report it can be reviewed - but at the least, if this is reviewed it seems beyond the scope of off-the-ball incident review.

2) Is contact necessary for a finding of violent conduct? Aguero clearly does not make contact with Reid as can been seen from some camera angle replays. But is this enough to rule out a retrospective suspension?

3) What visual evidence are the officials allowed to review? Any footage? Just footage from the broadcasters? Which broadcasts are admissible and which are not? For example, if someone's cell phone contains clear evidence on the incident, is that footage reviewable if made available to the FA?

4) Is the referee's match report made public in any way (e.g., in full, or in summary form), or is the report withheld from the general public?

I've tried a bit of google research on the above and couldn't find anything conclusive. The closest I've come to an answer is what appears to be boilerplate text which the FA has released in the past when informing the public of its rulings on such incidents. The text usually reads something like this:

"Off-the-ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees. Each referee panel member will review the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it a sending-off offence. For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous."

Anyhow, if anyone can answer some or all of the above I'm interested in reading about it.

If I could add another qustion . Whether the accused player is found guilty or not, what action is taken against the player who has feigned injury in an attempt to trick the referee into sending off another player? If players were made aware that there would be penalties for doing this it might stamp it out.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

 

[dickie davies]

As far as I know, the ref is shown the incident again via broadcasters camera angles.
If he deems it a genuine red card offence which he missed, he then reports that he made a mistake by not seeing it and would have given a red card
Or he says he did see it and didn't think it was worthy of any further action
The whole process is flawed, open to abuse and undue pressure on refs to influence, which we saw with the Adebayor vs VanPersie clash

 

[Indian Cityzen]

"Off-the-ball incidents which are not seen at the time by the match officials are referred to a panel of three former elite referees. Each referee panel member will review the video footage independently of one another to determine whether they consider it a sending-off offence. For retrospective action to be taken, and an FA charge to follow, the decision of the panel must be unanimous."

So the FA will first ask the 4 match referees if they had seen/spotted the incident on field. If they did see/spot the incident on field, then there won't be any retrospective action. I'm not sure if all 4 had to see/spot it on field or any 1 of them. If they did not see the incident and missed it, then the FA appoints a 3 member elite ex-referees who will review the video and take action.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Sky were showing it why wouldn't they ,they pick out any controversial moments in every clip if they can, it's there most used word.
The main topic on bluemoon wasn't a thrilling 3.1 win it was aguero throwing /not throwing an elbow.
Contact or none he swung an elbow he was stupid and we can't really have any complaints

 

[Newman Noggs]

Sky were showing it why wouldn't they ,they pick out any controversial moments in every clip if they can, it's there most used word.
The main topic on bluemoon wasn't a thrilling 3.1 win it was aguero throwing /not throwing an elbow.
Contact or none he swung an elbow he was stupid and we can't really have any complaints

Agreed. It isn't this incident that concerns me, it's more the power wielded by Sky to manipulate the authorities by applying pressure after some incidents and not others. When you throw into the mix, the increasing discretion for referees such as awarding a penalty, or not, for tugging at corners, i'm not sure that it's altogether healthy for our chances of getting the same treatment as other clubs.

And, without getting into agenda territory again, I attended a presentation at the Etihad a few years ago where the emphasis was on how closely the referees liaise with the Premier League to ensure the marketability of the PL. Which is great, except that where the Chief Executive of the PL, Peter Scudamore, pronounces that when the rags struggle, it affects the "global appeal' of the brand, you begin to wonder whether Sky, the Premier League and the referees don't have interests that conflict with fair and even application of the rules.

But, as you say, the players should be on their mettle not to get involved. More so, in my opinion, for the reasons outlined above.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

They look at the National Lottery numbers to see if there's one below fifty, the colour of the shirt worn by the alleged perpetrator, wait for the phone call from SkySports or BT and then ban and then come down heavy with a three match ban. The phone was always off the hook when FatScouseGit took to elbowing someone.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Sky were showing it why wouldn't they ,they pick out any controversial moments in every clip if they can, it's there most used word.
The main topic on bluemoon wasn't a thrilling 3.1 win it was aguero throwing /not throwing an elbow.
Contact or none he swung an elbow he was stupid and we can't really have any complaints

I'm not too happy with your clear objectivity, PF. I much prefer to call the FArce cunts unless they're banning Rags.