Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leon]

Upholding incorrect decisions by referees, if that's what you're suggesting the FA should do, would be a disastrous way of trying to support match officials. The rescinding of Lampard's red card has actually taken some of the sting out of fans' resentment towards Mike Riley. If the FA had 'backed' him, he would be getting absolutely slaughtered now.

[HallamAlty]

I absolutely agree that it seems ridiculous that while the red card to Lampard can (rightfully) be rescinded, the FA can't do anything about Bosingwa. He will now face absolutely no punishment for a despicable and intentional act.  It's beyond belief that the linesman could have been so close and decided it was not a foul!  It makes no sense at all!

Apart from it being a very odd and somewhat contradictory rule, it sends out completely the wrong message to those watching the game - especially kids.  It really needs to be looked at

[Jezza]

The FA are gutless contradictory pillocks.

But if they support incompetent refs they'd look even more stupid wouldn't they?

[Uncle Globnasty]

Upholding incorrect decisions by referees, if that's what you're suggesting the FA should do, would be a disastrous way of trying to support match officials. The rescinding of Lampard's red card has actually taken some of the sting out of fans' resentment towards Mike Riley. If the FA had 'backed' him, he would be getting absolutely slaughtered now.

Absolutely spot on.

I can't believe you are suggesting that the FA support a referees decision, irrespective of it's validity? Would you care to clarify ATS? As if that is what you mean, you really have lost the plot. Let's say a manager in a business fires an employee for some breach of company policy; is it then correct for senior management to endorse that decision even if they know it to be wrong?

[wayno]

so how does swp get a charge for kicking delap even though the ref didnt see it http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/7870813.stm
but Bosingwa can just kick yossi in the back and nothing happens?

on the main point, i dont see that there is a problem with retrospectively accepting you have made a mistake. everyone makes them and on a football field it often depends where you are looking from. it would be much more damaging to continue claiming it was a sending off when everyone has seen it and its clear that was wrong.
the idea that you can use videos is a daft joke - today at the cricket they referred a decision upstairs and it took several minutes for a ruling to be made despite the fact that there had to be clear evidence for overturning the on field decision.

If you believe the use of video is a joke; do you then agree or disagree with the use of it after the fact?

IE to recind a sending off when the damage is already done?

[jiminlondon]

so how does swp get a charge for kicking delap even though the ref didnt see it http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/7870813.stm
but Bosingwa can just kick yossi in the back and nothing happens?

on the main point, i dont see that there is a problem with retrospectively accepting you have made a mistake. everyone makes them and on a football field it often depends where you are looking from. it would be much more damaging to continue claiming it was a sending off when everyone has seen it and its clear that was wrong.
the idea that you can use videos is a daft joke - today at the cricket they referred a decision upstairs and it took several minutes for a ruling to be made despite the fact that there had to be clear evidence for overturning the on field decision.

If you believe the use of video is a joke; do you then agree or disagree with the use of it after the fact?

IE to recind a sending off when the damage is already done?

i dont think there is any choice really, as i and others have said i would cause more harm to continue claiming lampards sending off was justified when everyone knows it wasnt
i do think it was probably better when games werent routinely shown on tv and actually the vast majority of the population neither knew or cared who the players were
my own view on refs is that some are good and some arent but they all try to do their best. whatever the ref decides happened is what happened (of course i reserve the right to abuse him from the terrace.) and after the game people should just let it go.
once you go away from this idea lies madness. perhaps you can have video for goalline decisions but how long til each offside is disputed? (cricket is now doing video for lbw decisions - ridiculous)

[wayno]

Good points- i am torn personally- i can see the benifits but agree with you it would spoil the game as we know it.

Plus it would take ages for Graham to request the video tape from the hut to play it to let the ref know the outcome 

[AltyTunnelSteward]

Absolutely spot on.

I can't believe you are suggesting that the FA support a referees decision, irrespective of it's validity? Would you care to clarify ATS? As if that is what you mean, you really have lost the plot. Let's say a manager in a business fires an employee for some breach of company policy; is it then correct for senior management to endorse that decision even if they know it to be wrong?


Thanks Uncle G,

Firstly let's just take all the individual incidents out of this...the Lampard, Terry, Densmore, Robinson (WBA v Man Utd), the lot and look at this as a point of principle.

Secondly let's do what I said I wouldn't and discuss the Laws of Association Football as they apply to a 'theoretical challenge' This is paraphrased but hey!

If a challenge is, in the opinion of a Referee reckless then a Yellow Card shall be shown.

If a challenge is, in the opinion of the Referee, likely to endanger the safety of an opponent then a Red Card shall be shown.

The key issue here is 'in the opinion of the Referee'

Yes that's the opinion of one individual made from where they are in relation to the incident which has been seen once at full speed without the benefit of multi angles, slow motion and Andy Gray.

I'm not disputing that mistakes are made by officials and when it is a clear and blatant mistake then by all means overturn it..I have no problem with that. The failure of Mr Matadar to deal correctly with the Bosingwa challenge being a prime example.

What I'm getting at here and probably phrasing it very badly indeed is that if a decision is made on the subjective opinion of an individual that in their opinion a challenge is dangerous then the authorities are showing a lack of support to that official and the colleagues of that official to overturn that honest decision, based on 'evidence' which was not available when the original decision was made.

The Law indicates that whether the ball is played or not is totally irrelevant to the interpretation of whether a challenge is dangerous as, is whether contact is made with the opponent....stupid you may say and I may agree with you but that is the Law as it stands and as it is applied by Officials.

Incidentally so far this season there have been four Red cards overturned in the Premiership (last season over the whole season there were two) and all of these have been issued during live televised fixtures.

So, if you think I've lost the plot then that is an opinion to which you are perfectly entitled.

I have tried, as asked, to clarify my point.

[Jimbo Alty FC]

Mike Riley Just won United the league on sunday in my opinion because to me chelsea have to much ground to catch up and as for liverpool they just don't have enough striking options to put a real fear into United maintaining the premiership crown which i'm sure for neutral has ruined the season But as for losing refs because there no trust in them is rubbish teams lose a key player in there team to suspention all because a ref got a decision wrong it could turn that teams season oon its head in 3 games before the player gets back for chelsea it ruined there season in the hour that lampard was on the pitch. Neutrals watch the big games for the buzz and standard of football as much as i hate him frank lampard is a quality player and he along With Terry is the heart of Chelsea football club just like gerrard and Carragher for liverpool either teams loses either player there f**ked.

[Narcissist]

What I'm getting at here and probably phrasing it very badly indeed is that if a decision is made on the subjective opinion of an individual that in their opinion a challenge is dangerous then the authorities are showing a lack of support to that official and the colleagues of that official to overturn that honest decision, based on 'evidence' which was not available when the original decision was made.

The FA doesn't just have a responsibility to the match officials. It has also a responsibility to the clubs, players and fans of the clubs who play under its rule. They should be supporting all of these bases by making a clear statement of how the process works. I dont envy any match official because they have a no-win job in the premiership pantomime. Their role is that of the villain and we all buy into it.

The FA have the means to speak out in the media and put the records straight on behalf of players and officials. They could easily support the decision made by the ref at the time it was made. Supporting his position at that time and what he saw. They could also support the players by saying that given the evidence at the time it was the right thing to do, and given the evidence after overturning was also the right thing to do.

Andy Gray and his fellowship should be made to show less slow-mo replays and more real-time clips of the event, and quote the exact rules before making their judgement on somebody who should be given a fair trial. I think the FA and the media have a lot of things to answer for, but overturning decisions is not one of them.

[Uncle Globnasty]

Excellent reply by OGC.

OK Phil, thanks for the clarification. I understand your point, but can not possibly agree with it for reasons outlined above by OGC.

Also you did not address my other point. Let's say your line manager at work has sacked you for what he saw as a breach of company policy, but senior management later see that the line manager did not have all of the evidence at his disposal and that the decision was unjust. Should they support the decision of the line manager? He applied the letter of the law as he saw it with regard to company policy.

What you are proposing is blind support for appointed officials regardless of their ability or the accuracy of their decisions.

p.s. Apologies for the 'losing the plot' comment...a tad harsh maybe. Not that I regard it as an insult.....losing the plot has oft times been a state of mind that I have strived to achieve in my somewhat chequered (end) past.

[fuertes]

Lampard should never have gone for that tackle.

If the FA had not rescinded the red card we might as well all give up on football, non-contact sports are boring.

I have to say, I sympathise with (most) referees. They hear all sorts of crap, "use common sense", "all we want is consistency", "there was hardly a tackle in the game", generally contradictory or irrelevant bullsh*t. I'm surprised they know whether they're coming or going.

Also, and sorry to rant but this just came into my head, does everyone else agree with me and Clive Tyldesley that if someone goes down 'injured' the other team should f**king well play on until the referee says otherwise?? I thought we'd agreed that was the system and we seem to have reverted back to this ludicrous situation where one team stops playing and challenges the other to carry on and look like cheats. Does my head in.

[Saughall Robin]

Lampard should never have gone for that tackle.

If the FA had not rescinded the red card we might as well all give up on football, non-contact sports are boring.

I have to say, I sympathise with (most) referees. They hear all sorts of crap, "use common sense", "all we want is consistency", "there was hardly a tackle in the game", generally contradictory or irrelevant bullsh*t. I'm surprised they know whether they're coming or going.

Also, and sorry to rant but this just came into my head, does everyone else agree with me and Clive Tyldesley that if someone goes down 'injured' the other team should f**king well play on until the referee says otherwise?? I thought we'd agreed that was the system and we seem to have reverted back to this ludicrous situation where one team stops playing and challenges the other to carry on and look like cheats. Does my head in.

For serious injuries requiring medical attention (or even  seeming to) play should be stopped ... but not when they've laddered their tights, snapped a suspender or lost a glove.