Search results

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] Dyche will cause them about 6 hours extra work per game.

Ex-players who may not know recent law changes, latest advice handed out to refs etc........we should get ex-criminals to hear appeals in court as well on that basis [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Why the rush ? It’s done before the next round of games anyway. How do you know how long it would delay their departure ? Finding, reviewing (from multiple angles multiple times), debating and making a decision, preparing a summary, recording and communicating the decision etc on potentially...

You would prefer ex-players rather than qualified, experienced officials to make judgements on whether the Laws were broken or not ?

More likely to get consistent outcomes with a panel (which have to be unanimous I believe) than a single official, and also a risk that the match ref will be influenced by the reaction to any admission that he missed something.

Didn’t have to kick him in the face though.

It’s not TV. It’s an independent panel of refs.

Guess the panel have a number to review/discuss, and by definition they are things the ref missed. VAR may help things too.

Sure the disciplinary panel have a number of ways of having potential offences brought to their attention. Key for the retrospective ones is consistency of decisions. Not sure they are massively influenced by pundits - it’s a panel of 3 refs.

Deliberately flicked his boot at the keeper’s face, got to be a ban. Can see why the ref wouldn’t have seen it in real time but obvious from the replays. Nasty thing to do and completely unnecessary.