Football Banter

just been listening to phil "biased" thompson on soccer saturday and he mentioned rooney should have got sent off for an elbow on a wigan player. obviously as you know im not to sure what happens now regarding video evidence. but i do recall gerrard elbowing a portsmouth player which the cameras caught and no action was ALLOWED to be taken for some reason but i dont know why, but by the sounds of it action might be taken against rooney by the fa or whoever looks at video evidence. can any1 explain what the rule is, why action couldnt be taken for 1 incident but it can be taken for an identical incident. im sure there must be a logical explanation? am i right?

Because the referee saw the Gerrard incident and took the action HE deemed necessary at the time. The video panel only comes into effect for incidents missed by a referee during the game.

so if the referee sees an incident and he takes action then video evidence does'nt come into play? what action did he take, can you remember? the rooney one iv not seen yet but if the referee saw it and says he saw it then no more action can be taken right? i will watch motd later then, cheers yoda. the reason i mentioned your golden boy gerrard was cos thats the one incident i remember and just wanted some1 to clarify what happens. come on england hold on against the frogs.

malicious fan, england have beaten the french (i think thats been said before, agincourt anyone?)

the fa should be allowed to do retrospective punishment regardless of the refs actions or non actions, especially on the diving scum that have infected the game.

yes i agree but yoda said the video evidence only comes into play if the referee does'nt deal with the incident, so he must have dealt with the gerrard incident. did he give a card? i cant remember. the rooney one iv not seen the highlights yet so dunno if the ref has seen it or not. if he has i dont think he got a card but might be wrong. if rooney has elbowed him and its not been seen then he should get a ban, but cant understand gerrards if the ref saw it cos he elbowed him in the side of the head. yoda said the ref saw it, but did he get anything for it?

Yep basically if a ref sees a particular incident and decides to take action or no action then the trial-by-video doesnt come into effect. The ref clearly missed todays incident so there's a good chance rooney will be punished.

In regards to the incident involving "my golden boy" , the ref saw the incident awarded a free-kick against Gerrard and had a word with him. He was a very very lucky boy to stay on the pitch and i wouldnt condone that kind of behaviour. Perhaps the ref, like most of the footballing world, had a dislike for Michael Brown (the player who Gerrard dropped)!!! .

didnt mean your golden boy yoda i meant liverpools golden boy! iv just seen the elbow and it is identical to the gerrard one, also off the ball, and should have been red carded. just after it happened, the ref i think its mark clattenburger or wotever you call him went up to rooney and spoke to him and looks like he gave him a warning. so that must mean the ref has saw it, dealt with it and video evidence shouldnt come into play should it?

normal ban for a red card is 3 games but if the offense committed is of a voilent nature then the fa can impose an extension to that ban. one issue i have is with when players are banned for 3/4 games go and have surgery, then come back and play, i think that if a player is injured or has surgery then banned should be imposed after the player is fit enough to play.

(26-02-2011 20:59 )malicious fan Wrote:  didnt mean your golden boy yoda i meant liverpools golden boy! iv just seen the elbow and it is identical to the gerrard one, also off the ball, and should have been red carded. just after it happened, the ref i think its mark clattenburger or wotever you call him went up to rooney and spoke to him and looks like he gave him a warning. so that must mean the ref has saw it, dealt with it and video evidence shouldnt come into play should it?

If he puts in his report that he saw it then it could be the end of the matter so.

o rite, i thought if he just saw it on the pitch and dealt with it than that was it. these refs have it hard dont they? they have to write a report after every match, they would have been better off going in the police force if they wanna write reports and im sure its better pay than what a professional ref gets!