Grimsby penalty

[Archer]

The problem with that is you are accusing them of cheating

Delicious irony lol

 

[Kent Ref]

Out of interest what is the process for the FA charging a player with deceiving an official?

Does it start with a complaint for a club, a match-day observer or does the FA look at every EFL penalty awarded every week?

I just cannot see how this has escaped any further action.

Does anybody know the process?

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Does anybody know the process?

FA guidance to the media this season just stated:

RETROSPECTIVE ACTION
The FA can take retrospective disciplinary action if video evidence clearly shows that a player has
committed a dismissal offence that wasn’t seen by the match officials or reviewed by VAR.
Typical Process:
• The FA can become aware of such an incident in a variety of ways.

 

[Kent Ref]

FA guidance to the media this season just stated:

RETROSPECTIVE ACTION
The FA can take retrospective disciplinary action if video evidence clearly shows that a player has
committed a dismissal offence that wasn’t seen by the match officials or reviewed by VAR.
Typical Process:
• The FA can become aware of such an incident in a variety of ways.

This wasn't a dismissal. It was a penalty awarded.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

This wasn't a dismissal. It was a penalty awarded.

So here is the rest of the FA statement for your consideration:

SUCCESSFUL DECEPTION OF A MATCH OFFICIAL
"The FA can take retrospective disciplinary action in situations where a match official may have been
deceived. This process is not for debatable decisions, but only where there is overwhelming evidence to
indicate that a player intentionally deceived a match official.
Typical Process:
• If The FA believes that there may be a case to answer, the incident is referred to a three-person panel
consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player;
• Each panel member then reviews the footage independently of the others;
• A charge is only issued in circumstances where the panel members are unanimous;
• A player will receive a two-match suspension in accepted and/or proven cases of simulation and/or
feigning an injury;
• Attempts to deceive a match official through simulation and/or feigning an injury are normally
cautionable offences for unsporting behaviour. However, the fact that the simulation has succeeded
and led to a penalty and/or dismissal justifies a more severe penalty that is also intended to act
as a deterrent;
• If the player contests the charge, the case is heard by a Regulatory Commission, and only written
and/or video evidence would be considered;
• If a charge is found proven, the Regulatory Commission would also decide whether to rescind a
caution or dismissal which was received by an opposing player."

 

[Kent Ref]

So here is the rest of the FA statement for your consideration:

SUCCESSFUL DECEPTION OF A MATCH OFFICIAL
"The FA can take retrospective disciplinary action in situations where a match official may have been
deceived. This process is not for debatable decisions, but only where there is overwhelming evidence to
indicate that a player intentionally deceived a match official.
Typical Process:
• If The FA believes that there may be a case to answer, the incident is referred to a three-person panel
consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player;
• Each panel member then reviews the footage independently of the others;
• A charge is only issued in circumstances where the panel members are unanimous;
• A player will receive a two-match suspension in accepted and/or proven cases of simulation and/or
feigning an injury;
• Attempts to deceive a match official through simulation and/or feigning an injury are normally
cautionable offences for unsporting behaviour. However, the fact that the simulation has succeeded
and led to a penalty and/or dismissal justifies a more severe penalty that is also intended to act
as a deterrent;
• If the player contests the charge, the case is heard by a Regulatory Commission, and only written
and/or video evidence would be considered;
• If a charge is found proven, the Regulatory Commission would also decide whether to rescind a
caution or dismissal which was received by an opposing player."

Thank you for all the info. Very helpful.

It does lead to the question of what "overwhelming evidence" really means.

So i can only assume two outcomes on this example:

a. It wasn't referred to the panel at all

or

b. the 3 person panel was not unanimous.

If it was option a i would be very concerned by the FA's integrity and lack of consistency.

Option b is a free-for-all that cannot be predicted.

We'll never know which one it was.

 

[Russell Jones]

Let It GIF – Let It – discover and share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

 

[Big Cat]

So here is the rest of the FA statement for your consideration:

SUCCESSFUL DECEPTION OF A MATCH OFFICIAL
"The FA can take retrospective disciplinary action in situations where a match official may have been
deceived. This process is not for debatable decisions, but only where there is overwhelming evidence to
indicate that a player intentionally deceived a match official.
Typical Process:
• If The FA believes that there may be a case to answer, the incident is referred to a three-person panel
consisting of one ex-match official, one ex-manager and one ex-player;
• Each panel member then reviews the footage independently of the others;
• A charge is only issued in circumstances where the panel members are unanimous;
• A player will receive a two-match suspension in accepted and/or proven cases of simulation and/or
feigning an injury;
• Attempts to deceive a match official through simulation and/or feigning an injury are normally
cautionable offences for unsporting behaviour. However, the fact that the simulation has succeeded
and led to a penalty and/or dismissal justifies a more severe penalty that is also intended to act
as a deterrent;
• If the player contests the charge, the case is heard by a Regulatory Commission, and only written
and/or video evidence would be considered;
• If a charge is found proven, the Regulatory Commission would also decide whether to rescind a
caution or dismissal which was received by an opposing player."

A green light for the vast majority of cheating

It's all a bit daft really. If we lived in a world where we were all murderers, would the bar be so high to deem someone a murderer or would nobody be convicted of murder because we're all murderers?
Everyone cheats in football. The best sides generally have the most adept cheats. But it reaches the point of absurdity where we're sh1tt1ng ourselves to to call out the bleeding obvious on account that we might insult an individual for being the same as every other individual in respect of being a cheat!

Which, one might argue is fine, but it's just nuts when the authorities make claims that they're dealing with it. They're not! They're/we're too scared to, maybe cos it amounts to admitting that we're cheats ourselves (as players, but maybe even extending to our refereeing of the game)

 

[RefereeX]

A green light for the vast majority of cheating

It's all a bit daft really. If we lived in a world where we were all murderers, would the bar be so high to deem someone a murderer or would nobody be convicted of murder because we're all murderers?
Everyone cheats in football. The best sides generally have the most adept cheats. But it reaches the point of absurdity where we're sh1tt1ng ourselves to to call out the bleeding obvious on account that we might insult an individual for being the same as every other individual in respect of being a cheat!

Which, one might argue is fine, but it's just nuts when the authorities make claims that they're dealing with it. They're not! They're/we're too scared to, maybe cos it amounts to admitting that we're cheats ourselves (as players, but maybe even extending to our refereeing of the game)

Absolutely true. We've all given that throw in defensively because our AR has flagged too quickly and even though we've seen a tiny deflection off of the defender, we know barely anyone else did, so it's the easier option for credibility (or similar). Technically, this could be called cheating.