Clik here to view.

The different treatment of fouls by Mario Balotelli and Branislav Ivanovic has baffled and angered many in English football
Rule 77 of Fifa's Disciplinary Code contains the two clauses that have got the Football Association, elite match officials and the rest of the game's stakeholders into such a pickle over the last few days.
They state that a disciplinary committee is responsible for a) "sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials' attention" and b) "rectifying obvious errors in the referee's disciplinary decisions".
The FA point to these and, in concert with Fifa, state that the logic for their existence – and so the differing (and contradictory) rulings in the Shaun Derry, Branislav Ivanovic and Mario Balotelli cases – is to avoid every incident in every match being potentially "reofficiated" by a panel on Monday morning.
If this was allowed, they argue, not without a modicum of common sense, then the match referee would be rendered impotent, afraid to make any decision in real time as it could be re-made once countless replays were reviewed.
Roy Hodgson, the West Bromwich Albion manager, said of this dilemma: "Of course, the ref will make a mistake now and again, especially when you judge the situation a hundred times with slo-mo cameras. Once upon a time, the referee reffed the game and even in televised games, errors weren't magnified. What has changed is the trial by TV which refs have had to learn to live with. They have trial by TV and every decision is analysed so much. Quite often, we only complain about a decision when we have watched the replay 15 times in slow motion. We don't complain at the time because we don't know if there was a mistake or not."
To recap, the FA upheld the punishment of one player (Derry) despite what many considered an opponent's precipitous fall (Ashley Young), video evidence was employed to charge another for alleged violent conduct (Ivanovic), and a third (Balotelli) was not retrospectively punished for an x-rated challenge because the incident was seen, but not well enough, by one or more of the four officials present.
How the Derry and Balotelli cases could be dealt with in such a way while Ivanovic got different treatment has baffled and angered many in the game. On Wednesday night, Derry served his one-match suspension, sitting out Queens Park Rangers' meeting with Swansea City despite Young's fall in Manchester United's 2-0 win at Old Trafford on Sunday. At Chelsea Ivanovic was called to book for the alleged blow landed on Wigan Athletic's Shaun Maloney during their match at Stamford Bridge the previous day. Manchester City, though, are able to call on Balotelli for what may still be the most crucial last three matches of their Premier League title quest after his stamp on Alex Song went unpunished during the 1-0 defeat at Arsenal and when the FA reviewed the case.
Why could the FA review the Derry sending-off by Lee Mason, but not the Balotelli non-sending off by Martin Atkinson? Because, say the FA and Fifa, of a combination of clause A and B of their disciplinary code.
Derry's was obviously seen because Mason issued the red card but clause A is ruled out – "serious infringements which have escaped the match officials' attention". But it may have been an "obvious" error from Mason, as in clause B.
Why Atkinson's error could not also be adjusted according to this logic is where the thinking behind the rules descends into farce. It is understood that while Atkinson's report said that an incident between Balotelli and Song was seen, the incident of the studs-up challenge was not. If so, then Atkinson and his team of assistants, Peter Kirkup and Darren Cann, and the fourth official, Andre Marriner, actually missed the stamp and so according to clauses A and B, the FA could have reviewed the episode and issued a retrospective red card.
Put this to Fifa and the FA, though, and their argument becomes one of semantics, of who is interpreting what and when, which only emphasises how confused the picture is.
"I think the referee standard is probably the best in Europe," Hodgson added. "We've got no complaints at all. Our games have been refereed very well. I never go into games worrying about the refereeing. I only concern myself with the team's performance. Football, by its nature, after every match will bring a complaint from one manager or another, that his team has been robbed, and that's been going on since I can remember. But I would be the last one to suggest it's due to incompetence. Refs do make mistakes but you see players making them as well."
So, too, do governing bodies – domestic and global. Fifa argues that the FA can actually amend its rules, in the close season, if it wants to, but again falls back on the argument that this could open the way for more and more power to be taken away from the match referee.
But if clauses A and B of Rule 77 exist then why not a clause C stating that disciplinary panels can be allowed the wriggle room to "re-officiate" incidents that are seen or only partially seen, for use when the next grey area inevitably arises?