yeah bobby, i understand you're concerned about "the now", the current situation, and yeah clearely having someone teaching the kids how to tackle is a long term solution..... and that always assuming the techical education of the kids is the problem (that's just a hunch of mine and i can't be sure that's really the problem).
but like i said,
if that's the cause of this issue, providing more serious punishments or retrospective bans won't change a thing. if u make a bad tackle just coz no one ever taught u how to do it, then u won't suddenly learn how to properly tackle just coz the federation disqualified u for a long term.
Bobby said:
I really don't see how retrospective punishment can harm the game at all? along with live tv replays during the game with a fourth official? I don't see how these actions can be seen as 'Dangerous'? (alot of people have said that not just Lo Zio)
really? i thought i was the only one to think that. well first of, let me point out i'm not saying "that is definitely gonna be dangerous"... that's just what i think, my personal opinion. i'm not stating a fact coz no one can tell what could be the consequences of such a big change. that's how i see it anyway.
i learned through my studying\working experience (my line of work has a lot to do with "rules") that a rule is "good" when it doesn't open the field to equivocal situations in any possible scenario.
that means that when u issue a new rule, u don't have just to consider what will be the most common scenario of application of that rule, but any possible scenario, every possible application.... and only if the rule doesn't create equivocal consequences in any of those possible applications, that rule can be safely issued.
now we can picture the most common scenario of application of this rule... we have a referee making a huge mistake, not calling a foul on a reckless tackle.... the federation judge overturns the ref call and calls it a foul, disqualifying the player. it sounds perfect.
but now think of that... how many controversies and debate we witness every week on ref calls? how many coaches complain on a weekly basis about more or less debeatable calls?..... for now all those controversies are just nothing more than harmless arguments....
if u issue such a rule, each of those cases will be brought to the attention of the federation judge, as every coach will claim that was "an extreme case". and all of those cases will have to be decided in 1 week (anything longer than that would compromise the regularity of the league).
and if any of those episodes will be discarded by the federation judge, then the coaches, the media, the fans will start complaining about that...... "why our episode wasn't considered while other similar cases were? what criteria the judge followed? are we sure this judge is fair?" can u imagine how many conspiracy theories would blow the league each and every week? the whole situation would just get out of control.
Bobby said:
Retrospective punishment will be for the extreme cases, the ref will still be very much part of the game and 99% of his rulings will be used. The football associations really don't have enough time/money to sit through every decision a ref makes and change them. So I don't see how the referee will become useless?
it will become useless because u're giving another body the power to overturn the referee's call.... all of them... and it doesn't matter if eventually that body will actually overturn just a few episodes.. what counts is not the actual situation but the power u're giving to another body. they could potentially overturn 1 aswell as 30 ref calls for week. that's already more than enough. and actually the fact that the federation won't have the time or the resources to review each and every referees' decision makes the situation even worse, as it opens the field to the scenario i mentioned above "why they did consider that case and not our team's case?"
also u talk about "extreme cases" but what makes a case "extreme"? the recklessness of the tackle? and when a tackle should be considered reckless enough to be subjected to the federation review? where's the discrimination line between an extreme case and an almost extreme case?
that is way too vague... and rules can't be vague coz a vague rule can bring to completely different applications and THAT makes it a dangerous rule.
u made the example of a player elbowing another player on purpose... but how do u establish if the player did it on purpose? it's impossible to come to a certain, safe assessment of the malice of the player... of his intention to hit the other player.
very often (most of the times) a player jumping to get the ball moves his arms and lifts his elbows to give himself a better jump and to mantain balance.... how do u establish wich case was intentionally aimed to hurt another player and wich case wasn't.
officially the game rules establish that u shouldn't lift you're elbows when jumping, no matter what....... but that's a stupid rule as lifting your elbows actually helps u making a better jump, so most of the players keep doing it and the refs let them doing it. they just call it a foul when they think that was aimed to stop another player.
so here u are. u have a judge (the ref) taking a decision on a very ambiguous and discretional matter. theese kind of calls usually lead to endless media and fans debate.... but like i said, in the current system of rules, those are just harmless debates.... because nothing can be done to overturn the referee's decision. he took a decision in real time and u just got to accept it.
but what would happen if u would give the chance to "appeal" against that decision..... claiming that was a wrong call on an "extreme case".
WOW, can u imagine what sort of mess such a possibility would create? the clubs would put pressure on the federation to review each ellbow case that happened in their matches.... of course it would be impossible for the federation to review so many episodes in just 1 week. and that would bring the clubs to question the federation's integrity and impartiality ("why did u review that episode and not the one that happened in my team's match?").
it would be a disaster and it would cause much more troubles and debates than it could possible solve.
now we have a very simple, clear and objective line. the ref didn't see the episode? ok then, u can make your call..... the ref did see the episode? then no, his decisions can't be overturned.
there's no room for debates or interpretations. but if u give the federation the power to overturn the ref decision and turn a "no foul" call into a foul.... then u just opened pandora's vase.
oh well at least i can justify myself saying english is not my native language 
