How can we get the FA to change???

Without us, the fans, the FA fatcats will be so much poorer.

How can they not punish Rio for his thuggery? And now Macmanaman? What about Rooney's assault a couple of years back???

Yet they saw fit to make an example of Ben Thatcher and gave him a 10 match ban (if memory serves me) which was appropriate.

Hitting an opponent, especially when they aren't even looking is a cowardly act deserving more than a 3 match ban.

The FA can't keep hiding behind officials saw it, made an atrocious decision, but we'll stick by it.

The FA clearly needs to go through a ridiculous amount of reform before it can be viewed as a respected body in my opinion.

They need to change this very rule for a start. An official has 'seen' the incident so we therefore cannot do anything. What a load of b****ks. If he has seen it then that particular official needs reprimanding and then sacking. Shocking decision, if he has seen it.

Also, tackles on the pitch happen at a split second rate, so what they may have seen may look different when they look back at the incident at a later date on video.

No reason why that tackle should be anything less than a red. Whether there was any intent, I have no idea but the FA should be ashamed for not pursuing a ban with this.

That whole "The official saw it" line is total bollocks. Adebayor got an additional ban for inciting the Arsenal fans, even though the ref saw it and did nothing. And he got more for stamping on van Pussy, again despite the ref seeing it.

It's a law the FA can hide behind when they want to protect one of their golden eggs. It's a complete joke.

The FA are a bunch of hypocrites,and their inconcistencies are legendary,but,sad to say nothing will ever be done about it until the clubs get sick of it.The clubs are the only ones who have the power to get rid of the present dinosaures and put in people who have the experience and knowledge to do the job.That is not going to happen either!!

Until the actual 'law/rule' changes, they will and can, always hide behind it.

What is the difference if a referee says - "I didn't see it"...and retrospective action is taken.....compared to this incident where an assistant says he saw it, but from afar, then the ref says "if I saw it I would have given a red card".......that's surely retrospective action??

Due to the law of the game...if somebody saw it, they cannot go back and take action...agreed at last years Managers meeting.

Maybe we are coming from this at the wrong angle. Maybe the Managers should stand up at the end of the season and say we want an independent panel....and regardless or not of whether a referee or an assistant saw it...for potential dangerous play we will abide by the panels decision.

The Managers have agreed to this.....so whether the FA are wrong or not....the rule is the rule, however, the refs assistant, with hindsight, should have done the sensible thing and said "I didn't see it"...but then again, catch 22..........he'll be called into question as to why he didn't see it.

The problem with the FA and it's culture lies within the fact that it's always had a 'blame' culture for it's officials since the introduction of the PL, Sky etc...instead, they should have a 'just culture' whereby mistakes are always going to happen, but lessons are learned and protocols adjusted to counter-act them, thereby making the system in place, more robust and fair for all concerned.

According to the FA spokesman this morning on BBC News, they don't want to re-referee games after the event if at least one match official saw the incident and took no action. This would lead to officials not having the incentive to make the big decisions during games if they thought that their decisions were going to be re-refereed later.

What complete bollocks
Surely referees would be wanting to get as many decisions right on the day as possible out of good old professional pride?
If they took no action because they were at a bad angle to the incident and
misread or misinterpreted it and replays showed it was a very bad tackle or a punch in the kidneys, whatever, then surely the FA cannot hide simply because the referee claimed he saw it and took no action, but then it turns out the referee was wrong?
If something is clearly deserving of punishment but the referee misreads it due to a poor angle or being unsighted by other players etc but decides he cannot give anything because he did not see it then why can the FA not take action retrospectively? The referee will say he saw it but thought it was not a foul just because he missed it or he maybe thought it just looked ok from his angle, but when it is clearly shown on TV to be a horrendous tackle then how the hell can the FA turn around and say they "don't want to re-referee games and undermine the referee's decisions" what about the poor lad in hospital?

This is going to lead to players taking civil actions in the courts against other players for endangering their careers or even assault and all because the governing body are too gutless to make a common sense decision.

Don't be silly, MCM. The FA aren't interested in ensuring the professionalism and safety of those who participate in the sport! They have only one interest.

Money.

Wigan are in the FA Cup final. Without McManaman, Wigan will be a weaker side, thus turning it into "Wigan versus the 2013 FA Cup winners", not exactly a big draw. No, better to protect the lad and make it more of a contest worthy of people tuning in, which makes it easier for creaming advertisers for as much money as possible and therefore makes TV rights that much more lucrative.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Money is ruining the sport.

Get the jist there leo, but i'm not sure about Wigan being weakened by McManaman not being in the side.......he ain't that good.

Think Newcastle hit the nail on the head with the statement "This rule just isn't fit for purpose".

Money is undoubtedly ruining the game Leo but the inflexible rules that the FA seem to apply or ignore when it suits them are not making it any more palatable either.

Be different if a "star player" was in the receiving end no doubt? Say, if Rooney or RVP got crocked! Fergie would be storming down to the FA in Soho Sqr, having a coronary with apoplectic rage!!!

Bewar3them00n wrote:Be different if a "star player" was in the receiving end no doubt? Say, if Rooney or RVP got crocked! Fergie would be storming down to the FA in Soho Sqr, having a coronary with apoplectic rage!!!

and there lies the problem with the FA.

Do we all really believe IF THAT tackle had been made on RVP and he was out for the rest of the season.....the lad would have received nothing due to the current 'rules' in place? Of course not. Taggert would have made sure that it was judged at the highest level and refused to co-operate with the England sqaud if the decision wasn't in his favour.......... sorry, forgot..he's already told Rio he's not allowed to play for his country anymore.