If TV replays are banned for refs, why can the FA use them?

It's an intriguing question, and one that was brought up by one of our members (Hi, Sinbad), on the forum after watching the David Platt press conference. 

The FA, using FIFA law, state that a referee may not use TV footage to make a decision, but instead must rely only on what he has seen, and what his fellow-officials have seen - but of course, he doesn't have to listen to them if he doesn't want to. That's it. If he gets it wrong, there's not a damn thing you, I, or any person in that stadium can do about it at that moment in time.

Many have advocated the use of instant camera replays for certain decsions - penalty calls, serious foul play, and, to a lesser extent due to the proposed goal cameras, whether the ball has crossed the line or not. Those against, quite rightly say that football is a free-flowing game without natural breaks, but yet fail to recognize that a called-for foul does indeed stop play and therefore is a natural break. The intervening period from when the whistle is blown to when the ball is back in play, can be as short as instananeous, or as long as it takes to remove an injured player from the field.

In this time, the fourth official (who does absolutely nothing except hold the board up accasionally, and receive constant grief from managers about things he has had no control over) could have watched the incident several times and relayed that information to the ref.

"But that ain't what football is about!" go out the cries.

Whilst that maybe true to some extent, those who are dead set against this, I point you to the title of this piece, and ask for an answer.

Now I am not suggesting that the FA should never use them, because what if there was an off-the-ball incident at the other end of the pitch that no one saw? Obviously the FA must watch footage to determine who, if anyone, did what to whom, and punish accordingly.

But what about what happened to Vincent Kompany?

He was shown a straight red, and everyone (save Rooney) was astonished about the decision, and that included Nani, who was on the receiving end of the perfectly clean tackle/GBH. Of course, as said, he was shown an early bath, but what if the 4th official had said "Hang on, Sir, I do believe you got that one wrong, it should have been a yellow/no card"? And what if Kompany had not gotten a card? The 4th official could have said sort of the same thing then.

Of course, a card was shown, but what of no card? The ref either saw it happen right in front of him and considered it acceptable, or he didn't because he wasn't doing his job and therefore has no clue. Why are TV replays allowed then? To take this to a (ludicrous) nth degree, it would be akin to the Police not being allowed to watch live footage of a crime on CCTV and relaying this info to Officers on the ground, but doing it after the fact, when of course it is too late.

Which of course brings us, very nicely, to Balotelli v Parker.

Now some say, Webb saw it, but dismissed it, and others say he didn't because his head was turning at the time (irrespective of which, Webb came out later and said he didn't see it). But what of the linesmen? No clue, I'm afraid, as the FA have failed to tell us that. What of the Spurs players? Nothing doing there either, because they never said a word at the time.

Now whether Balotelli meant it or not, is not actually important to this piece. What is important is that nothing happened, and play resumed, and a few minutes later, up steps Balotelli to score the winner from the penalty spot.

But what if the 4th official had access to TV cameras?

He may have watched it, whilst Parker was being treated (remember? a natural break in play?), and could have decided that there was nothing in it, he should have had a yellow, or should have had a red. Now obviously, the majority of Spurs fans will have been wanting the latter two (he was already on a yellow), and the majority of City fans wanting the former, with everyone else split 50/50.

But here's the thing, without those cameras, which were then used to convict him after the fact, we will never know what could have happened; one, City may never have won, or two, they still could have done so and have Balotelli available for the next four games. We would all have known the decision, there and then. Ignoring the fact that a few would still complain about any outcome, we would at least know that it had been dealt with and therefore the end result could not be argued with. Ergo, it would be fair.

Now I ask you, what exactly would be wrong with having a fair result?
-----
Join in the debate here.