The FA are bringing Football into disrepute

The FA have rejected Arsenal's appeal against the red card handed to Thomas Vermaelen for his alleged offence of "preventing an obvious goalscoring opportunity".

This, despite the equally obvious evidence that West Ham's Franco tripped over his own legs, and the ball bounced high beyond both players. Having watched the incident a number of times again in slow-motion, I was convinced the FA would see sense and rescind the red card.

Others were equally convinced that regardless of the evidence the FA would reject the appeal—and so they did.

This incident is not unique; merely the latest in a line of high profile cases where the FA have issued a ruling apparently contrary to common sense.

Referees

One cannot completely blame the referees for mistakes made during games—they are making snap judgements on incidents sometimes barely seen at very high speed.

Without technology to help them, as available in other sports, they will always make mistakes. Those mistakes must either be accepted as part of the game, or worked on in order to eradicate them.

The stance the FA seem to be taking is to accept them as part of the game. That stance, I would argue, is bringing football into disrepute.

I am in no way arguing for the persecution of referees, as are the less charitable element. While some of their mistakes may seem ridiculous, even for someone in charge on the pitch, it can often be argued that some judgement had to be made.

The FA take little if any steps to apply the same high standards to it's referees, as it does to clubs, players and managers. A manager is not allowed to express displeasure volubly with a decision that may have cost his club dearly. Whilst a referee, who made such a decision, walks away with no regret expressed.

Technology

With the advent of instantly reactive technology, such as that used in Tennis, it could easily be argued that there is no excuse not to use it to cut down mistakes. Yet the FA continually and consistently reject calls to introduce it, even in unobtrusive ways such as on the goal line.

Rugby uses video replays to rule on tries where the referee isn't able to see it on the pitch—why not use the same technology for penalties in football?

This article is not focused on the refusal to even consider the use of technology—rather the cumulative impact of that apparent stubborn refusal to follow the lead that other sports have taken to eradicate mistakes.

Chief Executive

After 10 months in role, the chief executive of the FA has resigned, making the turnover six chief executives in about 10 years. This is not a natural progression for a growing and changing organisation.

Speculation is rife, and growing with more evidence appearing daily, that there is a problem deep within the corridors of Soho Square. The outgoing Chief Exec, Ian Watmore, is apparently citing as reason, an organisation that seeks to prevent change and improvement.

Lord Triesman, the Independent Chairman, has expressed regret, unlike when Brian Barwick was asked to leave in 2008. The reason given then was disagreement between Barwick and Triesman on the future direction of the organisation and the role of the chief executive.

Whilst Barwick oversaw a new Wembley, a new National Football Centre, and a television deal worth £425M, his legacy is perhaps not as grand as he would have liked.

The reputation of the FA also diminished over the last 10 years, and especially during his time in charge due to a number of mistakes and mismanagement:

The mishandled construction of the new Wembley, especially the long delays

The highly public fiasco over the appointment of the last four England coaches

An apparently increasingly parochial view of the game that sees technology sidelined

Increasingly bizarre and inconsistent decision making with regard to after-game punishment

Refusal to Change

The FA appears to be an organisation that simply refuses to change. Perhaps they consider the small measures that have been allowed to take place, enough progress. Certainly their publicity heralds a forward thinking body.

Many believe however, that the FA is simply another manifestation of an "Old Boys Network". In other words, an organisation that seeks to protect and promote the status quo and image of the existing hierarchy.

Other examples are given of otherwise inexplicable decisions, that point to a reactionary element within the FA.

Incidents where certain players, with a guaranteed place in the England set-up, being excused the same standard of justice meted out elsewhere. One such example recently where Steven Gerrard committed a forearm smash against the back of an opponents head demonstrates this phenomenon.

Captured on cameras very clearly, the incident went unpunished during the game, yet the FA refuse to pursue any action against someone who is a guaranteed England starter and ex-captain.

Meanwhile accusations of racism were made when Rio Ferdinand committed a similar foul, captured on video, and received retrospective punishment. It must be pointed out that those accusations were not made officially and have not been tested in a court of law.

There is enough other evidence however to suggest that the FA are an organisation determined to protect themselves, while protecting their own agenda. An agenda it seems based on clinging to a 'traditional' view of the game—one that cannot cope with advances in other areas.

Advances

Technology continues to gain ground in other sports arenas, even in a quick flowing game such as Rugby.

Advances in streaming video worldwide over the internet meanwhile, cut through attempted restrictions to protect traditional media broadcast contracts.

Video itself is now considered simple technology, yet advances in freezing action and recreating 3D images of scenes are making ground, even in tennis where the smaller ball moves much faster than football.

Advances in technology are also being matched by advances in decision making in other sports. Eye gouging in rugby for example is captured on video and punished retrospectively regardless of the decision on the field of play, yet a recent incident between Hull and Arsenal of poking in the eye was barely commented on.

Conclusion

There is an element within the FA that seeks to protect and preserve what they see as their traditional game. In doing so they are bringing the whole sport into disrepute not only amongst it's own fans, but amongst the world at large.

The FA may choose to disregard the ridicule and damages to their image that they are responsible for bringing about, but it will have an inevitable impact.

The only logical conclusion to their behaviour is that they will bring down the game in England—creating a sport so anachronistic and out of touch, that fans will begin to turn to other sports in their droves.

The phrase "adapt or die" was never so apt.