how can a player have a card rescinded when you can't retroactively punish a player?
In one case the ref saw it and deemed it a punishable offense, and then the offender gets to appeal the refs opinion.
In the other case the ref also saw it and deemed it non-punishable, but then it's not up for review.
Aren't the two events equal?
you can do the latter. barton 12 matches.
If ref didn't see it then tv evidence can be used to punish retrospectively.
Yes, I'm aware of that. But when the ref HAS seen it, why is one case
up for review and the other not?
But normally they won't, right? And if so, why? Change the rules
