The quivering FA hide when real men of honour would take the lead
By MARTIN SAMUEL
Clearly insufficient. Don’t you just love the Football Association when they come over all masterful?
According to the guardians of our game, the standard ban of three matches for violent conduct would, in the case of Luis Suarez, be inadequate. How times change. When Jermain Defoe did much the same thing in 2006 the offence was deemed worthy of no more than a yellow card. Off you go you little scamp, said the FA, it really is none of our business.
For an organisation with a media arm so grand it may shortly qualify as an independent nation in the European Championship group stages, the FA behave as if we exist in the pre-internet age. In the good old days before Google, discipline could be dispensed on the hoof, after a lively lunch and with scant regard for precedent or consistency.
To question the FA’s stance required both a cuttings library and a damn good memory. Garrincha was sent off in the 1962 World Cup semi-final for Brazil against Chile. At his FIFA hearing it was claimed he had acted only under severe provocation and had never been dismissed in his career. By a vote of five to two, he received a ‘symbolic reprimand’ and was cleared to play in the final, which Brazil won.
In fact, Garrincha had already been sent off three times for his club, Botafogo, twice in Brazil and once against Barcelona of Spain. In 1962, though, who knew? Yet the moment Suarez sank his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic, a rudimentary search for ‘football biting’ immediately turned up an incident between Defoe and Javier Mascherano in October 2006.
And also the FA’s scandalous reaction to it.
From this we know that Defoe’s manager, Martin Jol, dismissed it with a joke, that Defoe downplayed the seriousness of it in his half-hearted apology and that, most appallingly, the FA considered the matter closed with the issue of a yellow card by referee Steve Bennett. Seen and dealt with was the official line. Can’t re-referee the game, old chum.
No mention of a punishment that was clearly insufficient. No citing of a rule, highlighted this week by former FA compliance officer Graham Bean, that gives the governing body power to issue a misconduct charge ‘if the penalty does not fit the crime’. A rule that would appear to trump the mealy mouthed excuse of not wishing to undermine officials by pronouncing twice on the same event.
For if the FA have a get out of jail card linking crime and suitable punishment then the inertia we have witnessed over violent conduct in recent weeks — and for months and years before that — is inexcusable.
The FA witness tackles that could break legs, see arms thrown that cause brain damage, and pretend to be powerless to act. Then they alight on a show case and pounce. If they can weigh off the odd unsympathetic character like Suarez or John Terry, it makes them look decisive and principled.
The reality is they hide behind the skirts of FIFA, quivering when men of honour would take a moral lead.
We know what should have happened to Callum McManaman of Wigan Athletic, to Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero, to Sheffield United captain Chris Morgan many years ago when he left Iain Hume of Barnsley with a fractured skull.
We know what should have happened to Defoe, too. Instead, the FA will get their day in court and, amid a blaze of self-serving publicity, call it justice.
Suarez will miss the rest of this season and as much as one month of next because, randomly, referee Kevin Friend was unaware of the extent of his transgression. Had he followed Bennett’s lead and merely booked Suarez, we presume nothing would be done. The governance of football cannot rely on oversights or bizarre twists of fate.
The FA must be putting their hands together in thanks for Friend’s ineffectuality. With an attentive referee they would not be able to indulge another favourite pastime: responding to big headlines.
There is nothing the FA loves more than a steaming, great call for something to be done. Always providing they are in the mood to do something.
Remember when Eden Hazard of Chelsea kicked that ballboy at Swansea City? Disgraceful. Yet when Matt Ritchie of Swindon Town did the same to a teenager at Oxford United less than a year earlier? No further action required. No headlines, no glory, not worth the fuss.
Hazard’s was another punishment that the FA considered clearly insufficient, yet they never consider addressing the problem in their rule book. A player is bitten and the FA issue statements as if the inadequacy of the system has come as a total shock. They were forced to climb down over Hazard when their double standards were exposed, but this will be different. There was wider public sympathy for the Chelsea player than exists for Suarez, so the FA can don the black cap with confidence.
Certainly, only the most one-eyed admirer of the Uruguayan, or of Liverpool, is building a case for the defence. Biting is one of those offences that goes beyond the pale.
Gus Poyet, Suarez’s compatriot and manager of Brighton and Hove Albion, has attempted to debate why English football abhors it, yet often indulges a vicious tackle that could shatter bones, but few are ready for nuance just yet. They want Suarez brought to book and the FA are puppy-dog eager to oblige.
Yet is this the way forward for the game? Are we merely to rely on a set of haphazard circumstances falling fortuitously if justice is to be served?
We will act, say the FA, always providing an offence has been clearly committed, the referee hasn’t seen it, an old rule can be dug up and a man of principle is running the show that day. Otherwise, they are their own Mr Loophole, getting miscreants off the hook with jargon and technicalities.
So what if FIFA frown on additional punishments meted out from on high? This is about what is right, not what is vaguely written. Bring it on.
If the FA take a lead in administering fitting penalties for exceptionally violent behaviour, they will be on the right side of the argument and the rest of football will follow. Some braver associations are halfway there already.
And the rules are in place. Everyone knows that McManaman should have been severely punished for his tackle on Massadio Haidara of Newcastle United. Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, pointed out the provision in FA rules to review a decision in extraordinary circumstances.
It is the same clause Bean identified about the penalty fitting the crime. It could be enforced for any challenge that resulted in serious injury, whether seen by the referee or not. A player might receive a red card for a reckless or foul challenge, but if it is stunningly malicious, the coupling of crime and punishment surely permits the FA to extend the ban.
When former Manchester United captain Roy Keane took out Alf-Inge Haaland of Manchester City, the straight red card shown by referee David Elleray was, to coin a phrase, clearly insufficient considering the savagery of the tackle. Yet it was not until Keane wrote about it in his autobiography, revealing the brute nature of his intentions, that the FA could levy the longer suspension he deserved.
This has to stop. We hear so much about the fine stewardship of FA chairman David Bernstein and how it is such a pity that he will soon be standing down but, like the rest of his number, he has failed to address one of the key issues of the modern game.
With the benefit of technology, we can see the challenges and instances that require further attention.
We can differentiate between fouls, even bad ones, and more outrageous extremes.
We understand that a referee can see an incident — as Bennett did Defoe’s reaction to Mascherano — without computing its enormity.
Bennett probably thought Defoe put his head towards Mascherano, without realising he had sunk his teeth into his upper arm.
He should not have been hostage to that mistake. This is for the FA to resolve and to fail in this duty would be insufficient. Not to mention pathetic, cowardly, and very, very wrong.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...#ixzz2RMrnwqb1
By MARTIN SAMUEL
Clearly insufficient. Don’t you just love the Football Association when they come over all masterful?
According to the guardians of our game, the standard ban of three matches for violent conduct would, in the case of Luis Suarez, be inadequate. How times change. When Jermain Defoe did much the same thing in 2006 the offence was deemed worthy of no more than a yellow card. Off you go you little scamp, said the FA, it really is none of our business.
For an organisation with a media arm so grand it may shortly qualify as an independent nation in the European Championship group stages, the FA behave as if we exist in the pre-internet age. In the good old days before Google, discipline could be dispensed on the hoof, after a lively lunch and with scant regard for precedent or consistency.
To question the FA’s stance required both a cuttings library and a damn good memory. Garrincha was sent off in the 1962 World Cup semi-final for Brazil against Chile. At his FIFA hearing it was claimed he had acted only under severe provocation and had never been dismissed in his career. By a vote of five to two, he received a ‘symbolic reprimand’ and was cleared to play in the final, which Brazil won.
In fact, Garrincha had already been sent off three times for his club, Botafogo, twice in Brazil and once against Barcelona of Spain. In 1962, though, who knew? Yet the moment Suarez sank his teeth into Branislav Ivanovic, a rudimentary search for ‘football biting’ immediately turned up an incident between Defoe and Javier Mascherano in October 2006.
And also the FA’s scandalous reaction to it.
From this we know that Defoe’s manager, Martin Jol, dismissed it with a joke, that Defoe downplayed the seriousness of it in his half-hearted apology and that, most appallingly, the FA considered the matter closed with the issue of a yellow card by referee Steve Bennett. Seen and dealt with was the official line. Can’t re-referee the game, old chum.
No mention of a punishment that was clearly insufficient. No citing of a rule, highlighted this week by former FA compliance officer Graham Bean, that gives the governing body power to issue a misconduct charge ‘if the penalty does not fit the crime’. A rule that would appear to trump the mealy mouthed excuse of not wishing to undermine officials by pronouncing twice on the same event.
For if the FA have a get out of jail card linking crime and suitable punishment then the inertia we have witnessed over violent conduct in recent weeks — and for months and years before that — is inexcusable.
The FA witness tackles that could break legs, see arms thrown that cause brain damage, and pretend to be powerless to act. Then they alight on a show case and pounce. If they can weigh off the odd unsympathetic character like Suarez or John Terry, it makes them look decisive and principled.
The reality is they hide behind the skirts of FIFA, quivering when men of honour would take a moral lead.
We know what should have happened to Callum McManaman of Wigan Athletic, to Manchester City’s Sergio Aguero, to Sheffield United captain Chris Morgan many years ago when he left Iain Hume of Barnsley with a fractured skull.
We know what should have happened to Defoe, too. Instead, the FA will get their day in court and, amid a blaze of self-serving publicity, call it justice.
Suarez will miss the rest of this season and as much as one month of next because, randomly, referee Kevin Friend was unaware of the extent of his transgression. Had he followed Bennett’s lead and merely booked Suarez, we presume nothing would be done. The governance of football cannot rely on oversights or bizarre twists of fate.
The FA must be putting their hands together in thanks for Friend’s ineffectuality. With an attentive referee they would not be able to indulge another favourite pastime: responding to big headlines.
There is nothing the FA loves more than a steaming, great call for something to be done. Always providing they are in the mood to do something.
Remember when Eden Hazard of Chelsea kicked that ballboy at Swansea City? Disgraceful. Yet when Matt Ritchie of Swindon Town did the same to a teenager at Oxford United less than a year earlier? No further action required. No headlines, no glory, not worth the fuss.
Hazard’s was another punishment that the FA considered clearly insufficient, yet they never consider addressing the problem in their rule book. A player is bitten and the FA issue statements as if the inadequacy of the system has come as a total shock. They were forced to climb down over Hazard when their double standards were exposed, but this will be different. There was wider public sympathy for the Chelsea player than exists for Suarez, so the FA can don the black cap with confidence.
Certainly, only the most one-eyed admirer of the Uruguayan, or of Liverpool, is building a case for the defence. Biting is one of those offences that goes beyond the pale.
Gus Poyet, Suarez’s compatriot and manager of Brighton and Hove Albion, has attempted to debate why English football abhors it, yet often indulges a vicious tackle that could shatter bones, but few are ready for nuance just yet. They want Suarez brought to book and the FA are puppy-dog eager to oblige.
Yet is this the way forward for the game? Are we merely to rely on a set of haphazard circumstances falling fortuitously if justice is to be served?
We will act, say the FA, always providing an offence has been clearly committed, the referee hasn’t seen it, an old rule can be dug up and a man of principle is running the show that day. Otherwise, they are their own Mr Loophole, getting miscreants off the hook with jargon and technicalities.
So what if FIFA frown on additional punishments meted out from on high? This is about what is right, not what is vaguely written. Bring it on.
If the FA take a lead in administering fitting penalties for exceptionally violent behaviour, they will be on the right side of the argument and the rest of football will follow. Some braver associations are halfway there already.
And the rules are in place. Everyone knows that McManaman should have been severely punished for his tackle on Massadio Haidara of Newcastle United. Richard Scudamore, chief executive of the Premier League, pointed out the provision in FA rules to review a decision in extraordinary circumstances.
It is the same clause Bean identified about the penalty fitting the crime. It could be enforced for any challenge that resulted in serious injury, whether seen by the referee or not. A player might receive a red card for a reckless or foul challenge, but if it is stunningly malicious, the coupling of crime and punishment surely permits the FA to extend the ban.
When former Manchester United captain Roy Keane took out Alf-Inge Haaland of Manchester City, the straight red card shown by referee David Elleray was, to coin a phrase, clearly insufficient considering the savagery of the tackle. Yet it was not until Keane wrote about it in his autobiography, revealing the brute nature of his intentions, that the FA could levy the longer suspension he deserved.
This has to stop. We hear so much about the fine stewardship of FA chairman David Bernstein and how it is such a pity that he will soon be standing down but, like the rest of his number, he has failed to address one of the key issues of the modern game.
With the benefit of technology, we can see the challenges and instances that require further attention.
We can differentiate between fouls, even bad ones, and more outrageous extremes.
We understand that a referee can see an incident — as Bennett did Defoe’s reaction to Mascherano — without computing its enormity.
Bennett probably thought Defoe put his head towards Mascherano, without realising he had sunk his teeth into his upper arm.
He should not have been hostage to that mistake. This is for the FA to resolve and to fail in this duty would be insufficient. Not to mention pathetic, cowardly, and very, very wrong.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...#ixzz2RMrnwqb1
from now on I will skip talking about our finances. That is a promise and will save myself from looking like a 
Comment