Mike Riley - SSN

[mcnab-sees-red]

this is what Blatter said after the shrek elbow.

However, Blatter told a news conference after a meeting of the International Football Association Board (IFAB): 'This is up to the discretion of the national association.

'They can use video evidence in the discipline and control committee.

'They can impose or change a decision if a red or yellow card has been given to the wrong player. If there's violence the national association can intervene and punish a player -- this is permitted at the discretion of the national association.'

The decisions of the referee are final

So says FIFA (in Law 5 of the Laws of the Game). Those who support the status quo regularly quote this rule to say why change would be unlawful in FIFA’s eyes. It has been said that a review of a referee’s decision without any input from the referee himself would contravene FIFA’s rules. So how is it that the English FA can get away with it?

FIFA’s Disciplinary Code

The answer lies in FIFA’s own rules. Article 77 of FIFA’s disciplinary code says that its own disciplinary committee is responsible for:

a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention;

b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions;

c) extending the duration of a match suspension incurred automatically by an expulsion;

d) pronouncing additional sanctions, such as a fine.

Because FIFA’s own disciplinary committee is able to do these things in relation to a FIFA match, any other football association around the World can do the same for matches under its own jurisdiction. Hence the reason why the English FA do not force referees to review their own mistakes.

So the fa is able, and does, review decisions without any further imput from the referee. They simply choose not to when it suits.

 

[Soulboy]

I've heard this excuse before about FIFA.

FIFA have always said that there is nothing in their constitution regarding an individual countries disciplinary proceedures. There is nothing at all to stop a yellow card being upgraded or rescinded after the game if they deem the ref got it wrong. After all they upgraded Thatcher's even when the ref quite clearly saw it and gave a yellow.

The FA have also consistently said that they cannot take action if a ref says he saw the incident under FIFA rules. This is again a load of bollocks. FIFA have stated that if the ref has mis interprited an incident then retrospective action can be taken.

As for the DVD that they have recently sent i recently saw it at our local RA meeting. It basically advises that tackles like Kompanys should be yellow, as although dangerous it did not endanger the opponent. Reading between the lines i think Mr Foy has had a ticking off and i feel this is why a week later he only gave a yellow to a far more dangerous tackle in the QPR/Newcastle game.

Why then didn't the useless FA downgrade the red to a yellow?

Again, according to Riley FIFA's scope for retrospective action does not extend to situations where a yellow should have been given instead of the red.

They highlighted the Millijas incident at Arsenal. Riley admitted it shouldn't have been a red.

However, as it still should have been a yellow then the red stands because it wasn't a "major" judgement error (if that makes sense)

No, it doesn't make sense.

John Terry was sent off at City a few years ago, pulling the last player down as he went through.

However, as it was on the half way line, Terry appealed saying that it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity.

The FA agreed. They rescinded the red card, and did NOT make it a yellow even though that was the minimum it would have been.

It's either a red or it's not. They can't make any other decision.

 

[whp.blue]

Anyone see Mike Riley on Sky sports news earlier?

He stated that the refs have sent out a video to all clubs to illustrate what kind of tackles will be deemed to be sendings off. He said several times that when players fly in two footed they run the risk of a red card which I think is fair comment.

He also talked about retrospective action on decisions which have been "seen" by the match official(e.g. johnson and BAE). He said the reason why the FA can't act is due to FIFA regulations and that the FA are trying to change it.

I think it was a good move by Riley to make this appearance. The refs get slated every week yet we don't hear their side of the story or the rationale behind their decision making.

I think there should be more of these kind of appearances in order to promote a greater understanding and harmony between the refs and the rest of the game.

What a load of bollocks! If that is the case, then can someone explain to me how the Scottish FA do it?

and what about the little quoted sub clause

"unless your name is Thatcher"

 

[salfordblues]

Why then didn't the useless FA downgrade the red to a yellow?

Again, according to Riley FIFA's scope for retrospective action does not extend to situations where a yellow should have been given instead of the red.

They highlighted the Millijas incident at Arsenal. Riley admitted it shouldn't have been a red.

However, as it still should have been a yellow then the red stands because it wasn't a "major" judgement error (if that makes sense)

No, it doesn't make sense.

John Terry was sent off at City a few years ago, pulling the last player down as he went through.

However, as it was on the half way line, Terry appealed saying that it wasn't a goalscoring opportunity.

The FA agreed. They rescinded the red card, and did NOT make it a yellow even though that was the minimum it would have been.

It's either a red or it's not. They can't make any other decision.

I agree there is a lack of consistency at the moment.

However as I said in the opening post if Riley or other refs come on and have to explain themselves then this should make things clearer.

 

[Gray]

What about referees who after a team has committed a whole host of non carded fouls calls over the captain of the team and asks him to have a word with his players, whilst at the same time handing out copious yellow cards to the other team for no apparent reason.

 

[Edin’s header]

Ref for tomorrow: Mike Dean. Become One of the best if not the best in my opinion. Never seems to give us a contentious time as of late, and appears to have a City fan mate in the north stand. Don't foresee problems. 5 - 0

 

[MSP]

Well, it's obvious that they can't ignore the facts that we were robbed in pretty much any of our 10 last games, that's why he came out to talk about this. Those news about City contacting FA about refereeing inconsistencies might be true.

I could see some decisions going out our way in the future if they do not want to agenda approach from our side become even bigger.

 

[buzzer1]

He is a fkin corrupt Peadophile, he is just another placement puppet just as they have in the media, govts etc, they have the whole game tied up, he is a fkin WANKER like the rest of em and i fkin hate the ground that they walk on. Football is the new Wrestling.

 

[salfordblues]

He is a fkin corrupt Peadophile, he is just another placement puppet just as they have in the media, govts etc, they have the whole game tied up, he is a fkin WANKER like the rest of em and i fkin hate the ground that they walk on. Football is the new Wrestling.

Stop sitting on the fence and tell us what you really think.

Jeeezzzz....

 

[BlueTony]

He also admitted that referees often book players "in the hope that it has the desired affect"

Suppose it explains Barry's bookings against Liverpool, Balotelli's booking for his first foul every match, and more recently, Vinny's and Julian's yellers on Tuesday.

I wonder what his thoughts were on Kolorov being booked for being fouled too?


Corrupt bent bastards.

Just this all day long.