FA - now there's a business model to avoid!

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

We all know how insipid the FA are - whether it is because they are deluded by a sense of their own self importance or because UEFA have instructed them to be so.

 

Now to the subject header - "a business model to avoid". It appears that the FA is a monopoly and a law unto themselves. There is no alternative "body" that can challenge them. Their decisions are final and irrespective of whether they are right or wrong.

 

Now that may seem to be an idyll for some (banks and "self regulation", media and "self regulation", politicians and "self regulation" etc. etc) but for the majority of decent people it is no longer acceptable. I would like to emphasise, decent people.

 

It smacks of something being very wrong when an official saw an incident but apparently didn''t report it as being something noteworthy or of bringing to the referee''s attention, therefore, no further action can be taken! At what juncture would the FA ever act? Would it need a prosecution in a court for them to do so? All very well wanting to protect the integrity of the officials - but what about protecting the players on the field of play?

 

I''m afraid that the FA have disgraced themselves on this one - especially given the excuses they produced. They have given the more "robust" teams and players the green light to continue with vicious tackles.

 

Would be wonderful if Newcastle could find a legal way to "punish" the FA

 

Now to indulge in a little fantasy - wouldn''t it make you feel great if SKY and BT threatened to "reassess" their forthcoming football funding unless the FA "reassessed" their disciplinary processes! OK - time to wake up now! 

[First Wazzock 975]

Good post.

[PurpleCanary 6,217]

[quote user="ABC A Basingstoke Canary"]

We all know how insipid the FA are - whether it is because they are deluded by a sense of their own self importance or because UEFA have instructed them to be so.

 

Now to the subject header - "a business model to avoid". It appears that the FA is a monopoly and a law unto themselves. There is no alternative "body" that can challenge them. Their decisions are final and irrespective of whether they are right or wrong.

 

Now that may seem to be an idyll for some (banks and "self regulation", media and "self regulation", politicians and "self regulation" etc. etc) but for the majority of decent people it is no longer acceptable. I would like to emphasise, decent people.

 

It smacks of something being very wrong when an official saw an incident but apparently didn''t report it as being something noteworthy or of bringing to the referee''s attention, therefore, no further action can be taken! At what juncture would the FA ever act? Would it need a prosecution in a court for them to do so? All very well wanting to protect the integrity of the officials - but what about protecting the players on the field of play?

 

I''m afraid that the FA have disgraced themselves on this one - especially given the excuses they produced. They have given the more "robust" teams and players the green light to continue with vicious tackles.

 

Would be wonderful if Newcastle could find a legal way to "punish" the FA

 

Now to indulge in a little fantasy - wouldn''t it make you feel great if SKY and BT threatened to "reassess" their forthcoming football funding unless the FA "reassessed" their disciplinary processes! OK - time to wake up now! 

[/quote]

 

No. Absolutely not. Too early to talk about BT, but Sky have too much power and influence over the English game and its finances as it is. The latest example being this Guardian story:

A summit meeting of the 24 Championship clubs will on Wednesday warn the Premier League that it risks permanently damaging the "integrity of the Football League" by proposing a big hike in parachute money for clubs relegated from the top tier but only a modest rise in "solidarity payments" for other clubs. Furious chairmen have said they could ultimately turn their backs on the Premier League in protest, while others believe that their recently introduced financial fair play rules will become "completely unworkable" if the scheme goes ahead as planned.

As described in a letter to Football League clubs by the chairman, Greg Clarke, relegated clubs will receive £23m in the first year (a £7m increase), £18m in the second (£5m) and £9m in years three and four. Clubs in the Championship who do not get parachute payments currently receive £2.3m a season, League One sides £325,000 and League Two sides £250,000. It is proposed that those payments are increased by around 5% under the new offer.

"If you''re getting £2.3m a year and your rivals are getting £23m, how is that sustainable? How do you compete? It also makes it very difficult to see how financial fair play can be sustained," said one Championship source.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

Will play devil''s advocate here a little and defend the FA...

 

Whilst it is of course frustrating that McManaman hasn''t recieved a ban for what was a bad tackle against Newcastle, I can see why the FA are keeping their hard line of if it is in the match report they won''t act retrospectively.

 

Firstly, if you change one decision where does it stop? Do the FA have to start making rulings on every decision in games or just the ones the media shouts about loudly enough? If this tackle had been in League Two and not on MOTD then no one would really care beyond the fans in the teams directly affected - by putting pressure on the FA to change its rules and ban McManaman the media is attempting to increase its power in the game.

 

At least the FA is consistent - knowing it was going to get a flood of bad press from the situation they stuck to their rules, it would have been very easy for them to rattle on about ''special circumstances'' give McManaman a three game ban and the whole story would go away. What rule changes would you suggest that aren''t subject to abuse from the richer, more powerful clubs.

 

Also, the FA don''t get money from SKY or BT directly for Premier League games, that goes straight to Premier League.

[star_manic 0]

it is all very well the FA standing by its principals, but the time will come that this will come back to haunt them. what would happen if a players career is finished in one of these incidents? if the FA say they can do nothing about it because one or more of the officials saw it and chose not to act then surely they must be holding themselves open to action from the player concerned, albeit in only a secondary nature. it is time a respected panel was set up, independent of the FA, that looks at all contentious incidents, no matter the circumstances. as long as players know that they are able to get away with incidents like this, even if they are sent off and get a three match ban, which compared to the possibility of a ruined career to the recipient of the agressive tackle, is nothing. the minimum ban for a tackle of this sort should be at least 10 games, not the current three ( or zero in this case ).

[Thirsty Lizard 3,205]

I see the point you''re making Bethnal, but please give me an honest answer to this question.

If it was Wayne Rooney who had been on the end of McManaman''s ''tackle'' do you still think the FA would have come to the same conclusion?

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

 

Firstly, if you change one decision where does it stop? Do the FA have to start making rulings on every decision in games or just the ones the media shouts about loudly enough?[/quote]

Is it too simplistic to answer this with "No not every decision, just those that the referee misses."

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]I see the point you''re making Bethnal, but please give me an honest answer to this question. If it was Wayne Rooney who had been on the end of McManaman''s ''tackle'' do you still think the FA would have come to the same conclusion?[/quote]

I do - 100%.

 

The FA has only broken their own rule once - when Ben Thatcher elbowed a player; I doubt they would do it again.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

[quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

 

Firstly, if you change one decision where does it stop? Do the FA have to start making rulings on every decision in games or just the ones the media shouts about loudly enough?[/quote]

Is it too simplistic to answer this with "No not every decision, just those that the referee misses."

[/quote]

The tackle was mentioned in the match official''s report - the linesman saw it. So it was not missed at the time, but possibly from behind or was obscured. If the incident had have been missed altogether McManaman would now have a ban handed down from the FA.

[First Wazzock 975]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

 

Firstly, if you change one decision where does it stop? Do the FA have to start making rulings on every decision in games or just the ones the media shouts about loudly enough?[/quote]

Is it too simplistic to answer this with "No not every decision, just those that the referee misses."

[/quote]

The tackle was mentioned in the match official''s report - the linesman saw it. So it was not missed at the time, but possibly from behind or was obscured. If the incident had have been missed altogether McManaman would now have a ban handed down from the FA.

[/quote]

So sack the Lino and hammer McManaman [;)]

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="Zak Burger"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

 

Firstly, if you change one decision where does it stop? Do the FA have to start making rulings on every decision in games or just the ones the media shouts about loudly enough?[/quote]

Is it too simplistic to answer this with "No not every decision, just those that the referee misses."

[/quote]

The tackle was mentioned in the match official''s report - the linesman saw it. So it was not missed at the time, but possibly from behind or was obscured. If the incident had have been missed altogether McManaman would now have a ban handed down from the FA.

[/quote]I deliberately underlined the word "referee".

[Jim Smith 2,498]

Well if the linesman saw it and didn;t think it was a foul then he should be sacked. In fact for all 4 officials to have missed it they must be completely incompetent.

I just think the whole thing is a nonsense. I know Bethnal says the Thatcher example is the only time they have gone against the rule but is that actually the case? there must be lots of examples where some sort physical contact has been seen by the ref but he''s not realised someone has swung an elbow or lashed out, particularly when players have been jostling in the penalty area. I don;t really see how this is any different.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Well if the linesman saw it and didn;t think it was a foul then he should be sacked. In fact for all 4 officials to have missed it they must be completely incompetent. I just think the whole thing is a nonsense. I know Bethnal says the Thatcher example is the only time they have gone against the rule but is that actually the case? there must be lots of examples where some sort physical contact has been seen by the ref but he''s not realised someone has swung an elbow or lashed out, particularly when players have been jostling in the penalty area. I don;t really see how this is any different.[/quote]

 

It''s all to do with the extensive match report that a refree compiles after a game, the report will include incidents that the linesmen have made aware to the ref (this is what happened in the McManaman case) - if the incident is noted then no further action can be taken against a player. If the ref makes a note of a ''coming together'' of two players then retrospective punishment cannot be made. The Ben Thatcher case is the only example the FA bending their own rules - they are pretty stubborn about these kind of things.

 

I guess the only way the FA could attempt to change their rules would be to add something about the refree seeing an incident but not understanding the severity, due to having their view blocked or unsighted. But this grey area would open the doors for hundreds of challenges a year.

 

Again, there are many examples of these horror tackles across the leagues every season - people only get worked up about the ones on TV or largely reported by the media. If it was Rochdale v Barnet, it would never been given a second mention - the FA has to treat every accredited match from the top of the Premier League all the way down to the very bottom of the pyramid the same.

[First Wazzock 975]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Well if the linesman saw it and didn;t think it was a foul then he should be sacked. In fact for all 4 officials to have missed it they must be completely incompetent. I just think the whole thing is a nonsense. I know Bethnal says the Thatcher example is the only time they have gone against the rule but is that actually the case? there must be lots of examples where some sort physical contact has been seen by the ref but he''s not realised someone has swung an elbow or lashed out, particularly when players have been jostling in the penalty area. I don;t really see how this is any different.[/quote]

 

It''s all to do with the extensive match report that a refree compiles after a game, the report will include incidents that the linesmen have made aware to the ref (this is what happened in the McManaman case) - if the incident is noted then no further action can be taken against a player. If the ref makes a note of a ''coming together'' of two players then retrospective punishment cannot be made. The Ben Thatcher case is the only example the FA bending their own rules - they are pretty stubborn about these kind of things.

 

I guess the only way the FA could attempt to change their rules would be to add something about the refree seeing an incident but not understanding the severity, due to having their view blocked or unsighted. But this grey area would open the doors for hundreds of challenges a year.

 

Again, there are many examples of these horror tackles across the leagues every season - people only get worked up about the ones on TV or largely reported by the media. If it was Rochdale v Barnet, it would never been given a second mention - the FA has to treat every accredited match from the top of the Premier League all the way down to the very bottom of the pyramid the same.

[/quote]

But if you can get away with that, the system is very badly flawed. Even Rochdale and Barnet deserve better!

[Jim Smith 2,498]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Well if the linesman saw it and didn;t think it was a foul then he should be sacked. In fact for all 4 officials to have missed it they must be completely incompetent. I just think the whole thing is a nonsense. I know Bethnal says the Thatcher example is the only time they have gone against the rule but is that actually the case? there must be lots of examples where some sort physical contact has been seen by the ref but he''s not realised someone has swung an elbow or lashed out, particularly when players have been jostling in the penalty area. I don;t really see how this is any different.[/quote]

 

It''s all to do with the extensive match report that a refree compiles after a game, the report will include incidents that the linesmen have made aware to the ref (this is what happened in the McManaman case) - if the incident is noted then no further action can be taken against a player. If the ref makes a note of a ''coming together'' of two players then retrospective punishment cannot be made. The Ben Thatcher case is the only example the FA bending their own rules - they are pretty stubborn about these kind of things.

 

I guess the only way the FA could attempt to change their rules would be to add something about the refree seeing an incident but not understanding the severity, due to having their view blocked or unsighted. But this grey area would open the doors for hundreds of challenges a year.

 

Again, there are many examples of these horror tackles across the leagues every season - people only get worked up about the ones on TV or largely reported by the media. If it was Rochdale v Barnet, it would never been given a second mention - the FA has to treat every accredited match from the top of the Premier League all the way down to the very bottom of the pyramid the same.

[/quote]

I still think that where there is very clearly a serious foul it ought to be possible for the FA, in consultation with the FA, to step in. i can see how allowing clubs to lodge complaints/appeal might start a free for all bit surely when viewing that after the game Halsey would say he got it wrong and he would have issued a red card if he was asked by the FA.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

For the avoidance of doubt, I was not suggesting that the decision should be changed, too late for that, but that the process under which the FA made that decision should be changed. As interviewed on SSN today, apparently former FA Chief Exec Mark Palios agrees with this as did the PFA''s Gordon Taylor.

 

If the FA is a monopoly and a law unto themselves, and there is no alternative "body" that can challenge them, and their decisions are final, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, then THEY should be aware of the shortcomings of their processes - in particular their disciplinary process - and address them appropriately!

 

I wish to review my earlier statement of "It smacks of something being very wrong when an official saw an incident but apparently didn''t report it as being something noteworthy or of bringing to the referee''s attention, therefore, no further action can be taken!" - it blatantly IS wrong!

 

Dangerous play is dangerous play and there should be no excuse for hiding behind "internal processes" to avoid dealing with such issues. If that means that there will be more challenges against the FA - then fine - as a deterrent, increase any mandatory punishment by a further 50% if these appeal challenges are deemed to be frivolous!

[First Wazzock 975]

If the FA is a monopoly and a law unto themselves, and there is no alternative "body" that can challenge them, and their decisions are final, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, then THEY should be aware of the shortcomings of their processes - in particular their disciplinary process - and address them appropriately!

 

 

Totally and utterly agree.

It seems amazing that the player got away with the challenge but John Carver gets charged.

Stupidity in the extreme.

[CiderkiddCanary 0]

[quote user="First Wazzock"]

If the FA is a monopoly and a law unto themselves, and there is no alternative "body" that can challenge them, and their decisions are final, irrespective of whether they are right or wrong, then THEY should be aware of the shortcomings of their processes - in particular their disciplinary process - and address them appropriately!

 

 

Totally and utterly agree.

It seems amazing that the player got away with the challenge but John Carver gets charged.

Stupidity in the extreme.

[/quote]Reminds me of the whole debacle around Nicklas Bendtner getting fined €100,000 for showing underwear which had the logo of a non-UEFA approved betting company. So unfortunately it all seems to stem from the very top of the game - unsurprisingly I might add.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

Just listened to SSN - according to a former FA Compliance Officer - Graham Bean - the governing body''s handbook states:

 

"A charge of misconduct ... may be brought against a player in relation to an incident whether or not the same incident has been dealt with by the referee" - RULE E3

 

he goes on to say ".... quite simply, it is yet another case of the FA making the rules up as they go along"

 

So maybe part of the former inner sanctum (Mark Palios and now Graham Bean) have become so sickened by the disgraceful behaviour of the FA that they are now speaking out. How ironic if this is the start of the FA''s "walls of silence" coming crashing down, orchestrated by their own ineptitude!

 

This is a story that is not going to go away!