How absurd can you get? According to the rules, the Video Advisory Panel (VAP) could have been asked to review the incident only if the ref had missed it. Because the ref saw the incident but decided not to act, Prokas gets away with it. And this despite the fact that ref Steve Lodge, on seeing the replay afterwards, admitted that he would have sent the player off if he'd seen the challenge properly at the time.

It doesn't take too much imagination to realise that this is tantamount to admitting that he did indeed miss the incident.

Meanwhile, Patrick Vieira faces another misconduct charge for two relatively minor incidents at Leeds. Several ArseWeb readers have written to us pointing out some inconsistency here, saying that the ref in that match must have seen at least one of those incidents (because he awarded Arsenal a free kick!). However, the ref at that match said that he didn't see the incidents in question (see here). So logically, the FA can justify their decision to accuse Vieira but not his assailant.

In one case the ref is judged to have seen an incident, even though he says he didn't. In the other he's judged not to have seen an incident, even though he acted on it. Why are we not surprised that in both cases, Arsenal and Patrick Vieira in particular come off worse because of these interpretations? Why, because we have come to expect such consistency in these matters.

The FA will say that they're bound by their rules, which misses the point. If the rules result in this kind of injustice, it's time for a change. For starters, would it be so hard to allow the VAP to also look at incidents which the ref admits to not having seen properly?