Beckham's red card from the weekend is rescinded: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=347033&cc=5901 This is based solely on a disciplinary committee's interpretation of whether a specific action constituted an "instult"[ing] gesture. That's what the straight red card was for. I'm sorry, but isn't the referee the one who gets to decide if he was insulted or not? And even if it wasn't insulting, it was surely a second cautionable offence for dissent, right? Finally, and much more importantly, aren't decisions that are made by the referee regarding facts connected with play final? This really needs to stop. It's one thing to use video replay to correct obvious miscarriages of justice (mistaken identity, maybe video showing a team playing with 12 players), but it's quite another to use it to completely undermine the authority of the referee. This is just further down the slippery slope that many of have been speaking of. It's only a matter of time before a game is ordered replayed because a penalty or goal was deemed to be given incorrectly. And all of this is in direct contradiction to FIFA's express wishes. FIFA steps in and threatens national federations with expulsion when national governments even come close to interfering with soccer. Surely they can issue some sort of threatened sanction to domestic leagues that deliberately and flagrantly ignore the Laws.
I knew it wasn't just us that were doing it. However, I can't possibly agree with the Spanish FA's decision. Anyone who saw the match (and Arturo Dauben Ibanez's woeful performance) will agree Beckham thoroughly deserved the red card. For those who haven't seen it - ADI awards a FK to Valencia for a trip. Beckham then charges up to him shouting at him. ADI then cautions him for dissent. Upon seeing he's getting cautioned, Beckham turns around and walks away clapping. ADI then appears to show a straight red. Now I can't possibly see how it's OFFINABUS myself, but a SBO it definitely was. How the Spanish FA can claim it was one continuous act of dissent is beyond me. Beckham dissented the original decision for the foul, and then dissented the yellow card he was given for dissent. Surely those are two seperate cases of dissent? I can understand if the Spanish FA had downgraded the straight red to a second booking, but I really can't agree that it was downgraded from a straight red to a singly yellow.
That might have been an understandable decision in this specific instance, but it still doesn't make it an acceptable outcome. The development of the use of replay over recent years has seemingly progressed (generally) as follows: A) Off-the-ball incidents not seen by entire referee crew are reviewed by video and punished with fines/suspensions when referee admits he didn't see the incident B) Incidents seen by referee but where no action is taken are reviewed by video and punished with fines/suspensions when referee admits he didn't see what really happened C) Incidents seen and sanctioned by referee are reviewed by video and altered (usually red to yellow, but the reverse seems plausible) when referee claims he would have made a different decision had he seen what he sees on video D) Incidents seen and sanctioned by referee are reviewed by video and altered even when referee files a report defending his decision This "growth" has seemingly developed over the last 6-7 years. I don't know how anyone can claim that this is not a slippery slope and that we're not going to see FAs attempt to have matches replayed in the coming years for alleged errors in judgement by referees. Seeking justice is fine, but doing so at the expense of completely undermining the authority of referees is not going to be a good thing for the game.
Good list. I say include D only with extreme reluctance. With A, B, and C the referee agrees that after further review, he would have called differently. With D, he's saying, even with futher review, he'd have made the same call. If you aren't trusting his judgement, why is he doing the game in the first place. I would be slow to change a card that the referee insisted on, because the replay can't show his angle or repeat what the official heard. Like the NFL says, it would have to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the official on the field's decision.
This one appears to be special treatment for a franchise player. Not sure how much worse you can get. Instead of expecting players to respect the officials, we're teaching that they don't have to. That trickles down to all levels of play. Sad.
Well, the problem is that, once you reach that level, you have a country's worth of officials that would and you'd be replaced in an instant. Actions and protests by the referees won't stop this stuff (although a threatened strike from the union in England would be interesting). This necessitates a top-down approach. Eventually, someone is going to push the envelope a little too far, and FIFA is going to bring the hammer down in no uncertain terms. I just wish they would do it sooner than later.
Yeah I guess, I just think if my employer started a president where they reviewed every decision I made and changed them without my input, I would start looking for a new job.
I'm all for accountability within reason. There is so much money and politics involved in the highest level of soccer that layers of auditing is a good thing when applied appropriately. When the decisions of a single man can cost a team hundreds of thousands of dollars (more?) there needs to be some checks and balances. I'm not opposed to a league correcting decisions on the field of an objective nature when appropriate, but this doesn't seem to be an appropriate reason. Are we sure Beckham received a straight red for the clapping and not a second yellow, but the referee just had the wrong mechanic? Either way, the referee subjectively decided it was worthy of a send-off, and thus it should stand that way. I also think Barca has a good point regarding the caution for the (non) dive to Messi. Messi is typically not a diving kind of player so for him to receive a caution for that can taint his image. Clearly this was a mistake with consequences, so perhaps the caution should be rescinded. This is an objective decision: either Messi dove and deserves a caution, or he did not. Since he did not, he should not have a caution on his record. The option to change decisions regarding the game should be available, it just needs to be used only when absolutely necessary.
I'm sure (well, I guess I can't be sure. Let's say that I'm hoping) that the ref wrote up a detailed report of the incident and the league asked him to clarify anything they weren't sure about. After weighing the evidence, they determined that it was one long dissent and not two separate instances. To me it doesn't matter, as long as it remains a post-match consequence. The ref used his cards for in-game management, and the league dealt with post-game consequences.
Just stating the obvious, but this decision means that Real Madrid played the remainder of the match with one less player than they were entitled to? Slippery.
But in this age of 30 camera angles on high profile matches with millions of dollars at stake, what are we do to? If a ref makes a mistake and red cards the wrong player, and the entire world knows it because it's right there on the replay for all to see, what are we to do? Say, "that's life, oh well, live with it. You have to miss the next game even though you didn't do anything, and your teammate over there, who did it, gets to play."? At least if we draw a line that says video can be reviewed for post-match consequences only, we can gain some justice. For me, the human element as far as in-game management and judgement should be maintained. But if we can use this video evidence to say, "Yes, the ref made a mistake, and we can see that without a doubt, so we will carry out justice as best we can from this point forward." Meaning, we won't go back in time to replay the game, but we won't (or will) punish a player for future games.
We don't actually have a union. We have The Referees Association of England, but membership of that is lower than ever, and doesn't really reflect it's members views or opinions. As for the use of video replays to correct referee decisions, I am firmly of the belief that if a player has sinned, he should be punished. If he hasn't sinned, he shouldn't be. If we can use the substantial TV coverage available to help in nailing the bad boys and protecting the good guys, then fantastic. However, it does need people who know what they're doing to adjudicate, rather than former coaches, players, or club officials, so we don't get the sort of mistake made by the Spanish FA.
I am no fan of instant replay in either American football or ice hockey, but you are correct that economics, not some abstract sense of justice or fair play, means that video reviews are here to stay. I won't even disagree with your argument for using video evidence to impose "post-match consequences" (e.g. upgrading to a red or sanctioning misconduct that all 4 officials missed). But now that the door has been opened, it's only a matter of time before someone petitions for a rematch because their player shouldn't have been sent off. The petition will be denied, not arbitrarily but because of the logistical difficulty of replaying the match, and that will still leave the original result "tainted" despite the use of technology and post-match reviews.
Firstly, is this forum for refs only or can anyone jump in and join the discussion? I'm not a ref myself but have been a footy fan for as long as I can remember and would like to ask a few questions/make a few observations pertaining to this particular incident if that's ok? 1) I can kind of see how Beckham's appeal was successful here and how it was deemed to be one continuous action of dissent. If you look closely at the incident you can clearly see that Beckham starts to applaud the ref as he is reaching for his top pocket but before a yellow was actually brandished. I'm guessing this was why the appeal was successful but doesn't necessarily make it right. He probably could have also successfully argued that because he didn't clap in the refs face that it wasn't directed at him and might have said he was simply clapping to gee himself up or motivate himself or one of his team-mates. We all know that's complete BS but if he said that would you be able to prove without doubt that it wasn't the case? 2) In reference to La Liga following in the footsteps of the EPL. What exactly is being referred to here? Is it a FIFA directive that I thought I read somewhere which states something along the line of, "A player who is sent off will receive an automatic one-match ban and cannot appeal?" I don't know where or why but I'm sure I read that somewhere and thought that I heard UEFA or FIFA were not too pleased with the EPL for rescinding a red card for a West Ham player in their game away to Newcastle at the start of the season. If so can anyone explain better or direct me to a list of rules about such matters? Lol, I sound like a newbie when in reality i'm definitely not but I do find that many fans and sometimes players don't know the rules and as such I'm always keen to learn. 3) If Real Madrid shouldn't have had the right to appeal this particular red card under some kind of UEFA or FIFA regulation then it's obviously quite easy to see why referees would feel undermined by such decisions taken by national footballl associations and to a degree I sympathise with them/ you guys. 4) As a fan, (and I'm sure many of you refs are fans too), I do feel as though some kind of appeal system should be in place but it's difficult to know where to draw the line on this kind of thing. At the same time don't think the national association should ignore the rules laid down by the games governing bodies. Just because you don't agree with the laws it doesn't mean that they should be ignored/broken. That's about it, even though I love to give referees stick at times I realise that without refs there is no game, full stop. I hope I didn't come across as just another idiot fan who doesn't know the kind of thing you guys have to put up with.
This is the reason us lowly refs are ticked at La Liga. The ref was at the game, he was the one being applauded. And yet a bunch of guys in a boardroom decide to overrule him (and this isn't a situation where video evidence can clearly show that a dive did/did not take place. This is an interpretation issue and they've just pulled the rug out from under the CR. It is of course purely coincidental that the player is high profile. They would rule the same way for a nameless reserve player. If you believe this, then I have some Siberian beachfront property to sell you. ) If I'm the ref, I'm only reaching for my card when I've already "given it out" effectively. So applauding me is strike # 2 - say goodbye and have a nice walk to your car. As to proof - this is soccer here, not a court. If the ref (one of the top in the world) thought he had two separate incidents, you have two separate incidents. This bs about "one continuous incident" is farsical given the fact that what is dissent is entirely in the opinion of the ref. Rant off
Anyone can, and I actually wish more non-refs would once in awhile. First, let's me clear: the appeal was successful because it involved Real Madrid and David Beckham. A "lesser" player, on a "lesser" team, would have had his appeal shrugged off with little fanfare. As to the issue of a "continuous action", BC Ref addresses that nicely. Once the referee is reaching for the pocket, he's already decided to give a yellow. To most rational players, that's usually a signal that it's a good time to stop what they're doing. Applauding the decision is just another sign of petulance. Ibanez pulled a straight red card (I guess he deemed it an insulting gesture). Some would argue that he could/should have shown a second yellow for dissent. But the point is that it's his decision. Did he feel insulted? If the answer is yes, the red card is justified. That's part of it. FIFA has said that red carded players MUST serve a one game suspension, with the sole exception being a clear case of mistaken identity. The EPL has downgraded or rescinded a few cards already this season, which flies in direct contradiction to the Laws of the Game (this is not a FIFA edict, but an actual amendment to the Laws). Further, it violates the Law that says all decisions made by the referee connected with facts of play are final. Finally, it's following the EPL's example of an expanded use of video replay. That's one of my main points. It's completely understandable to use video replay to punish incidents not seen or violence that was not properly dealt with, or to correct mistaken identity. But, when all decisions made by the referee are subject to review, what real leverage does a referee have? The star players will laugh them off, knowing full-well that an occassional card for dissent or a dive will be wiped away with a simple protest. I think that mistaken identities and violence not seen (off-the-ball) are perfectly reasonable places to draw a line. Changing or altering decisions actually made on the field is where it becomes a slippery slope, though, because than the entire result of the match can be called into question.
So, which is worse, having the referee's decisions reversed after video replay, or the federation only giving games to refs who won't punish the star players in the first place? The EPL and La Liga aren't the only leagues with lunacy...
Using replays to change a ref's decision is an action that should not be taken lightly. That being said, we are talking about a ref's decision to give cards, not ALL his decisions. And as I said, a clear line should be drawn to shown that game results can not be changed post-match, only forward looking punishments related to cards. If a ref misses a PK call, that's life and the human part of the game. If we want to talk about the ref's foul or no foul calls being reviewed, that is an entirely different discussion. If we follow the line that only cards can be reviewed later, a referee is not really losing any "leverage" in that game. He is reffing the game at hand, and his cards have the same affect for that game whether they are downgraded later or not. The ref thought Beckham was being insulting, gave him a red card, and Beckham had to leave the game. His team had to play short. The ref used his cards for game management, and nothing has changed in that regard. He didn't give the card so that Beckham had to miss the next game. He gave it because Beckham had to leave THAT game.
One issue is that some cards are clean cut, VC etc. Some are opinion. Ask any ref what abusive/offensive language is and you will get differing answers, what I consider abusive you may laugh off. How can a board of people watching a video in an emotionally detached place, decide if a referee felt abused or threatened?
Technically, in England, the referee's decision is no longer "rescinded". The technical term from this season onwards seems to be "limitation of disciplinary consequences"- ie, whether any fine or suspension should be imposed: http://www.thefa.com/NR/rdonlyres/D698BE9C-12F0-4639-B53C-26833C7E87EF/66530/FAHandbook_0506.pdf Disciplinary Procedures, Section A, rule 5a-c, p94 I think that FIFA can hardly lecture on this matter, when less than two months ago they overturned an actual match result (Uzbekistan-Bahrain), in clear violation of their own Laws, even though the Japanese referee clearly reported the score in his match report as 1-0 to Uzbekistan. In prinicple I think that governing bodies should only refrain from imposing the usual mandatory suspension, where a clear miscarriage of justice has occured. Example- Coventry City v Arsenal, 1997, Dennis Berkgamp took a blatant dive (no contact whatsoever) to get a Coventry defender sent off for DOGSO. The FA, correctly, in my view, decreed that no punishment should be imposed on the Coventry defender. Why should any employee in any industry be punished, without right of appeal, when it is obvious to everyone, including the disciplinary panel, that he has done nothing wrong, as in this case? Would referees feel it fair to be punished by their respective associations, even when the associations themselves admit the referee has done nothing wrong? PS- I think the Spanish FA's decision to overturn Beckham's red card is an utter joke and a disgrace.
Right, but this is why it's a slippery slope to me. In the eyes of the Spanish fed., Beckham was "wrongly" sent off. That means that Real Madrid "wrongly" played a man down for a period of time. In this situation, the send off occurred in the 87th minute. But what happens when a player is "wrongly" sent off in the 5th minute of a match, and his team goes on to lose? If justice is truly the goal, then the match should be replayed, no? You can say the video review can be limited to only cards, but if your goal is to seek "justice" as most who advocate replay argue, then you have to admit that justice is both an individual AND team concept. And soccer is a team game--justice for the team is inherently more important than justice for any given player. If a player is "wrongly" sent off, the individual player is certainly agrieved, but the greater injustice is to his team.
But this isn't actually true. Both the match commissioner and referee inspector noted the technical error in t heir reports. FIFA's regulations make it clear that matches can be ordered replayed if a technical error of law is made by the referee. The Laws only prohibit 'decisions connected with facts of play' from being altered. A decision to card Beckham is such a call; an error to wrongly award an IFK when the Laws specifically call for a re-kick is not. The problem is twofold. First, what about the result of the game? I'm not familiar with the particular incident, but did Coventry lose the game? How long did they wrongly play 10 v 11 for? All sorts of issues arise here. Second, let's remember that replays don't catch everything. WC98 is always used as the example here, where for two days (and after countless replays) everyone thought the Brazilian player dove to win a penalty against Norway. It took an amateur camera (it was either the 11th or 14th different angle) to show the blatant shirt pull that the referee had seen. Rare? Absolutely. But if rely on replay as a fall back, there are going to be many situations like this. Remember, that call was in the World Cup, with about a dozen camera angles. Even nationally broadcast EPL and La Liga matches don't typically have that many cameras. Because unlike a sole employee within an industry, in a soccer match there are two parties involved. If one side is wrongly penalized, that means the opposing side wrongly benefited. If the goal is justice, then surely we should take away benefits wrongly earned (winning when playing up a man, being awarded a false penalty) just as readily as we take away incorrect punishments. The problem is, you then open up almost any game to being replayed.
