So, as the dust settles on yet another poor display from Newcastle United, with it comes yet another charge of Violent Conduct for one of our best performers this season, courtesy of those faceless farts at FA-HQ - aided, abetted & dare I even say encouraged by the scourge of NUFC, those happy chappies at Sky Sports News.
Now, before I continue, I am not going to blow smoke up Mike Williamson's arse. Nor will I try to defend Joey Barton. Lets face it, if these guys STILL haven't twigged that each & every game - televised or not - is filmed by 20 or so cameras, and every move scrutinised by the media, then they never will, and as such, they should never be allowed to play the game again.
However, it is the FA's consistency - or lack thereof - that really gets the fans backs up. The downright thuggery of the likes of Man City's Nigel de Jong, Karl Henry of Wolves, 5under1and's Lee Cattermole and Tom Huddlestone of Spurs to name just 4, has been downright disgusting, and yet, the FA see fit to take no action against players who, it seems, will not be satisfied until a fellow Pro has their career ended. (As an afterthought, why has Williamson been charged with Violent Conduct for the shoulder charge on Elmander, yet Nicholas Bendtner wasn't charged for his blatant shoulder charge - ironically on Williamson himself - in the recent NUFC v Arsenal Carling Cup game at St. James' Park? - The FA - as consistently inconstant as NUFC.....).
I have looked extensively at the FA's rules and procedures on this subject, and have even spoken to a good friend of mine who actually referees up to Football League standard (he even ran the line at Millwall v Sheff Utd a couple of weeks ago!), and it is as follows: If an incident is brought to the FA's attention, they speak to the referee of that game and ask him a series of yes or no questions, the first two being: Did you see the incident at the time? Did any of your assistants see the incident and bring it to your attention at the time? If the answer to either of these questions is YES, then the incident is deemed as having been dealt with, and the matter is closed.
So, if a referee advises the FA that he saw the incident at the time, RETROSPECTIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN NOT BE USED, and hence why no action was taken against Tom Huddlestone for his blatant stamp on Bolton's Johan Elmander, nor was any taken against Man City's Nigel de Jong for breaking Newcastle's Hatem Ben Arfa's leg - a tackle, remember, which disgusted his national manger so much that he dropped NdJ from his squad.....
If the answer is NO to those questions, then they are asked to study the footage (purely of the one incident in question, ignoring the rest of the game), and are asked one final yes or no question: If this incident had been brought to your attention during the game, would you have shown a [insert colour here] card? (The FA actually ask the referee "a yellow card" or "a red card" as part of the question depending on the incident in question - for example: "if you had seen this incident, would you have shown a yellow card?" The colour of the card is not the referee's choice). If the answer is YES, then RETROSPECTIVE VIDEO EVIDENCE CAN BE USED, and charges are brought by the FA against the player involved.
Just one quick thought here: if the referee states that he didn't see the incident, and his assistants state they didn't see the incident, and the 4th official states he didn't see the incident, would it not be worthwhile the FA asking them all just what the hell they were doing at the time to miss it? I mean come on, at least one of the assistants must be able to see what is going on off the ball.....
As if that was not enough, the player involved is NOT allowed any representation at the hearing, which is conducted behind closed doors by an anonymous panel. The panel sits to merely decide on the punishment, guidelines for which are given by the FA. The only appeal that the player has is to the severity of the punishment, and not the crime itself. This makes the FA judge, jury & executioner all at the same time, and players are not so much CHARGED with an incident, but found GUILTY of it without being able to defend themselves (which, the way NUFC have defended over the last couple of weeks, is no bad thing.....)
I feel that there is too much secrecy in the game these days. How many transfers are for an "undisclosed fee"? If the governing bodies want to whip the game into shape, lets start with all transfer fees being made public. I also don't think it would the worst idea to have all weekly wages made public either. But worst of all, there should be public panels - preferably of ex-Professionals who have played at the highest level (but not the Sky Sports Soccer Saturday shits.....) who rule on these incidents. They more than most would be able to relate these matters, and the rulings and thoughts would be there for all to see.
The FA have gone beyond the point of being a laughing stock, as have all the other bodies (UEFA & FIFA more than most) who currently govern the game. No, you CAN'T use video technology to rule if the ball has crossed the line, but yes, you CAN use it to sit in a Kangaroo Court and ban players at will, anonymously. It's about time someone took a leaf out of Will Carling's book and took these 'old farts' (many of whom make the rules yet have NEVER played the game) to task for their actions. The English game, and the people who run it, needs root & branch surgery if they are to get the fans back onside.
But then hey, what does our opinion count for, so long as we keep showing up and filling their coffers with money.....
No comments:
Post a Comment