|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Mar 3, 2015 18:09:34 GMT
Apologies if this is a dumb ass question, but who determines whether an incident is looked at by the authorities? Is it at the request of a club, trial by media or do the powers that be look at all games and decide whether something should be dealt with retroactively? I'm amazed that nothing has been done about the challenge on Ireland
|
|
|
Post by scfcwebby on Mar 3, 2015 18:11:02 GMT
Apologies if this is a dumb ass question, but who determines whether an incident is looked at by the authorities? Is it at the request of a club, trial by media or do the powers that be look at all games and decide whether something should be dealt with retroactively? I'm amazed that nothing has been done about the challenge on Ireland The FA cannot do anything about the Ireland challenge as Swarbrick "Saw" the incident and didn't feel that it needed any action at the time
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 3, 2015 18:14:39 GMT
Match of the Day in association with The Sun.
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Mar 3, 2015 18:19:38 GMT
Apologies if this is a dumb ass question, but who determines whether an incident is looked at by the authorities? Is it at the request of a club, trial by media or do the powers that be look at all games and decide whether something should be dealt with retroactively? I'm amazed that nothing has been done about the challenge on Ireland Every incident is looked at, at the request of the club involved. Whether action can be taken is determined by what's in the match report handed in by the ref and if any of the 4 officials saw the incident. Them seeing it and what they do with it is all that matters and the FA will not over turn a Refs judgement at the time whether it was right or wrong
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 18:20:52 GMT
It can come from any source. You could email and ask the FA to look at an incident. If it's an "unseen" a panel of ex-refs takes a view on what the ref would have done if it had been seen, and if they think it was violent conduct, the FA will charge and it will go to a Commission. As webby says, as the rules stand, no action can be taken if the officials saw the incident. There is a lot of concern about going too far down the road of re-refereeing games post match.
|
|
|
Post by lancer on Mar 3, 2015 18:22:33 GMT
Apologies if this is a dumb ass question, but who determines whether an incident is looked at by the authorities? MOTD.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 3, 2015 18:24:31 GMT
It can come from any source. You could email and ask the FA to look at an incident. If it's an "unseen" a panel of ex-refs takes a view on what the ref would have done if it had been seen, and if they think it was violent conduct, the FA will charge and it will go to a Commission. As webby says, as the rules stand, no action can be taken if the officials saw the incident. There is a lot of concern about going too far down the road of re-refereeing games post match. Isn't there a precedent set by the ruling in the ben thatcher / Pedro Mendes incident a number of years ago which means that this isn't strictly true?
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Mar 3, 2015 18:54:39 GMT
It can come from any source. You could email and ask the FA to look at an incident. If it's an "unseen" a panel of ex-refs takes a view on what the ref would have done if it had been seen, and if they think it was violent conduct, the FA will charge and it will go to a Commission. As webby says, as the rules stand, no action can be taken if the officials saw the incident. There is a lot of concern about going too far down the road of re-refereeing games post match. So to bring Charlie's stamp into this contect, it was seen and deemed not worthy of punishment in the game but followed up the following week wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 3, 2015 19:14:14 GMT
It can come from any source. You could email and ask the FA to look at an incident. If it's an "unseen" a panel of ex-refs takes a view on what the ref would have done if it had been seen, and if they think it was violent conduct, the FA will charge and it will go to a Commission. As webby says, as the rules stand, no action can be taken if the officials saw the incident. There is a lot of concern about going too far down the road of re-refereeing games post match. That's what's known in some parts of the world as BULLSHIT.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 3, 2015 19:17:36 GMT
Always seems pretty random to me. I mean, if the ref didn't blow (don't think he did) then it must have been raised by someone for him to say he had seen it. So who raised it? LMH?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 22:28:48 GMT
Always seems pretty random to me. I mean, if the ref didn't blow (don't think he did) then it must have been raised by someone for him to say he had seen it. So who raised it? LMH? LMH raised it in his post match interview and it was covered on MOTD. In those high profile circumstances the FA will always look at it and if appropriate ask the officials if it was seen. Sometimes it's quite obvious that it was seen.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 22:31:06 GMT
It can come from any source. You could email and ask the FA to look at an incident. If it's an "unseen" a panel of ex-refs takes a view on what the ref would have done if it had been seen, and if they think it was violent conduct, the FA will charge and it will go to a Commission. As webby says, as the rules stand, no action can be taken if the officials saw the incident. There is a lot of concern about going too far down the road of re-refereeing games post match. That's what's known in some parts of the world as BULLSHIT. The rule or my explanation of it ?
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Mar 3, 2015 22:38:23 GMT
Always seems pretty random to me. I mean, if the ref didn't blow (don't think he did) then it must have been raised by someone for him to say he had seen it. So who raised it? LMH? LMH raised it in his post match interview and it was covered on MOTD. In those high profile circumstances the FA will always look at it and if appropriate ask the officials if it was seen. Sometimes it's quite obvious that it was seen. If it had been 'seen' then surely it was worthy of at least a yellow? The follow through was a stamping motion, clear as day. I could understand the lack of card if it hadn't been seen but that would imply that retrospective action was available. If it had been seen are the officials saying that its ok to tackle in this manner?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 22:50:26 GMT
It can come from any source. You could email and ask the FA to look at an incident. If it's an "unseen" a panel of ex-refs takes a view on what the ref would have done if it had been seen, and if they think it was violent conduct, the FA will charge and it will go to a Commission. As webby says, as the rules stand, no action can be taken if the officials saw the incident. There is a lot of concern about going too far down the road of re-refereeing games post match. Isn't there a precedent set by the ruling in the ben thatcher / Pedro Mendes incident a number of years ago which means that this isn't strictly true? There are often changes in the rules in the close season, so you always have to consider it against the rules at the time. I remember the horrendous Thatcher challenge but can't remember what the ref. did on-field or what exactly the rules were at that time. The FA does now have the power to bring a case to a Commission that the standard penalty is too lenient in particular circumstances. The general point is that there are pages of rules. Top clubs employ m'learned friends who would be down like the proverbial ton of bricks if the FA went outside its own rules. Whether you agree with the rules is another question entirely.
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 3, 2015 22:50:52 GMT
That's what's known in some parts of the world as BULLSHIT. The rule or my explanation of it ? The rule, brother, the rule. Sorry I didn't clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 23:01:45 GMT
LMH raised it in his post match interview and it was covered on MOTD. In those high profile circumstances the FA will always look at it and if appropriate ask the officials if it was seen. Sometimes it's quite obvious that it was seen. If it had been 'seen' then surely it was worthy of at least a yellow? The follow through was a stamping motion, clear as day. I could understand the lack of card if it hadn't been seen but that would imply that retrospective action was available. If it had been seen are the officials saying that its ok to tackle in this manner? I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that. I obviously can't speak for the officials, but they had to call it after one viewing at normal speed, without the benefit of the slomos we have all seen. And sometimes they make mistakes. For all I know, Neil Swarbrick, having seen it again, might agree with you that he got it wrong. You can be sure it will one of the incidents analysed at the refs fortnightly meeting with the PMOL.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Mar 3, 2015 23:04:11 GMT
Apologies if this is a dumb ass question, but who determines whether an incident is looked at by the authorities? Is it at the request of a club, trial by media or do the powers that be look at all games and decide whether something should be dealt with retroactively? I'm amazed that nothing has been done about the challenge on Ireland Every incident is looked at, at the request of the club involved. Whether action can be taken is determined by what's in the match report handed in by the ref and if any of the 4 officials saw the incident. Them seeing it and what they do with it is all that matters and the FA will not over turn a Refs judgement at the time whether it was right or wrong Not strictly true though is it Mark a ref can send off a player so in his judgement weather right or wrong he's dealt with it but then the FA can overturn his decision!
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Mar 3, 2015 23:20:16 GMT
If it had been 'seen' then surely it was worthy of at least a yellow? The follow through was a stamping motion, clear as day. I could understand the lack of card if it hadn't been seen but that would imply that retrospective action was available. If it had been seen are the officials saying that its ok to tackle in this manner? I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that. I obviously can't speak for the officials, but they had to call it after one viewing at normal speed, without the benefit of the slomos we have all seen. And sometimes they make mistakes. For all I know, Neil Swarbrick, having seen it again, might agree with you that he got it wrong. You can be sure it will one of the incidents analysed at the refs fortnightly meeting with the PMOL. Well that's reassuring Malcolm , the pmols will analyse it , ex refs and freeloaders from the fa boys club giving support to current referees , brill !
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Mar 3, 2015 23:22:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 23:24:02 GMT
Every incident is looked at, at the request of the club involved. Whether action can be taken is determined by what's in the match report handed in by the ref and if any of the 4 officials saw the incident. Them seeing it and what they do with it is all that matters and the FA will not over turn a Refs judgement at the time whether it was right or wrong Not strictly true though is it Mark a ref can send off a player so in his judgement weather right or wrong he's dealt with it but then the FA can overturn his decision! That's true. Straight reds can be appealed and a Commission will view all the available video evidence and form a judgement. One point though - the test is that the ref. made an "obvious" error which is a higher threshold than say just that on balance he got it wrong. You can't appeal yellows or reds resulting from two yellows. Neither a club nor the FA can appeal failure to give a card for an incident seen by the officials.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 3, 2015 23:38:05 GMT
I'm sure a lot of people would agree with that. I obviously can't speak for the officials, but they had to call it after one viewing at normal speed, without the benefit of the slomos we have all seen. And sometimes they make mistakes. For all I know, Neil Swarbrick, having seen it again, might agree with you that he got it wrong. You can be sure it will one of the incidents analysed at the refs fortnightly meeting with the PMOL. Well that's reassuring Malcolm , the pmols will analyse it , ex refs and freeloaders from the fa boys club giving support to current referees , brill ! I actually don't think that's fair. I think the PGOL do scrutinise refs. closely. It's bound to run by ex-refs because you wouldn't want non-qualified people to run it, would you ? I'd much rather have Howard Webb doing it than someone without his experience and qualifications. Each game is viewed in its totality by an ex-ref looking at every decision, and they analyse positioning etc with the same technology used for players. The huge change of course is that nowadays we can all analyse the controversial calls from every angle, whereas years ago there was no TV and you could argue until the cows came home about decisions with no way of ever resolving it.
|
|
|
Post by spongebobflathead on Mar 3, 2015 23:49:52 GMT
I believe it's perfectly fair and until there is any transparency as to how the decisions are made I will continue to be sceptical and believe it's just one big "boys club" !
|
|
|
Post by robinplumpton on Mar 4, 2015 0:05:08 GMT
Hello Malcolm, sorry to be like a stuck record. Yes, people can now have views, viewpoints etc that they never would have had. Thus, previously, debating down the pub, but ultimately (having to) or accepting decisions. As mentioned earlier, anyone can request that an incident is looked at. However, not everybody has the media attention of a "Moanrinhou". Not every incident will get the attention it either merits, or deserves. Thus, if you have a high profile respondent, a high profile media response (MoTD) surely even the most honourable people will inevitably be pressurised for a populist response. Taking into account a populist response does not always expect an immediate response...it sows the seeds.... Matic. Did not the Afghan hound that is Savage describe Charlies' tackle as " the worst ever" on MOTD and cue action. Any worse than the one on Ireland ? Irrespective, where is the media feeding frenzy and.....reaction. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrh I repeat, I do not doubt the integrity of those in decision making, but do not accept that cases brought before them are not either brought before them or acted upon by media influence.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Mar 4, 2015 0:34:39 GMT
On MOTD the panelists claimed the tackle on Ireland was retribution for a previous tackle by Ireland. So does it not follow that the tackle on Ireland was I fact violent? A punch, a headbut, a kick, a stamp, they are all violent actions if done in vengence as opposed to accidental
I've also read that the blade studs are also to blame, in most industries, health and safety rules would ban the tools that cause this kind if damage. Are the blade studs allowed at the academy? Why are they allowed anywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Mar 4, 2015 7:33:30 GMT
Not strictly true though is it Mark a ref can send off a player so in his judgement weather right or wrong he's dealt with it but then the FA can overturn his decision! That's true. Straight reds can be appealed and a Commission will view all the available video evidence and form a judgement. One point though - the test is that the ref. made an "obvious" error which is a higher threshold than say just that on balance he got it wrong. You can't appeal yellows or reds resulting from two yellows. Neither a club nor the FA can appeal failure to give a card for an incident seen by the officials. I know that Malcolm I suppose my point is the ref can give a yellow when it's clearly a red and he's wrong and that's that error or not. If a ref has dealt with it then as according to the FA that should be that.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Mar 4, 2015 11:33:17 GMT
Hello Malcolm, sorry to be like a stuck record. Yes, people can now have views, viewpoints etc that they never would have had. Thus, previously, debating down the pub, but ultimately (having to) or accepting decisions. As mentioned earlier, anyone can request that an incident is looked at. However, not everybody has the media attention of a "Moanrinhou". Not every incident will get the attention it either merits, or deserves. Thus, if you have a high profile respondent, a high profile media response (MoTD) surely even the most honourable people will inevitably be pressurised for a populist response. Taking into account a populist response does not always expect an immediate response...it sows the seeds.... Matic. Did not the Afghan hound that is Savage describe Charlies' tackle as " the worst ever" on MOTD and cue action. Any worse than the one on Ireland ? Irrespective, where is the media feeding frenzy and.....reaction. arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrh I repeat, I do not doubt the integrity of those in decision making, but do not accept that cases brought before them are not either brought before them or acted upon by media influence. This Plus, is it not strange that virtually NOTHING was made of the cock-up at Blackburn that saw Whelan "sent off" (then not)? How is this less "news worthy" than other ref mistakes...oh hang on, it was against Stoke!
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Mar 4, 2015 12:34:11 GMT
Isn't there a precedent set by the ruling in the ben thatcher / Pedro Mendes incident a number of years ago which means that this isn't strictly true? There are often changes in the rules in the close season, so you always have to consider it against the rules at the time. I remember the horrendous Thatcher challenge but can't remember what the ref. did on-field or what exactly the rules were at that time. The FA does now have the power to bring a case to a Commission that the standard penalty is too lenient in particular circumstances. The general point is that there are pages of rules. Top clubs employ m'learned friends who would be down like the proverbial ton of bricks if the FA went outside its own rules. Whether you agree with the rules is another question entirely. Referee saw the challenge and booked the player. Severity of challenge and Mendes injuries was highlighted by the media, prompting the governing bodies to act against their own rules and intervene, changing the yellow to a red and imposing a ban. My memory fails me a little but as I type, I'm recalling the ref seeing the incident but not even booking Thatcher because the ball was effectively off the field of play.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Mar 5, 2015 9:00:21 GMT
There are often changes in the rules in the close season, so you always have to consider it against the rules at the time. I remember the horrendous Thatcher challenge but can't remember what the ref. did on-field or what exactly the rules were at that time. The FA does now have the power to bring a case to a Commission that the standard penalty is too lenient in particular circumstances. The general point is that there are pages of rules. Top clubs employ m'learned friends who would be down like the proverbial ton of bricks if the FA went outside its own rules. Whether you agree with the rules is another question entirely. Referee saw the challenge and booked the player. Severity of challenge and Mendes injuries was highlighted by the media, prompting the governing bodies to act against their own rules and intervene, changing the yellow to a red and imposing a ban. My memory fails me a little but as I type, I'm recalling the ref seeing the incident but not even booking Thatcher because the ball was effectively off the field of play. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I think there's no way the FA would have gone against their own rules or would ever do so now. A club's legal advisers would be on it like a shot ( and rightly so).
|
|