Fulham’s Sascha Riether has become first player to be retrospectively charged by an FA panel for his challenge on Manchester United’s Adnan Januzaj.
The German defender appeared to stamp on Januzaj in the last minute of Fulham’s 3-1 defeat to United, but the incident was not seen by referee Lee Probert or his assistants.
Previously Probart would have been asked to review all available footage of the incident and then ask what action he would have taken had he seen it.
But in a pilot project, an FA panel of three former referees – Steve Dunn, Eddie Wolstenholme and Alan Wiley – make a ruling on what they believe the official would have done had he seen it.
For an FA charge to follow, all three panel members must agree it is a sending-off offence. In the instance of Riether, the panel were of the unanimous decision that it was an act of violent conduct.
The defender has until 6pm on Tuesday to respond to the charge.
An FA statement said: “Fulham’s Sascha Riether has been charged by the FA for violent conduct following an incident which was not seen by the match officials but caught on video during his side’s game against Manchester United on November 2 2013.
“The charge is in relation to an incident involving the defender and United’s Adnan Januzaj which occurred in added time of Saturday’s match at Craven Cottage.
“Riether is the first player to have been charged retrospectively by the FA under a new pilot project for potential ‘not seen’ incidents in Premier League matches.
“Previously, where the match officials had confirmed to The FA that none of them had seen an incident, the match referee was then asked to review all available video evidence before being asked what action, if any, he would have taken had it been seen.
“Under the new process, if an incident has not been seen by the match officials, a three-man panel of former elite referees Steve Dunn, Eddie Wolstenholme and Alan Wiley will be asked by the FA to review it and advise what, if any action, they believe the match referee should have taken had it been witnessed at the time.
“The panel were of the unanimous decision that it was an act of violent conduct.”