Article 12 - Unfair because referees are not held by it!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2091923/Phil-Dowd-wrong-Liverpool-penalty--Graham-Poll.html

Graham Poll - stating that Dowd got Micah's penalty wrong on 2 fronts.

Now - we have been up against this Article 12 appeal process on more than one occasion. Unless you are the FA trying get an England player's ban reduced...it does not work for your club.

The refs can review an incident on a Monday morning and claim not to have seen it at the time and a player can be banned for 3 or 4 matches.

The refs get decisions completely wrong - come Monday morning, there is no appeal for the club as it cannot change the game.

Therefore - if a ref see's something or doesn't during the game - that should be that and this Monday morning get-out clause for the referee's needs to go.

We can all see that the ball hit Micah's boot and deflected up onto his arm - from a ball struck from 2 yards away....a penalty given and scored - nothing can be done about it the next day.

We all saw Dzeko get his leg kicked away in the penalty area by Adams - again the ref is 10 yards away and deems Adam to have got the ball - this time no penalty, no goal - nothing can be done about it the next day.

However - a ref can say he never saw an incident at the time - 10 yards away, can wave play on - but can sit down to review in hindsight what he would have done if he saw it on a slow motion replay - and a player gets a 4 game suspension - the club and the player loses out, the ref rectify's a perceived error - other teams benefit.

It's all a load of bollocks - and the sooner the article is abolished - or video technology is brought in (if they want to get every single decision right - though that's not football) - then the refs like Dowd, Foy and Webb are made to look like incompetent professionals, not being to carry out their duties without the help of "video technology" that FIFA/FA etc don't want. There's hypocrisy at work again...the refs get video technology and slow-mo's to review their mistakes.

Come on FA - it's time to review your draconian approach to football.

in cricket, we had line technology to start with. run outs and stumpings to start with. apart from the hiccup of frame by frame, (sometimes you'd like to freeze between frames which you can't) decisions are generally correct and made fairly quickly.

it works at wimbledon and in other sports without too much fuss and even adds a little excitement.

we should at least start with goal line technology in football. generally, that'll be an open and shut case though it may take a couple of years to iron out any teething problems and we should accept that there will be some teething problems.

then cricket moved onto boundaries, did the ball go over the rope/was the fielder touching the rope when he touched the ball.

this, generally, mattered less in a game of cricket but was crucial at other times. once again, it takes very little time for the 3rd umpire to have a review. usually the 1st replay is enough, though sometimes he'll need 4 or 5.

that doesn't hold up the game at all.

now they have moved onto DRS on actual wicket taking deliveries.

this was meant to catch the obvious howlers like when a batsman hits the ball, the umpire doesn't notice, and gives him out LBW etc. it is mainly to catch the obvious howlers and, once again, usually just takes one review in most cases.

Why can't we have a quick review each time a goals is scored or a major decision needs making?

It doesn't waste any time since the players are off celebrating for at least 30 seconds by which time a couple of reviews could have been made?

we wouldn't have got Dzeko's decision in our favour (unless the ball went out straightaway) but we'd most certainly have got Micah's outrageous penalty decision overturned.

Lampard's thuggish tackle a couple of weeks ago got him a yellow card when he should have received a red one. A quick review whilst the players were milling around and the injured party got treatment, and lampard would have been off.

if the ref misses such a tackle, then the player/club benefit hugely. lampard only received a yellow card and wasn't banned for three matches.

vinnie got his marching orders and a three match ban. how fair is that?

introducing technology into the equation may not please the 'purists' but i would like to see better decisions being made and refs have proved themselves not to be up to it.

The difference with tennis and cricket is that they are full of natural breaks in play, so reviewing video doesn't hold things up. It'll be harder in football, but maybe there is a way to review decisions and I think it'll be the same as the system they have in tennis, where a team can object to a call and get a review, which they have 3 of in each game. If the review shows that the ref is correct, the foul is given and the count is reduced by 1. If the review shows an incorrect decision, the team is awarded a free kick and the count remains.

Yes, and goal line tech, which they can swipe from cricket.

leo, if a goal is scored, then that won't hold the game up as howlers would be spotted whilst the players are celebrating.

calling someone offside when they aren't, we can't do anything about as it is too late.

there is enough timewasting going on as it is. 30-40 seconds fpor a goal kick!

why not just use the system from rugby..

if the ref wants a video help for any call, he asks for the square in the air...

no iffs, no butts, one guy sat there who can have a look in a matter of seconds when he is asked to look..

I'm not overly keen on video technology. My thoughts in the OP were more about the fact that refs can use them to punish players retrospectively, but there is no recourse when refs make a fucking stupid mistake like Dowd last night x2.

I wish this article to be abolished - and get back to "what happens on the pitch, is dealt with on the pitch"....if not - then tough shit. No Monday morning meetings, no video reviews in slow-mo.....they either saw it correctly, saw it and called it incorrectly or they didn't see it at all...and therefore can do nothing about it after the match.

It really is that simple. This Article 12 is all for the FA and referees to admonish any responsibility for their poor performance.

The FA demand respect for the referee-after the last few weeks they should be made to explain their inadequacies.Clubs should be able to challenge the FA over utterly stupid mistakes made by their representatives.
Last night I thought it was odd that Dowd was waving his arms in the air, when Micah's arms were nowhere near where Dowd said they were.
I did not like Poll when he was working,but he knows the rules and he has at least explained what should have happened,It is the FA who are the idiots on this case,as in others.

Dowd didn't see the ball strike his leg i guess. that is the only reason to give the penalty in my opinion.

the FA/refs association need to come out and explain controversial decisions and why they are not acting consistently.

how can a ref not do peter crouch for violent conduct i just don't know.

Topdawg wrote:Dowd didn't see the ball strike his leg i guess. that is the only reason to give the penalty in my opinion.

the FA/refs association need to come out and explain controversial decisions and why they are not acting consistently.

how can a ref not do peter crouch for violent conduct i just don't know.

and there lies the problem Dawg....the rule is only for the refs and not the players or clubs that get the crap decisions.

that's why someone needs to take the FA or individual ref to court.

imagine if that had been the final and we'd been done out pf a pen and they'd got the pen. imagine if that'd been the last league game of the season and we needed three points to secure the title?

there will come a point when the financial implications of a decision will make someone fancy a challenge in court especially if the club is owned by a foreign investor.

let's take the example of a foreign investor spending £20M buying a championship club and investing in players. they get done in the play off final by poor reffing and it costs them £60M in future income. let's say the club are just about broke and that without the money they could have got, they will go into administration.

it may seem far fetched, but it may happen one day.

"Dowd didn't see the ball strike his leg i guess"

He must be bleedin blind then Dawg, as he was only 5yds away looking right at it. Inept refereeing at its best (or should that be worst).

i agree shaken. if you can't see the ball strike his leg, then you shouldn't be reffing.

i have some sympathy with refs having made a pig's ear of a decision nearly 25 years ago - it was that bad that i still remember it. but not enough to accept these shitty decisions. these cocksuckers are paid £100K a year so they should be getting just about everything right.

at least i was shit for both teams