David Beckham pleads innocence after his clash with Leeds' Lee Bowyer (ShaunBotterill/GettyImages)

Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger has always believed that the FA has a hidden agenda against his club, and the events of the past few days can only have compounded his misery.

Henry may have escaped a charge, but the fact that he was under investigation while David Beckham was not raises serious questions.

The FA's disciplinary procedure stinks of double standards. The video panel was set up to scrutinize 'unseen' incidents, aiming to stamp out acts of violent conduct.

Currently the panel can only review a clash that has not been dealt with at the time. As soon as the referee awards a free-kick the panel is powerless. The problem here is that the referee may not have had the best view of what occurred - the system simply doesn't work.

Does the FA really believe that Jeff Winter would not have at least booked Manchester United midfielder David Beckham for his challenge on Lee Bowyer had he had a different view? Of course he would. Beckham's challenge was reckless and, to a certain extent, dangerous.

True, Thierry Henry's attempted elbow on John Robinson seemed to be thrown with far more malice and forethought, but at the end of the day we are talking about degrees of the same offence.

You could even say that referee Steve Dunn, in charge of the Charlton-Arsenal match, had effectively dealt with the Henry incident by deciding no foul had been committed.

The rules of the video panel are in place to protect the credibility of referees. The FA will not openly bring into question the individual decisions of referees, and feels that by over-ruling them it would have a detrimental effect on their authority.

If the video panel is to have any future it must have the freedom to call a player to book for any incident. It makes no sense to have such rigid restrictions in place. Saturday's events, where Beckham was exonerated but Henry faced a probe for a very similar offence, prove that beyond doubt.

Wenger has rightly called for FA officials to introduce an automatic review of all such contentious incidents. He said: 'You should overrule if the referee is not in a position to see what really happened.

'You can basically kill somebody if the referee was not in a good position to see it properly and you can still do nothing about it. So let's investigate the FA and see what comes out.'

And today Leeds boss Terry Venables added his view: 'I am a believer in consistency. We've either got to do them all or do none of them. If we've got a video facility and we're going to use it, use it for all - or none at all.

'I think that way everyone will know where we stand. At the moment, it's a toss of a coin and we wonder what's going to happen now. There's no consistency at the moment.'

If David Beckham had been charged, he would face a disciplinary hearing in 14 days and if found guilty would have been handed a three-match ban.

The England skipper would have been suspended either side of England's Euro 2004 qualifiers against Slovakia and Macedonia; you can't represent England when serving a domestic ban. Of course, that had no bearing on the FA's decision...

And the rules governing red card appeals, for two cautions, are so cloudy it's hard to know where anyone stands. You cannot appeal against a dismissal for two yellow cards, but you can ask the referee to look again. What does that mean? Answers on a postcard please. The suspension of Patrick Vieira and exculpation of Aliou Cisse being cases in point.

The FA may be eager to protect referees, but David Elleray did himself no favours on Monday night in the Midlands derby between Birmingham City and Aston Villa.

His decision to allow Birmingham's decisive second goal was, to say the least, contentious. Elleray was nearer the half-way line than the Villa area when goalkeeper Peter Enckelman failed to deal with Olof Mellberg's throw-in.

Exactly how could Elleray tell that Enckelman had, without doubt, touched the ball? The fact is he couldn't. There was talk of the linesman awarding the goal, but there was no evidence of Elleray speaking to his assistant before pointing to the centre circle.

After watching numerous television replays of the incident, it is still impossible to say if the ball scraped the underside of the Villa stopper's boot. If anything, the pictures support Enckelman's belated claim that he didn't make contact.

	A dejected Enckelman watches the ball enter into the net for the second goal (MatthewAshton/Empics)

That was a huge decision for Elleray, and for Villa, and not the correct one. Birmingham should have been awarded a corner, because there is no cast iron proof that Enckelman got any part of his boot on the ball.

Elleray also failed to deal with Darren Purse's horror challenge on Juan Pablo Angel in the first half. It was a career threatening, studs-up challenge from the City defender - he received a yellow, but it should have been red. And of course, the video panel can do nothing...

The game at St Andrews threw up more than the odd talking point. Darius Vassell's disallowed goal, with Villa on top but a goal down, was another close call. This time the linesman got the decision right.

The headed flick-on was meant for Vassell, and the England international moved towards the ball. The only reason the flag did not go up automatically was because the linesman was attempting to play advantage. As soon as Purse failed to deal with the ball, Vassell became active and the flag went up for offside.

Think of the incident as a foul elsewhere on the pitch, the officials have a few seconds to play the advantage before pulling back the play for a free-kick.

It just seems as though no-one seems to know the rules anymore. Villa boss Graham Taylor revealed that Enckelman did not even know that it could have been a corner - something the player now denies. Perhaps the Finn's distraught reaction helped Elleray make his decision.

We've also seen the arguments over the number of coaches allowed in the technical area boil over this season, with Gordon Strachan dismissed against Everton and the benches of both Manchester United and Leeds protesting the fourth official's decision to allow only one coach to enter.

At the end of the day most of the responsibility must fall with the FA for failing to effectively convey the rules of the game to clubs and officials, but then the clubs themselves do have to educate the players.

In a week we've seen fourth officials apparently unaware of touchline rules, a player nescient of a basic law of the game, the FA's double standards over video evidence and, arguably, the ineptitude of an official in David Elleray.

Hardly the best of weeks for those running the rule in Soho Square.