The FA have been able to intervene in the Suarez biting case, as the match officials didn't see the incident, and have subsequently banned him for 10 matches (I'd laugh if he wasn't in my Fantasy League team). Presumably then, had the referee seen the incident and decided to only give him a yellow card, the FA couldn't have intervened and he wouldn't be facing a ban. Of course, had the referee seen it we would have expected him to send Suarez off, but he might not have, in which case the FA would have said their hands were tied. I'm just perplexed by the issue of when the FA can and can't intervene, as it appears that if a referee makes a mess of his decision, as in the Wigan v Newcastle game, whereby he said he saw some of the incident but didn't deem it worthy of a red card, the FA cannot intervene, whereas if the referee didn't see it at all the FA can intervene. This rule clearly doesn't allow for rubbish refereeing. The Suarez bite, whilst totally despicable, could maybe have led to Ivanovic getting a bit of an infected sore on his arm, although I'm unsure as to whether it even broke the skin. The McManaman challenge on the Newcastle player left the player on a stretcher, having to undergo medical tests, injured for a couple of weeks and fortunate not to have his career ended. It's really time the FA stopped closing ranks and introduced a fair system that punishes foul play, including diving, and doesn't just cherry pick who it is going to investigate depending on how they feel that particular morning!
In my opinion, McManaman made a genuine over-zealous mistake. Suarez is just an utter scumbag. 10 games isn't enough.
While I agree with you there, I also believe that GO makes a very valid point. There is way too much confusion regarding the matter of referees dealing with an incident appropriately at the time versus the FA dealing with it after the fact. I'm thinking Morgan and Hume again. I understand the FA's point that, given the fact that incidents aren't always reviewable (e.g. lower league games where there may only be 1 camera) and that they must go with the referee's decision at the time, but surely when there IS sufficient camera evidence (e.g. in every single PL game) there should be scope for the FA to step in when an incident warrants it. Maybe there needs to be one rule for the Premier League and another rule for the rest.
Too right. It's the Premier League that gets shown over and over again, so this is where the footballers of the future pick up their bad habits. Punishing the wrong doers sends out a clear message and will reduce the possibility of young footballers (who are acting as ballboys) using some of the same tactics that the players on the field use, such as time wasting and feigning injury. I don't agree with the FA's argument that because there aren't multiple cameras at all grounds they can't review the decisions involving those games that have the cameras. Twaddle really isn't it. Will I get away with shoplifting from Tescos when caught on camera because it wouldn't have been picked up if I'd shoplifted from the corner shop that has no camera? I think the FA realise that as most gamesmanship and bad fouls caught on camera are from matches involving bigger teams they would be opening themselves up to some right old criticism from some very powerful clubs and managers if they started punishing cheating. Ronaldo would have been picking up cards every week for diving and Rooney for foul and abusive language, for example, and that's just the start. I also imagine that the FA's lack of manpower and the pressure of the PFA also has something to do with it. We have managers like Wenger on TV every week claiming not to have seen the latest misdemeanour from one of his overpaid players, yet whenever a goal is not given because the hapless linesman couldn't keep up with play and see it go over the line they all line up demanding video technology. Double standards from Premiership clubs? Who'd have thought it eh?
