The players' union is furious players have no way to appeal a ban imposed by the Match Review Panel, following two-game suspensions handed to Perth Glory's Michael Baird and Central Coast's Patricio Perez for simulation.

But it revealed it was unable to strike an agreement with the FFA in the lead up to the current season, with the code's governing body implementing changes under its own jurisdiction.

"This approach to consultation is disturbing," Schwab said. "At no point has FFA been able to explain why it needs to deny players a right to a fair hearing.

"It is legally impermissible and clearly not justified from a football point of view."

The PFA said it was given 48 hours to submit a response to a set of revised A-League Disciplinary Regulations less than three weeks before the season kicked off.

But in the week leading up to the opening weekend, the FFA wrote to the PFA stating it disagreed with its position, negotiations had broken down and it would implement the changes nonetheless.

The PFA rejected proposed changes, including the citing and charging of a player who would not have any avenue to appeal if the Match Review Panel imposed a penalty.

It is under these rules both Baird and Perez have fallen victim and been unable to appeal their bans.

The PFA pointed to the drop in red cards, as well as suspensions from the accumulation of yellows as another reason, with a 25 per cent drop in expulsions from the 2007/08 season to 2009/10 and halving of yellow card accrued bans.

Despite the PFA wanting an urgent fix, FFA CEO Ben Buckley said yesterday the system would again be reviewed in the lead up to next season.

Schwab called for change to ensure any potential legal disputes are avoided.

"No-one wants the threat of legal action over our sport.  However, FFA must respect the basic legal rights of players in order for that threat to disappear," Schwab said.

He said the PFA was happy to commit to a review of the system, but remained unsure as to why changes couldn't be implemented more quickly.
 
"The PFA sees no reason why an appeals right cannot be introduced immediately," he said.
 
"The only thing that FFA will lose by introducing a review process is a decision of the Match Review Panel that needs to be overturned."

Earlier this week, the FFA insisted the changes had been made after consultation with the PFA, but vowed to revisit them before next season.

"Every year at the end of the season we review the system and consult separately with the clubs and the PFA," said FFA CEO Ben Buckley.

"Over the course of the last few days, the clubs involved in this weekend's incidents have raised some issues of concern with us over the operation of the system.

"We have assured the clubs that they will have the opportunity for significant input during the annual review process.

"FFA remains committed to this consultative process and will ensure that it provides a forum to hear the views of all relevant stakeholders through a working group comprising representatives of Clubs, the PFA and referees."