Is Styles opening Pandora's box? (rescinding a caution after the fact)

[But Referee]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/soccer/09/13/uk.rdp/index.html

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2004/09/DisciplinaryNews_DrogbaRecinded.htm

While understanding that associations across the world handle things differently, I must say this is the first I've heard of something like this.

"Referee Rob Styles has rescinded the yellow card shown to Chelsea's Didier Drogba for simulation in the match against Aston Villa on Saturday 11 September.

The referee states that after reviewing the incident on video, he is satisifed that there was no attempt by the player to deceive him.

The booking will not be recorded on Drogba's disciplinary record."

[Gary V]

In both reports linked, the word "rescinded" is the writer's word, not from the referee's quote.

The referee is satisfied that he made a mistake, based on video evidence after the game, and told the league so. It is the league that accumulates caution points. It is the league, after consultation with the ref, that decided not to record the caution.

Refs are always free to make additional comments to their game reports. That does not change the fact of what happened in the game, it only changes the post-game consequences that the league might take.

Last year FIFA stated that a red card could never be "rescinded" post-game. If the ref made a mistake, too bad. The player has to sit at least a 1-game suspension. I think they were envisioning appeals in multiple games, sometimes on good grounds but usually dubious. They didn't want the refs authority to be undermined. IFAB/FIFA might say that; Blatter might say and do otherwise.

[Englishref]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/soccer/09/13/uk.rdp/index.html

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/Postings/2004/09/DisciplinaryNews_DrogbaRecinded.htm

While understanding that associations across the world handle things differently, I must say this is the first I've heard of something like this.

"Referee Rob Styles has rescinded the yellow card shown to Chelsea's Didier Drogba for simulation in the match against Aston Villa on Saturday 11 September.

The referee states that after reviewing the incident on video, he is satisifed that there was no attempt by the player to deceive him.

The booking will not be recorded on Drogba's disciplinary record."

I think you will find that this is completely normal in England. Iirc, this is at least the third season that referee's have been rescinding cards, so Rob Styles is far from the first. In fact, Steve Bennett refused to rescind the second yellow issued to Tim Cahill in the infamous shirt incident.

And tbh, I agree with it. If players can be caught after the match with the use of video evidence, do you not agree video evidence should be used after the match to vindicate a wronged player as well? It seems pretty logical to me.

And this has actually really enhanced the referee-manager-fan relationship, as it shows referee's are actually human, who make mistakes, and are man enough to admit it when they have. They get a lot more respect than those who refuse to look at the video because they are so arrogant that they are sure they're right. And with all the video replays nowadays, if a referee is shown to have made a mistake wrt a card, it does not look good on the ref if he refuses to look at it.

And it is in fact the referee, and not the PL, FL or FA who do the rescinding. At least not initally. After a match, the manager of the 'wronged' player may ask the referee to look at the video again. It is then entirely up to the referee if he wants to have another look or not. If he feels he is 100% correct, he doesn't have to have a look. Most will have a look anyway to be sure. Then, on reviewing the tape, he is completely within his rights to change his mind, or uphold his decision. If he wants to change his mind, he will write on his report that having viewed the tape he feels he made a mistake, and the yellow card/red card is rescinded.

If he refuses to rescind it, then it stands, and it is then up to a disciplinary committee to review it (upon an appeal by the club), and then they may rescind it/uphold it.

It is a great idea, and extremely common place now in England, as it is in Scotland. The capability is there, and the evidence is there, it is ludicrous not to use it. Unless of course you are too ashamed/arrogant to admit you've made a mistake. Fortunately, the SG referees aren't and don't mind admitting when they've made a genuine error, and get a lot of respect for doing so. :cool:

[ref47]

the laws of the game and fa/fifa interpretations do not allow a referee to change his/her mind after the next restart. you can add in the game report that you believe the card was issued in error or given to the wrong player, or even should have been the other color, but the referee cannot rescind the card or change the original decision. the league can choose how to administer any post game consequences as its laws/rules provide based upon the report.
ussf - advice to referees on the laws of the game - law 5, 5.13: a displayed red or yellow card can be canceled by the referee only if play has not restarted. if plat has been restarted or if the match is over ... a displayed red or yellow card cannot be canceled by the referee foa any reason.

[MassachusettsRef]

Although I respect Styles for admitting he was wrong (I saw the match and incident--he was), the problem is twofold.

First, since conclusive video replay isn't available for every incident there's an issue of fairness. And I'm not talking about the question of an EPL match being televised internationally vs. a park league match not being even filmed. I'm talking about within a single competition, so let's stick with EPL here. Just because every match is taped and televised, with several camera angles, doesn't mean that each incident can be conclusively recorded. So, while Styles had the ability to see he was wrong, another referee who is equally wrong in a similar situation might not have that ability. Is it fair that certain incidents get corrected while equally incorrect calls go unreviewed or unaltered? And I'm not suggesting there's a "correct" answer to this question; I fully understand that there's also the issue of "fairness" in referees getting a call right or wrong to begin with. However, human error has been accepted there since referees were first introduced to the game--discrepancies and inconsistencies related to post-match reviews have not yet been accepted.

The second, more troubling, concern for me is the issue of the slippery slope. Styles has admitted that Drogba did not dive. He is implictly admitting that there was a penalty he missed, then (watch the replay, this was NOT a case of incidental contact), and a very good argument could be made that the defender should have been sent off. So, does the line get drawn at Drogba's caution points being erased? Does the Aston Villa player sit a match for a red card that was never shown? Do you honor a potential (and legitmate) protest from Chelsea saying they were denied a penalty and the match should be replayed?

Erasing Drogba's yellow card is a good thing, insofar as a narrow sense of personal justice goes. And it does help, as was mentioned above, player/referee relations. However, soccer is a team sport and such decisions (to rescind cards and admit errors after the fact) have implicit ramifications on other aspects of each individual match (as a further example, what if Drogba had later received a second yellow?). I just think the potential problems created by pursuing this avenue could outweigh the clear benefits.

[Englishref]

I agree with pretty much all you say MassachusettsRef, however, wrt your first point, that is incredibly unlikely to happen, and I am glad to say that it hasn't happened yet in three seasons. In fact, the whole idea of rescinding cards by the referee is a rare occurence. Most managers accept referee's make mistakes and so yellow cards for fouls where, say, there was very minimal or no contact, are only really challenged if it subsequently leads to a RC. But on the whole, I only really remember YC's being challenged for offences of diving and SBO. So the type of circumstance you mention is very unlikely, if ever, to happen, which isn't to say we should forget it, just that the positives outweigh the negatives in this case.

As for your second problem, you make a very valid point. And tbh, I wouldn't properly know the answer, as I don't know the exact way the disciplinary system works with The FA. However, all I would say, is that the pros must outweigh the cons, unless you take the point to the extreme. This measure has been in place now for a few seasons, and never once has anyone complained about the subsequent consequences of rescinding a YC in such an instance as the Drogba one. I honestly cannot remember one example of any team being upset that after a yellow card has been rescinded for one team, their team should have had something else, everyone just accepts the decision. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it I suppose.

But I completely understand your view, and it is a good point, however, I would say the proof is in the pudding, and for English football, this has been an excellent step forward. :cool:

[MassachusettsRef]

Another example of this:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=310766&cc=5901

I think these cautions are particularly problematic because they are for diving. When FIFA first instituted the caution for diving, most referees were reluctant to apply it and instead just waved players up. Now, referees have been instructed in no uncertain terms that "cheats" need to be punished. So, with every major physical challenge in the box that looks like a penalty, referees are being forced to either call the penalty or caution the player for a dive, even if they aren't sure. In other situations, when you're not sure of something, you just don't make a call; you don't rely on guesswork. However, referees are sort of painted into a corner in regards to penalties/diving; a tangible call has to be made. So, mistakes are going to happen.

But, mistakes that err on the side of the defense are being corrected by rescinding yellow cards. To me--and I'm sure to many managers--it follows logically that if a penalty is mistakenly given (eg, a successful dive), then that should be corrected as well. In other words, a slippery slope is opened because if the reason for rescinding diving cautions is "justice", what's to stop agrieved defenders who are carded and whistled for false penalties from seeking similar "justice" after the fact.

The more I think about this developing phenomenon, the less I like it. Referees like Styles and Clattenburg are brave and admirable for admitting when they are wrong, but such public apologies should go no further; what's called on the field (save for case of mistaken identity or gross misapplication of the law) should stand, or too many games can be called into question.

[HoldenMan]

hmm....just a thought....what if a player recieved a 2nd caution in that match, either from a dive, or a later incident, and the referee, after the match, decided it wasn't a dive?

Would he then rescind the caution (and consequently the red card)? Then, what about the time during the match where that team played with 10 men, with the possibility that it affected the result of the game?

Or, if that brought the team below 7 men thus causing the match to be abandoned?

[Crowdie]

I believe that is what you Aussies call "not a fair suck of the sav" :D

[HoldenMan]

bluddy nuw zulunders.........

The only time I hear ANYBODY use that phrase is if they're an american trying to be an australian!

lol

[Englishref]

It appears The FA have given referee's the right to upgrade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/3714646.stm) yellow cards now as well as rescinding them, logical I suppose, but I think it's the first time the referee has upgraded a yellow card, rather than the DP.

[MassachusettsRef]

It appears The FA have given referee's the right to upgrade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/3714646.stm) yellow cards now as well as rescinding them, logical I suppose, but I think it's the first time the referee has upgraded a yellow card, rather than the DP.I think this lies somewhere on the slippery slope I was talking about. If Poll admits he was wrong and Redknapp should have been sent off, and that means that his team should have been playing down a man in a game they won 1-0....

[Gary V]

It appears The FA have given referee's the right to upgrade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/t/tottenham_hotspur/3714646.stm) yellow cards now as well as rescinding them, logical I suppose, but I think it's the first time the referee has upgraded a yellow card, rather than the DP.
The very short report at the link says nothing about the referee upgrading a card - only that he has reviewed the incident and submitted a report. It also says that the FA has "charged" the player with SFP.

Leagues have always had the ability to act on video and other evidence to sanction players when the referee missed the incident. If the referee views the tape and happens to agree that he did not properly call it, so much the better.

I don't see any slippery slope in this report - not even a slight incline.

[Englishref]

The very short report at the link says nothing about the referee upgrading a card - only that he has reviewed the incident and submitted a report. It also says that the FA has "charged" the player with SFP.

Leagues have always had the ability to act on video and other evidence to sanction players when the referee missed the incident. If the referee views the tape and happens to agree that he did not properly call it, so much the better.

I don't see any slippery slope in this report - not even a slight incline.

It does say that Graham Poll submitted his report after reviewing the tape though, which would suggest it was GP who upgraded the yellow card. And in any case, it wouldn't be this soon (1 working day) after the game that the DP would have upgraded it, so I'm pretty certain it's new for 04/05, probably to compliment the rescinding of cards, although it does put pressure on the referee.

As I've said before, the evidence suggests it isn't leading to this 'slippery slope' as we've had it for years now where refs can rescind cards, but I can see why people may think it could.

[MassachusettsRef]

As I've said before, the evidence suggests it isn't leading to this 'slippery slope' as we've had it for years now where refs can rescind cards, but I can see why people may think it could.The slope can be slow. You had it for decades prior where referees couldn't rescind cards (and many would argue that they still can't, per Law V).

Referees have had the power to rescind cards for a few years in the EPL. We'll see where we are in a few more years as the controversial decisions that get reviewed--but not fully "remedied"--pile up.

[ref47]

http://www.vadcsoccerref.com/memoranda/53288.html
ussf on recission of cards.

[chrisrun]

I don't think refs should be upgrading or taking away cards after a game. The cards are used for match control by the referee. If the match is over, then there is no need for the ref to do anything with cards, as he isn't controlling the match. If there is some larger context for the card set forth by the league (such as a red resulting in suspentions, caution points, etc), then it should be the league who steps in and overrules itself on what the card means. If the league watches video and clearly sees that a card was given in error, then the league decides that that red or yellow card will not carry the standard league punishment. I don't think the ref should get involved at that point. He did the best he could to call a fair game on the field, and that is his job.

Some may say that the league should review and get the ref's consent before changing a card. I don't think this is a good idea. There will be outside pressure on refs to change there calls, even if the ref thinks it was marginal and he made the right call. If the league wants a card changed, then it should be the league who makes the final decision. Let the refs give the cards during the game to control the match, and let the league change them after the fact if it is deemed necessary.