Am I to infer from this that the referee did see the O'Riley challenge, considered it a fair challenge, and that's the end of it? And so because he saw it there is nothing that can now be done retrospectively?
Aside from the procedural utter bollocks, how does one make a rule to distinguish between seeing it but not for what it actually was (like when you look at a cloud and see the face of Jesus in the sky), and not seeing it (because you were looking at something else, or had a paper bag over your head).
Why should it be that in one of these scenarios the referee is to not be questioned, whereas in the other the referee is to be subjected to an FA review of the footage?
This is all procedural bollocks designed to minimise the risk of undermining the supremacy of the on-field ref (and protect him from Hurty Feelings). I see no reason why the Crawley weasel can't be subjected to trial by video and thrown into Hedgecourt lake.
This, incidentally, is 10% about O'Riley and 90% about the wider issue of having a f***ing stupid buttock clenching rubric that introduces a shit-mountain of potential unfairness, and particularly favours small clubs hell-bent on Maiming better sides when the scrutiny of VAR is unavailable (due to yet more FA small-town mentality, technophobia and indefensible cant). Before I'm accused of being unable to Get Over It and Move On.
Last edited:
