I have a dream… that one day, no doubt when I’m long gone, Chelsea fans will actually be able to bask in the glorious sunshine of their team’s achievements on the pitch long after the games themselves have ended, without constant clouds of controversy scudding across the Sky… see what I did there? More to the point, see what this particular [hugely influential] Media outlet does whenever our club and another go head-to-head and the result does not quite go the way [they think] the vast majority of Sky Sports subscribers would have wished? In these circumstances the order of the day for puppet punditry becomes short on praise, long on controversial debate, the paymasters pulling strings from above a stage previously set to enlighten its audience on the 90 ninety minutes of football just seen, but now hell bent on another course entirely. 

 

Last week’s game against Liverpool was a classic example of the Sky ghost going at full tilt within a machine designed to provide football coverage, yet open to distortion at any moment, tweaked away at a director’s whim, a flick of a switch turning reality into slow-motion fantasy whenever required or, more to the point, desired. But, slow-motion or otherwise, this is not the retrospective action we really need to be discussing in the Here and Now, after the Diego debate is exhausted and we’ve all taken ten rounds of browbeating and a mandatory count of three [banned games] for our prize fighter. No, the major concern is not the fact that it happened to us, but that it can happen at all, and retrospective action has been embraced by the FA, then cuddled and coddled into a system that’s fit for their purpose, but completely Phil Dowd-like for football as a whole when it comes to consistent application of its principles throughout the leagues. 

 

I have kept well clear of the Costa controversy, tempting though it has been to join in, because my views on the media and print coverage of Chelsea are already well documented with many [too many] new topics having this selfsame recurring theme. Quite simply, I refer my honourable friends to previous posts and respectfully ask that we move on to the real reason for last week being so controversially dominated by Diego. In short, it was the clearest example to date of the misuse of a recent controlling measure put in place by the FA, the governing body of football in this country. 

 

This measure, otherwise known as ‘retrospective action’ was duly applied here, because Diego’s deeds needed to fit ‘a crime’ and that crime had to be identified by the authorities. Initially it wasn’t, but subsequently it was, in fact within minutes by Sky cameramen and perhaps by others who may [or may not] have been present at the ground specifically for the purpose of spotting these ’crimes’ when the officials are either unsighted, unmoved, or later accept the need for some outside assistance. It is, apparently, at this point that the FA’s Retro Men are called in, either for the first time of asking, or perhaps not, as one of these shadowy figures might have actually been present [who knows?] and witnessed the crime firsthand. What is almost 100% certain, however, is the likelihood of a guilty verdict emerging after a panel of them sit in judgement on the issue - it’s almost a given in every case and there is no ultimate right of appeal. 

 

Not that this aspect particularly bothers me anywhere near as much as the FIFA-esque nature of the procedure itself, the questions raised by retrospective action never really being addressed, but merely lost in a maelstrom of heated opinion expressed in the Media, in newspapers and blogs worldwide. Ironically, Chelsea historian Rick Glanvill has come closest to highlighting the key fallibility inherent in retrospective reviews with the following paragraph:-

 

“No one would complain were the retrospective disciplinary panel to view all incidents equitably rather than in the current arbitrary and opaque fashion. Otherwise the risk is that the perceived seriousness of an offence appears influenced by the level and vehemence of its media coverage.†

   

Unfortunately, as he is writing on the official website, Rick is unable to expand further on the equitable aspect, doubtless due to litigious matters… but we can, and there are two important questions the FA should answer, if only to establish a clear differentiation between their own criticism of FIFA’s ’law unto themselves’ attitude towards rules and regulations and their own handling of disciplinary matters in this retrospective and seemingly subjective manner. And those questions are:-

 

1. Who [specifically within the process] has the authority to seek and set in motion retrospective action and, if panel members do not instigate proceedings themselves, how is a decision to apply the process taken and by whom is it made?

 

2. Where media coverage is the sole source of evidence, who decides on its submission to the FA and, if that decision is made by those responsible for its presentation in the first place [and they have already passed judgement on the incident within the public domain] how can this be regarded as fair and equitable for the player concerned and his club?

 

Surely the FA will be under fire on this issue until they come up with satisfactory answers to these questions and the longer they take to do so the more fans will be suspicious of the role the Media [primarily Sky] plays in a process that looks increasingly flawed and unworkable in its present form. Not that this will stop Greg Dyke reiterating this, his view on the old rule expressed in October, 2013:- 

 

"It is understandably baffling to everyone and must be addressed. As FA chairman I don't like being in a position where I can't explain why we can't take action."

 

Back then, it was a referees impeded view ‘such that none of them had the opportunity to make a decision on an act of misconduct’ that made further action impossible and this was the cause of Greg’s original complaint - hence the introduction of retrospective action. But now, instead of having to explain inaction, he may well have his work cut explaining a heck of a lot more - with the frantic clamour for [retrospective] action, in every match and every league, becoming a distinct and potentially very time-consuming nightmare. 

 

.   

 

Its trial by television or video or whatever means the 'crime' can be recorded and that's the point in terms of the unfairness of it all.   It is only the teams and players participating in games on the 'tele' that are subject to retro action because how else are the FA going to be provided with any form of evidence?  Apart from the bias pundits and various media outlets that simply cut and paste or edit what they want the masses to see while pushing out their skewed agenda, some fans may well end up emailing video to the FA offices or perhaps worse the FA spies will be trolling the internet to find the 'crimes' not publicly broadcast.  The entire system is flawed from start to finish but they won't address the real problem...their representatives on the field of play, namely the referees who by far this year have been worse than ever in terms of consistency, get that fixed first before calling for retro punishment. 

Jamie Redknapp at half time "If I was Pellegrini I'd be straight on the phone to the F.A. in the morning"

 

Says it all really, and by the time the banner headlines of the press with their Stamp-ford Bridge headlines, had finished there was only ever going to be one outcome.

 

But the very valid point of the opening post, i.e. who at the F.A. decides to take retrospective action, and what is the criteria, is key. Do they take their lead solely from the media or is it up to the opposing teams manager to complain ? I would love to know.

Had the game not been televised, would it have attracted as much attention as it did. 

 

Would retrospective action been as likely had this been a non televised, 3pm kick?