Response from the FA.

After the Pedro Mendes winner which was idsallowed I sent off a furious email to the FA. It appears the FA recieved lots of furious Emails as I have a set response back:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your enquiry concerning the above game.

As I am sure you can appreciate this incident has generated a huge amount
of interest from football fans across the country regardless of which team
they support. The ball crossed the line, the TV replays show this quite
clearly and fans are asking what can be done about it. Ultimately,
because of the huge number of enquiries we have had on this issue we are
not in a position to answer each question individually. Nevertheless
below are the key issues highlighted by supporters after the game.

Changing the Result

Whether a ball crosses a goal line or not is a decision of the referee
guided by assistance from the assistant Referee. On this occasion the
referee and assistant referee made a decision based on what they saw. The
FA is not in a position to change the decision of a referee and video
evidence can only be used in incidents of misconduct.

It would be impossible to introduce a system of post game analysis that
changed the results of games once they'd finished. Ultimately, football
is a tremendously popular and successful worldwide game, one of the
fundamental principles on which this success is based is 'the referee's
decision is final'.

Use of Video Evidence

To involve a video referee with other areas of play would clearly involve
regular stoppages to the game. As is the case with cricket and rugby, the
referee will "play safe" as they would not wish to be proved wrong by
video analysis. Subsequently, the excitement of the game would be reduced
and the opportunity for a counter attack when an appeal has been turned
down would be lost. If the video decision is "no offence, play on" it
would not be possible to play on because the game has been stopped for the
video decision. A dropped ball would result.

Currently, we have not been presented with technology which would transmit
an immediate decision to the referee thereby ensuring the game continues
without stopping the game to wait for a decision.

The International Football Association Board, the body that controls the
laws of the game worldwide, is considering a microchip in the ball which
will tell a referee immediately if the ball has crossed the goal line
between the posts and under the crossbar.

Roy Carroll

With regards to Roy Carroll, all decisions on the field of play are made
by the referee and regardless of the context it is not for the player to
influence or advise the referee on a decision. Roy Carroll made an
attempt to stop the ball the crossing line, television replays show us
this was an unsuccessful attempt. Ultimately, it's the referee's decision
that counts, not the TV replays or the players reaction. A game where
referees were to consult players on decisions or expect input would become
unworkable. Ultimately Roy Carroll did not do anything that contravened
the laws of the game.

Thank you again for your interest and I trust this clarifies our position.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Howells
Customer Relations Assistant
The Football Association


Thanks Alex for your response. I have to agree with the first two points. A result cannot be chnaged and having to stop the game every five minutes would spoil the flow of the game. Why they haven't mentioned a simple system, that they use in tennis, to see if the ball crosses the line though is beyond me. They also fail to condone the behaviour of cheat Roy Carroll and claim that even if he had put his hands up and said it was a goal the ref would have ignored the decision! Nor do they state why the linesman was not watching the game but looking down at his feet in a Ronny Rozenthal style run?

Anyway, the matter is done and dusted, I just thought that people would be interested in the FA's response.

As always, COYS!