FA Retrospective Action Rule Changed

[Original Dub]

Micah is a fucking disgrace, he belongs in the same bracket as young..both cheats.

Are you serious? Micah never even claimed for a foul, he was jumping over the tackle to avoid getting clipped.

I agree completely.

It was theatrical, sure.

But it has to be taken into account that he never once similated contact being made or rolled around the ground. Oh, and it's also important to note he is a defender that's built like a shit house and subject to picking up injuries from what appears to be not riding tackles properly.

I had no problem with that on Sunday.

[Breks]

In fact i remember that he actually put his hand up to acknowledge that it wasn't a foul.

[zuricity]

In fact i remember that he actually put his hand up to acknowledge that it wasn't a foul.

You've got to admit though it was a crackin' dive.

[Breks]

You've got to admit though it was a crackin' dive.

Absolutely, Tom daly would have been proud of a dive like that.

[Original Dub]

Has this rule changed or not? Why hasn't larsson been banned?

This is what scares me if this rule has indeed been changed... the fa can punish who they like retrospectively, even if the ref saw it.

They obviously don't want to ban larsson. Will they want to ban certain players if they need to affect a title run in later in the season?

Let's see...

[kinkylola]

I'm surprised that we haven't even heard a news item that the club are filing an official complaint or whatever ... in the past we'd be right on this. Pretty shit all around I'd say.

[nottsblue]

Whats the betting Bacon is on the panel which judges the incidents?

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

I reckon they've been panicked into bringing in this rule to help the rags out this season. Let's see how it works for them as the season unfolds.

[Ted Hughes]

The latest changes cover "acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball"

FA director of governance Darren Bailey said: "This enables the FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball

As I said: read the rules carefully.

[Original Dub]

The latest changes cover "acts of violent conduct that occur secondarily to a challenge for the ball"

FA director of governance Darren Bailey said: "This enables the FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball

As I said: read the rules carefully.

Ah so violent conduct during the tackle that isn't noticed at the time is ok?

Got ya!

[Slim]

So this is a change from the rule that has seen Thatcher, SWP, Adebayor and Balotelli all retroactively banned before this sweeping change was put in place?

[freshie]

Any chance that Rooney will face retrospective action for his kick today? Don't hold your breath

[AG7]

Any chance that Rooney will face retrospective action for his kick today? Don't hold your breath

Yeah they'll say he was already dealt with by the ref by being given a yellow ...

[nottsblue]

Any chance that Rooney will face retrospective action for his kick today? Don't hold your breath

As much chance as Gollum coming out and saying "yes it was a bad one. If the FA don't punish him rest assured he will face internal disaplinary action".

A big test for the FA on this. One which they will fail with flying colours

[Beefymcfc]

If we go by the rules then the ref got it wrong and the FA can take retrospective action. If they don't then they are setting a precedent for future claims and this is one that I'll be keeping a close eye on.

[london blue 2]

Any chance that Rooney will face retrospective action for his kick today? Don't hold your breath

The ironed is that the Cardiff player medel? Will prob get a ban for lashing out at fellatio. The ref well and truly protected himself by giving Rooney a yellow.

[Original Dub]

If we go by the rules then the ref got it wrong and the FA can take retrospective action. If they don't then they are setting a precedent for future claims and this is one that I'll be keeping a close eye on.

I think ted was saying it's only off the ball incidents that the ref failed to punish to the full extent?

Otherwise larsson would have been done and nothing was ever mentioned about that again. Strangely.

[Beefymcfc]

If we go by the rules then the ref got it wrong and the FA can take retrospective action. If they don't then they are setting a precedent for future claims and this is one that I'll be keeping a close eye on.

I think ted was saying it's only off the ball incidents that the ref failed to punish to the full extent?

Otherwise larsson would have been done and nothing was ever mentioned about that again. Strangely.

I seen this from earlier this month and believe the rule change allows for retrospective action regardless of what the ref seen. Reported though various channels on 6 Nov 13 and being introduced on 22 Nov 13.

Players who are involved in flashpoints can now face sanction even if the official has seen the incident, which would have landed Callum McManaman and Fernando Torres in trouble

The Football Association has forced through a new rule which has placed players at a higher risk of facing retrospective action.

Players who are involved in acts of violent conduct will now face punishment from the FA, even if a match official saw the incident during the match.

Earlier this season, Chelsea striker Fernando Torres escaped a ban after scratching Tottenham's Jan Vertonghen because the incident was seen by an official, while Callum McManaman evaded punishment in 2012-13 despite a knee-high challenge on Massadio Haidara.

Any acts of violence from players that occur "secondarily" to a challenge for the ball can now be punished, as well as incidents off the ball which match officials may have seen but may not have taken action against during the match.

The new ruling will be introduced after the international break on November 22, rather than at the end of the season.

The FA's director of governance Darren Bailey said: “This enables The FA to consider acts of violent conduct, like an elbow or a stamp, which have occurred after a challenge for the ball or coming together of players.

“It is sometimes difficult for officials to see such incidents, as they are often concentrating solely on the challenge for possession of the ball, and we are mindful of this. Also, where off-the-ball incidents are concerned, the policy adjustment will allow action to be taken where an act of misconduct could not have been seen by the match officials, even though they may have seen some part of the players coming together.

“This is an important step forward for the game and provides an appropriate level of discretion for The FA to consider action. However, we remain of the view that the best outcome for all is that referees are able to make correct judgements on the day to benefit the teams involved.”

[Beefymcfc]

So, considering the above statement, how did Wiggy get away with what happened, is that sort of thing not seen as violent conduct? Let's remember, when he did it in an international the FA didn't dispute it was a red, just the amount of games he missed.

Seems quite obvious to me that, just like the FFP and all those other times the elite change the rules, it's them that will mainly benefit.

The fucking lot stinks.

[gillie]

Did the Fulham player Riether get booked for his bad tackle on Johnny hates Jazz? if so it means the ref saw the incident but the player still got a 3 game retrospective ban.Beefy is right this lot stinks to high heaven.