NFr: Its official, the FA is a joke.

[A Humble Man]

They are hoist by their own rules as though the ref has said he did not see it the linesman did see it and did not think it was a foul.  They will not overturn a decision by an official only for something not seen by all the officials. 

This is understandable as if this did not apply Clubs would appeal against any mistakes may by the officials and the system would be swamped.

[MJG]

They are hoist by their own rules as though the ref has said he did not see it the linesman did see it and did not think it was a foul.  They will not overturn a decision by an official only for something not seen by all the officials. 

This is understandable as if this did not apply Clubs would appeal against any mistakes may by the officials and the system would be swamped.

saying all that, the FA do overturn red cards which are seen and given by refs!!

[God The Mechanic]

And yellows have been increased to reds/bans before.

[A Humble Man]

They are hoist by their own rules as though the ref has said he did not see it the linesman did see it and did not think it was a foul.  They will not overturn a decision by an official only for something not seen by all the officials. 

This is understandable as if this did not apply Clubs would appeal against any mistakes may by the officials and the system would be swamped.

saying all that, the FA do overturn red cards which are seen and given by refs!!

In this case because the assistant ref says he witnessed the incident and thought no action was required and if he does not change his story the video evidence is irrelevant.  It is only when the officials admit they were wrong that things change.  The FA cannot override what an official says and continues to say after seeing video evidence.

[epsomraver]

They are hoist by their own rules as though the ref has said he did not see it the linesman did see it and did not think it was a foul.  They will not overturn a decision by an official only for something not seen by all the officials. 

This is understandable as if this did not apply Clubs would appeal against any mistakes may by the officials and the system would be swamped.

saying all that, the FA do overturn red cards which are seen and given by refs!!

In this case because the assistant ref says he witnessed the incident and thought no action was required and if he does not change his story the video evidence is irrelevant.  It is only when the officials admit they were wrong that things change.  The FA cannot override what an official says and continues to say after seeing video evidence.

They can and have in the past,there is a precedent for the Thatcher incident

   
Last Updated: Friday, 25 August 2006, 16:52 GMT 17:52 UK

E-mail this to a friend    Printable version
Thatcher dropped & charged by FA

Mendes needed oxygen pitchside
Ben Thatcher has been suspended by Manchester City and charged by the Football Association following his challenge on Portsmouth's Pedro Mendes.
Thatcher must answer a charge of serious foul play by 12 September.

And a statement on City's website said: "Ben Thatcher has been suspended from first-team action.

"This is pending the results of the club's internal investigation into the incident involving Pedro Mendes during the game with Portsmouth on Wednesday."
News conference: Manchester City boss Stuart Pearce
The statement continued: "The player will miss tomorrow's home fixture with Arsenal. Ben Thatcher fully agrees with this decision."

Thatcher was shown only a yellow card after knocking Mendes out with his arm.

But although referees are not allowed to retrospectively upgrade yellow cards, the FA said "the incident is being considered as an exceptional case".

"The FA contends that the challenge was sufficiently serious that had Thatcher been sent off, an additional sanction would have been merited."

[Artful Dodger]

Sorry, I think they are right, he had every right to challenge, he got the ball , the other player pulled out and he followed through and caught him, it happens, it is a contact sport last time I looked.

Er, have you noticed that they have changed the rules over the last 20 years to avoid players having their knees f***ked by reckeless tackles? Yes, he can challenge for the ball but not at knee height with enough ferocity to tear the guys ligaments!! Just because it occured amidst a bouncing ball and players obscuring the refs view doesn't make it less dangerous. Virtually every other player to have been sent off this season could say that their offence was less dangerous than that one. If that had been on a Fulham player, I am sure your view would be different.

[Edwatch_Winston_Malone]

Nobody can argue it wasn't a horrible tackle. But I doubt that it was anything but a fair attempt to go for the ball that went wrong. The ref misssed it.

But what should the FA do and what are the rules? One week a player is suspended for an off the ball incident the ref misses at the time. But a foul the ref misses at the time is not punished as the FA doesn't want to re referee the game. Although clearly they do when players are punished for off the ball incidents.

I don't like the FA becoming involved but is it only off the ball attacks they punish? If thems the rules then they did the right thing.

The point here is that the officials didn't miss the challenge, they just didn't see it as a foul.  So either the ref was blindsided by a player or the linesman saw it from behind.  Either way, the challenge was seen but not seen as a foul.  The FA rarely disagree with a ref.  It is not their job to overrule a referee.

It is not the same as when the officials have not seen an incident and then the FA act upon TV evidence.  In this case, it being a challenge for the ball, the incident is not considered as an exceptional case.

[Lighthouse]

Nobody can argue it wasn't a horrible tackle. But I doubt that it was anything but a fair attempt to go for the ball that went wrong. The ref misssed it.

But what should the FA do and what are the rules? One week a player is suspended for an off the ball incident the ref misses at the time. But a foul the ref misses at the time is not punished as the FA doesn't want to re referee the game. Although clearly they do when players are punished for off the ball incidents.

I don't like the FA becoming involved but is it only off the ball attacks they punish? If thems the rules then they did the right thing.

The point here is that the officials didn't miss the challenge, they just didn't see it as a foul.  So either the ref was blindsided by a player or the linesman saw it from behind.  Either way, the challenge was seen but not seen as a foul.  The FA rarely disagree with a ref.  It is not their job to overrule a referee.

It is not the same as when the officials have not seen an incident and then the FA act upon TV evidence.  In this case, it being a challenge for the ball, the incident is not considered as an exceptional case.

OK Thanks. I think I understand the distinction. In which case it seems that the FA has made the right decision. Nasty tackle, ref missed it, no more to be done. Although like many nasty tackles this may simply be  a mistimed tackle that the pundits and fans can argue about.

[Northern Cottager]

Following on from this... has anyone seen the comments from Stoke in relation to this? Apparently Huth was wrong to get his ban after the McManaman challenge because Huth was just a flailing arm?

Every year I gain dislike for more clubs in the PL and this year it's gone up further with Stoke, thugs.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/8596411/Dave-Kemp-Callum-McManaman-s-escape-adds-to-injustice-of-Robert-Huth-ban

[epsomraver]

Sorry, I think they are right, he had every right to challenge, he got the ball , the other player pulled out and he followed through and caught him, it happens, it is a contact sport last time I looked.

Er, have you noticed that they have changed the rules over the last 20 years to avoid players having their knees f***ked by reckeless tackles? Yes, he can challenge for the ball but not at knee height with enough ferocity to tear the guys ligaments!! Just because it occured amidst a bouncing ball and players obscuring the refs view doesn't make it less dangerous. Virtually every other player to have been sent off this season could say that their offence was less dangerous than that one. If that had been on a Fulham player, I am sure your view would be different.

Adding on again, all he ended up with was a bruise!