By Tyne-Talk
March 19 2013

After the weekend’s drama and the FA’s ruling on Callum McManaman it begs the question why isn’t more done?  The FA will not take further action on incidents which have been seen by an official, because they have previously been condemned by FIFA. However, there is the option to overule a referee who has made a poor decision and/or punish a player who has been seen by an official with no action taken.

Graham Poll, discussing Ben Thatcher’s 2006 incident whereby Thatcher was booked by the referee to later be given an 8 match ban and a 15 game suspended ban by the FA, for an elbow on Pedro Mendes, told the BBC in February 2011;

"With Ben Thatcher, Dermot Gallagher was told and accepted he was wrong and the FA acted with Manchester City's blessing.

Fifa then criticised the FA for increasing that because they were re-refereeing a decision which a referee had seen and acted upon.

Even if the referee is wrong, Fifa doesn't believe that is the correct course of action.

So with that in mind, the FA have now gone down the path where, if the referee sees an incident and acts upon it, whether he is right or wrong, they will support him and stick with it.”

However, FIFA indicated in 2012 that they were open for FA’s (including the English FA) to review their disciplinary procedures to take into consideration the FIFA rulings.

The Telegraph reported the following;

“Fifa regard the FA’s decision over Balotelli as correct, based on current regulations but, contrary to popular perception, there is nothing to stop national associations pursuing a different policy.

Article 146 of Fifa’s disciplinary code explicitly states that national associations are “at liberty to choose the means and wordings” of the relevant provisions. However, each member association is still obliged to ensure that the appropriate sanctions are strictly applied, in order to harmonise disciplinary codes around the world.”

The relevant “provisions” are provided in Article 72 and 77 of the FIFA disciplinary code.

Article 72 (referee) states that “during matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee. These decisions are final” however FIFA then add; “In certain circumstances the jurisdiction of the judicial bodies may apply.”

Article 77 (specific jurisdiction) outlines under what circumstances may apply. It states;

The Disciplinary Committee is responsible for:

a) sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials' attention;
b) rectifying obvious errors in the referee's disciplinary decisions;
c) extending the duration of a match suspension incurred automatically by an expulsion (cf. art 18, par. 4);
d) pronouncing additional sanctions, such as a fine.

Newcastle United are not the first and won't be the last team to question the FA rulings and request that they review their procedures, so why can’t the FA look at using the relevant provisions when time and time again these situations arise?

FIFA Articles State FA Can Charge - Why Not Use Them?

Discussion started by TyneTalk (IP Logged), 19/03/2013 17:58

TyneTalk
19/03/2013 17:58

What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Reply Quote Report

Goto: Forum List•Message List•Search• Log In

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net