FA should stand for Facking Assholes. The incident did happen infront of the officials, including the fourth official, but clearly they did not see it. Now if they did see it and decided to do nothing, then they, the officials, should be suspended. After all the FA is responsible for the standards of officiating.
Are you sure about that? The FA's statement says that Matadar, the linesman saw it... and replays seem to confirm it.
I also understand the rational for rescinding red cards. There's a difference between undoing a ref's "erroneous" actions, and stepping in after the fact and refereeing the game. Rescinding the red card isn't "re-refereeing" the game as someone said, it's simply limiting the impact of a poor decision (in the FA's eyes) to the one game and not letting it have future impact.
---------------
JDB, looking at the replay of Gerrard's foul... I have no problem with the card not being given since the challenge wasn't that reckless and there was no contact on the opposing player (yes, I understand that's not a criterion for booking)... however had he been shown the card neither would I have made any argument.
It was me and I understand what you are saying, but really is there any difference between rescinding a red card because the ref / official has seen the incident wrongly or giving a red card for exactly the same reason. If one is rereffing the game then surely the other is or visa versa.
BTW Lampard has had his Red Card rescinded.
Yes There is a difference Kev.
Referees issue cards, they are the trusted experts on the rules of the game- A referee's decision affects the game itself- because the player leaves the field and his team plays a man short.
The FA issues post-game sanctions on carded players-
based on the action initiated by the referee. So the FA is NOT making a referee's decision. The FA is not the trusted expert on the rules of the game- they are just the sanctioning body. The FA's decisions affects the one or two games that follow through suspension. The FA's decision to rescind a red card doesn't infringe on the decision already made by the ref, because at that point, the impact on the game itself is already in the past...The FA's decisions/discretion is hence limited to their sanctioning power.
So in the case of Bosingwa, that's the point they are making- they're not going to card a player (i.e. make a referee's decision) if in fact, the incident was seen by the officials (which it was)...because as far as they are concerned, the referee's decision was infact made by the trusted experts on the rules of the game.
Now there are cases where the FA steps in and imposes sanctions on players for incidents that the officials didn't see. Once again, they are NOT making referee's decision- because they have no power to impact the game (as the ref does)- they're simply exercising their power to sanction a player...because as far as they are concerned in a situation like this, unlike Bosingwa's a referee's decision was NOT made because the ref didn't even see the incident.
I'm not sure if I agree with it, (I think the FA should step in, in situations like Bosingwa's).... but in terms of separation of duties between the ref & the FA, and the whole argument of re-refereeing, the distinction between the scenarios is pretty clear....
