...of whenever anyone in the Premiership gets sent off these days, the first thing they're talking about is that the judgement was too harsh and they're going to ask the referee to review the decision and that they're sure that it'll be overturned. I know that we discussed the situation when Mike Riley overturned the Cisse suspension a couple weeks ago, but it seems now that has opened up a huge can of worms. Reviews, appeals... I agreed with Riley overturning his red card on Cisse. But does anyone see this as a disturbing trend? How long before someone playing a youth game over here takes a home video of the game to local authorities and start asking for cards / suspensions to be overturned?
It is bound to happen. When it does, we can all hang 'em up. Worst of all it willl be in a U10 match...
Automatic In Calgary, any red card except for a deliberate hand ball preventing a goal is an automatic one game suspension with a hearing to determine if any further action (additional games, expulsion, etc) are warranted. I've never heard of them overturning the suspension although I know of them expunging the card so it doesn't count towards accumulated cards (but that's a pretty exceptional circumstance). In my opinion it's akin to the coach taking the game tape and getting the winning TD called back for a do over. Ain't gonna happen. Take your lumps and move on. If the official wants to instigate a review of his decision, great. But (s)he was on the field and called it at the time to the best of their ability. If they, in retrospect feel there was something to make the call "harsher" then they normally would (still PO'd cause #12 called him a dirty skank after chatting up his wife) then they should have the right to request a review. But they need to be the ones doing the requesting.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that players can be banned for violent incidents (e.g. punching a player) even if the referee missed the incident, if it is seen on video evidence. Players and clubs argued that if they can be banned through video evidence then surely they have the right to have incorrect bans overturned. As overturning a ban has no effect on the outcome of a match (i.e. it's not like reviewing a controversial disallowed goal) then there's no real problem with it.
I suppose that makes some sense. But it still bothers me a bit because the clubs saying "we'll appeal" gets TONS of news coverage and it seems to me that is just going to make everyone question the referee decisions even more than they already do. It also seems like we might be heading down a slippery slope.
The trend I see is our litigious society. People wanting to appeal or sue if things don't go their way. "It couldn't be my fault; it's someone else's." I see reviews extending, rather that shortening, suspensions. Violent, reckless, and unsporting behaviour need to be discouraged and penalized. This isn't hockey or WWF!
Accoding to the LOTG, cards can not be rescinded once play has restarted (law V). Supensions is another matter. There is nothing in the LOTG that a player has to sit out the next (or any number of) matches because of a red card. That is strictly a league rule, and the league can do what they want within it's own rules.
This is an excellent point. These punishments suspensions, etc all have nothing to do with the referee and what he/she must do during the match in order to poperly manage it, and ensure that the outcome is decided by the players on the field. I also think that the attention such matters draw, particularly as it spreads down to the shcool, amateur and youth levels, shows the grwoth of the sport as well as its relative importance. In most respects this is a positive thing. Misonduct is less trivial today, than it was even five years ago.
This is an excellent point, but it doesn't appear that this is what actually happened in Cisse's case -- Mike Riley rescinded the second caution and therefore the red. Here's the link -- http://www.ananova.com/sport/soccer/story/sm_654097.html?menu=sport.football An FA statement read: "Following the Arsenal versus Birmingham match on Sunday, match referee Mike Riley has reviewed the sending off of Aliou Cisse. "He has decided that the tackle was careless and warranted a free-kick rather than reckless which he thought at the time and has asked that the second caution should not be issued. "Therefore it has been agreed that the player will have a caution recorded against him for the first offence and will not have to serve a one-match suspension." So it wasn't a matter of the league deciding not to enforce the one match ban a red card would normally carry -- they rescinded the card.
They must have a different law book from the one on the FIFA web site. That one says: Decisions of the Referee The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play are final. The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee, provided that he has not restarted play. Unless that card was issued on the last play of the game (and therefore there play was never restarted), I do not see how he can rescind the card. He can file a report recomending that the supension be lifted, but if he trullly rescinded the card, the the match will have to be replayed, because one team was playing short when there was no red card issued. I would love to see what FIFA has to say about this.
Re: Re: Anyone else notice the trend... The point of the rule is surely to prevent changes during the game - i.e. the referees decision is final. There's no way if he'd seen a reply on TV 5 minutes later during the match he'd have told the player to come back on. Remember, he was still sent off and they had to play the rest of the match with 10 men, that didn't change. It's all in the wording. What's being said is that the effect of the card (i.e. suspension & disciplinary points) have been removed and it's just easier to say the card has been revoked.