BEFORE YOU MAKE SOME RIDICULOUS COMMENT !! READ FOR GOD SAKE OR WHATEVER SAKE YOU BELIEVE IN !! UNDERSTAND , THAT COSTA IS NOT THE MAIN TOPIC !!

Also let me add one of the most outrages ones in history of football . It was using replay during Zidanes headbutt incident ! That was direct and complete violation of FIFA laws but who gives a crap like Mas Jobrani said .

Really long: I will try to sum a bit here:

Arsenal appealed the incident between Costa and Gabriel in which everybody thought both deserved RED. Footage from everywhere (the normal 36 camera angles) showed Gabriel stamped on Costa.

However, a Brazilian reporter who had recorded the incident from another angle that NOBODY saw showed Gabriel was innocent (no contact). how he was there? Because they bought the copyright and he was allowed to ALSO take part in the stadium.

That part was broadcasted in Brazil and Arsenal used the copy to appeal. FA accepted it (random source), that caused all kind of questions... the inconsistency etc... Next time anyone has a phone can just send it to FA to appeal anything :D

No , no mate , your summary is going to turn this into another Costa vs Gabriel argument again . ( lol no Gabriel is not innocent just because he did not hit him read the law mate , Intent is enough ) .That is why i did not summarize it . I am sick of hearing excuses from both sides even me making all the defenses . I need a break from that for few days then maybe we will comeback to it :)) .

This issue is much more global ! How unfairly video replay is being used . I did not know this info before . Also did not know about so many details about Frings suspension in Germany vs Argentina case ... that was very surprising .

No no, it was just to summarize the article, the main question is the last one in which how FA inconsistently accepts the camera footage from external source

Good article and I fully agree. Main purpose of the article is that some players and teams get more scrutinized than others by having more cameras filming their every single move. Unfair in a way, and broadcast companies often have their own agendas to scrutinize certain teams more than others.

May I ask who wrote that? Btw. what's wrong with the accepting external source when it's fully visible and not edited?

Imo, Gabriel should not have been sent off and then Costa would not have been charged. The ref lost control on the game when he got influenced by the crowd and Costa for giving the straight red to Gabriel.
Derbies are heated, players will always fool the refs because without camera, its actually works...

Truth be told, I don't have a problem with this. If it forces players to be more accountable and not do more crap off the ball - I don't see why that's a bad thing?

Look, where I come from, the MLS had awful coverage , and I mean basically no TV coverage for the first decade or so of its existence. The US men's national team games were no better. In several US/Mexico games, people legit punched each other off the ball and it went unpunished due to lack of coverage. It was disgraceful.

However, the second those games got great coverage, and accountability on the part of the players was raised, 99% of those incidents just disappeared. I don't see how that is a negative thing.

In this BPL example, and this goes the same for all top teams who receive scrutinizing coverage, if your players aren't committing illegal (and disgraceful) offences, why is this a problem? Ideally, we would have a game where the referee never made an incorrect call, but why should catching someone on camera doing something bad just be dismissed?

As for you Marcus, you're saying that Totti spitting and Costa not actually being kicked can be excused because lesser teams don't have as much coverage? I don't see how the excuses the player's actions, and that should be point. Will Totti think the next time he spits on someone? Probably, and if he's punished enough for it, and it hurts his team enough he'll stop doing it, which is great. Something like that shouldn't be in the game to being with, and certainly not at the highest levels.

He's just saying that all teams should have EQUAL coverage. Personally, I don't like too much technology being used in the game of football. In the end it will look like it does in the NFL.. Hours of commercial breaks and you won't even see the actual game on TV for all ads and shit that covers the screen. Instead I like that the human factor is responsible for most decisions on the pitch. Mistakes will be made, and people will get upset but that's exactly what is good about the sport. On this subject, if 3rd party cameras are allowed to be used as evidence, then the least we can demand is that all teams be covered equally much. As the article states, what would it look like if someone points 72 cameras on a certain individual during each game just to have him caught doing something he's not allowed to? Because there will always be instances where players test the limits or do something behind the back of the referee. Rightfully so. Football is a rough but beautiful game but all the charm of the sport would go away if we allow this to happen. Then you can all forget about good ol' Premier League and it's undefined roughness. Instead what we would have left would be a shallow sissy sport that gets more focused on the technology rather than the actual game. Players would not test the limits or would not risk doing anything at all which obviously would lead to a more boring football, played within strict bureaucratic rules and players like Costa would not exist anymore which would be a shame.

So what tit comes down to as someone recently wrote in here, is that there are different school of thoughts here. Some of us want to see rough and real football while others want to CHANGE the game. Personally I don't understand the reasoning of the latter.

I agree with you @KTBFFHSWE , I just thinks that players who do things which have totally nothing with football should be punished even after game. I just wish if there would more refeeres like Collina, shame EPL referees nowadays are making mistake after mistake.

@KTBFFHSWE: well said!

I dont really agree, i would be glad to apply 1 camera call per half for each team. That would be 2 calls max for each team per game asked by the captain and surely in crucial moments... Not stpping the game each five minutes, but for a crucial wrong call, when the defender didnt touched a player who dived an the PK was given for example, or an offside goal non called. It works very well in Tennis.

Football isnt a sissy sport, but he is watched by sissies more than Rugby thats for sure...

My opinion is that the use of technology is great as long as its equal for everyone and only after a game. This isn't to eliminate roughness from the sport its just to eliminate cheating and make players responsible for their actions in the pitch.
I agree there would be some issues like the one stated in the articles were some camera crews report out of benefit and not duty.

Article is written on ESPN by <a>GABRIELE MARCOTTI</a> . Sorry should have added it right away .

@sunflash

You did not read article more carefully . The point is if we do use technology it should not be used only when the party that owns the rights wants to use it for their agenda like Italy TV channel releasing their video right before crucial semifinal . FIFA is a joke for allowing this to happen .

Like Arsenal fans who constantly share pictures of Koscielny being chest pushed but don't show when Costa was pushed same way .. That is being bias and wrong . They are using it make up mind of the global fan audience who sit behind tv with big eyes waiting for sensation and most of them rarely use brains for anything to analyze situation .

@ktb has put it well .

I stand for the camera use but fairly . I want them to be used especially during questionable PKs , card decisions , offside goals . There is such a long pause in between which is completely enough to make that quick decision !