Football Association strengthens retrospective action powers

[metalgear]

http://www.thefa.com/News/governance/2013/jul/retrospective-action-rule-change-120713.aspx

There has been a change to The FA's retrospective action process for the new season

The FA has made a change to its policy regarding what constitutes a 'not seen' incident for the new season.

From the start of the 2013-14 campaign, where the referee’s view of an incident has been completely obstructed and the assistant referees or fourth official are not in a position such that they could be expected to judge the challenge, based on factors such as their distance from or line of sight to an incident, The FA will be able to take retrospective action.

The amendment follows a tackle last season involving Wigan’s Callum McManaman and Saudi Sportswashing Machine’s Massadio Haidara in which the match referee’s view of the incident was blocked whilst the other match officials were not in a position to judge exactly what had occurred.

Prior to this change, which was ratified by The Football Regulatory Authority, The FA was only able to take retrospective action when none of the match officials had seen the ‘coming together’ or when the incident was truly exceptional, for example, in the case of Ben Thatcher's challenge on Pedro Mendes.

This change is not intended to usurp the authority of the match officials who are, in the vast majority of cases, best-placed to deal with incidents at the time they occur. It will only be utilised in the rare circumstances outlined above.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

good move from the FA. doesn't help Bale's case when the ref has seen something that wasnt there.

 

[monkeybarry]

Good move. Might just force certain players to self police as there should be no hiding place

 

[onlyme]

Bit 1984 for me.

 

[braineclipse]

Bit 1984 for me.

You're kidding?

------------------------------

Still not enough for me, doesn't matter how much the ref could see or not, if a tackle is bad enough to warrant retrospective punishment then that's what the player should get.

Should be the same for diving, the serie-a seems to be moving in a good direction with this. It all depends on how these rules are interpreted by the FA next season, but the "not in a position such that they could be expected to judge the challenge" wording essentially allows them to do whatever they please in any given situation.

 

[P.D.]

where the referee’s view of an incident has been completely obstructed and the assistant referees or fourth official are not in a position such that they could be expected to judge the challenge, based on factors such as their distance from or line of sight to an incident

Sounds like the definition could be open to challenge

 

[mudshark]

You're kidding?

------------------------------

Still not enough for me, doesn't matter how much the ref could see or not, if a tackle is bad enough to warrant retrospective punishment then that's what the player should get.

Should be the same for diving, the serie-a seems to be moving in a good direction with this. It all depends on how these rules are interpreted by the FA next season, but the "not in a position such that they could be expected to judge the challenge" wording essentially allows them to do whatever they please in any given situation.

I second that. Totally wrong to keep suggesting that the referee's position might be undermined by having such rules in place. On the contrary, it would reinforce their authority, because there'd be no percentage in trying to con the ref.

 

[ringo]

Of course this doesn't address the issue at all. The problem arises when the ref does see the incident, or was in a position to see the incident, and makes an incorrect decision, either because they misinterpret what they see, or for other reasons that escape me. That is when they need to provide some kind of redress for the incorrect decision, but are unable to because of the stupid rules.

The rules will change for the better. But, as usual, only when it is forced upon the rulemakers, ie someone lays another player out, and the ref is sighted but makes the wrong decision. Or someone gets their leg broken from a dirty tackle and the ref is sighted but makes the wrong decision.

It's strange how tennis and cricket umpires and rugby refs don't have problem with their decisions being reviewed, but the football ref's decision is sacrosanct.

 

[Baleforce]

I second that. Totally wrong to keep suggesting that the referee's position might be undermined by having such rules in place. On the contrary, it would reinforce their authority, because there'd be no percentage in trying to con the ref.

good point

the only issue they are not addressing with wider reaching retrospective action is that the result of the game will stand so there will be no immediate benefit to the team on the wrong end of the decision, to use Suarez as an example its right that he sanctioned for biting Ivanovic but he should have received a red card there and then, not be able to finish the game and head in a late equaliser

its not far enough for me, we need pitch side video replays for referee's