I don't know if this is how it works in other leagues, but I have to say, Serie A has it all wrong on this one. A few weeks ago, Gigi DiBiagio was suspended for two games on the basis of video evidence because he kicked out at Edgar Davids after a foul by Davids. Davids was carded for the tackle, but referee Pierluigi Collina missed the DiBiagio's reaction. Okay, fine. Sounds like a good use for video. But then last week, Francesco Totti practically mugged somebody (Stankovic? maybe) - literally punched the guy - away from the ball while the play is going on. In this case, video evidence doesn't apply because it was during the course of play. Apparently, the refs are all-powerful in this situation and therefore should not be assisted by video evidence. Ridiculous. Anyway, what happens to Christian Vieri who stomped on a Como player after getting fouled this past weekend?
The FIGC is dispenses their "justice" arbitrarily if you ask me. Totti is an untouchable, so should we have expected anything less? Same goes for Vieri. If it's a Milan or Juve player they always seem to see the infraction, for a certain Roman team they always seem to overlook it. Totally ridiculous.
Wasn't Maldini punished too? I figured if anyone was untouchable, it would be him. Nevertheless, the application of the rule has been inconsistent, therefore making matters worse.
needs some fine tuning,but it's better than letting "dirty" players getting away with their deeds when millions of fans witness them in slo-mo
I don't have a problem with using video evidence. I do have a problem with applying it only in some cases, because somebody arbitrarily decided that it should only be used after the whistle. Totti's actions should have been punished.
the principle is that the referee refs the game,and i like it like that; i'm not sure the match has to be already stopped for the video evidence to be implemented,i always heard that it is implemented when the referee admits he missed the episode,but it could be only a gross simplification by media