I am no Chelsea fan, also the full facts are not yet out, but having collected my thoughts it does appear that they may have been rather harshly treated by FIFA. Tapping up adult players under contract is something that should be punished severely, but time and time again UEFA and FIFA have ignored the big Spanish and Italian clubs of doing this, what Chelsea have been banned for this time around is rather different. The Kakuta sage will run and run, Platini always seems to have an opinion where English clubs are concerned and he thinks 'child trafficking' has been going on. The reality is a lot more complex than this FIFA and UEFA spin.
There are plans afoot to ban the movement of under-18 players entirely. I have to say that as often is the case with FIFA and UEFA new rules rushed through in a short sighted and politically motivated manner have the potential to do a lot more harm than good. Martin Samuel argues as much in this excellent article, the case of ASPTT Marsielle is a great example of this bizarre new idea, blanket rules could be very bad for football as a whole.
After all if no one under the age of 18 could move clubs then everyone would continue to play for their local village sides if this was taken to an extreme, the best kids would not get better coaching and would not get to play against the better kids, it would result in an awful system in which talent would perish. Surely kids should be able to move to better clubs that allow them to develop? Just look at the UK rule which means that kids cannot join clubs outside of their 'catchment zone', it means if you are unlucky enough to live a good distance from a decent club then you will be punished and this system has led to the bigger clubs going abroad more often than they otherwise may have done.
If under 18 players had to stay with the same club until they were eighteen, then surely this would give the clubs a massive amount of power over the players, they could effectively enslave them, there would be no incentive to treat them well, is this really in the interests of the young players. It must be remembered that Gael Kakuta and his family have done very well for themselves thus far, they now live in a nice bit of England, not a sh*t hole in France, they are now financially more sorted and he has been given an opportunity to play with some great players in order to develop his talents.
I am no Chelsea fan, but this rush to persecute seems a tad foolish to me. The french pre contract which is signed for players when they are under the age of 16 cannot count legally, and it appears that FIFA's judgement must assume that it does, is something fishy going on here? There is already a loophole that allows 16 and 17 year olds to move as free agents in the EU, and apparently this may be closed fairly soon. I do think that rules are needed to clamp down on just how much can be offered to young players and their families to encourage them to move at so young an age.
If FIFA and UEFA have their way then young players will be tied to their first club, with this system there is a massive potential for dodgy agents and clubs to take advantage by ensnaring youngsters in a completely legal manner and then cashing in when they try to move away. This new system would have much more of a capacity for enslaving children, the current one certainly does not enslave, it may well lead to clubs being unrewarded for their youth products, but these young players are the complete opposite of slaves. A better way to go would be to ensure that the compensation for poaching young talent is much fairer and that the finances of such deals are properly regulated, I am very sure that restricting the movement of young players in such blanket fashion will not be good for either the young players or the game of football.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Monday, 7 September 2009
Good taste in chanting? Never going to happen.
The recent success of the informal campaign to bring the deeply unpleasant nature of Man United's fans chanting against Arsene Wenger to the wider attention of the public is to be applauded. Led by Arseblogger, the issue made it to the wider press last week, at long last, and led to widespread condemnation against Man United, and also against Amazon and Play whose website carried a CD including a no-doubt charming rendition of the "Sit Down You Peadophile" chant.
The sustained level of abuse directed at Wenger by United fans for singing that chant for around the last 10 years probably puts the incident in a minority of cases. Wenger is in that unusual position, along with Ferguson, of having enjoyed a long career in the Premierleague. Whereas the same cannot (yet) be said of Phil Brown.
However, I have no doubt that Phil Brown, given his nature, will also be subjected to regular abuse by opponents fans. But is that abuse as "appalling" as the abuse given to Wenger? Maybe it is? Maybe not. I guess it will depend on what is said. But I think the question poses something of a problem for those who want to see anything wider done by the FA, or even the Police, about the treatment that United fans give Wenger.
The Man United chant against Wenger is factually incorrect and rude to an extreme degree. It is abusive chanting in the proper sense of the word "abuse". However, it is not racist, homophobic, sexist or any of the other trigger events that get the police interested under discrimination or race relations legislation.
Instead, the police have to look at the Football (Offences) Act 1991, section 3 of which makes it an offence to:
"(1) ......engage or take part in chanting of an indecent or racialist nature at a designated football match.
(2) For this purpose—
(a) “chanting” means the repeated uttering of any words or sounds [(whether alone or in concert with one or more others)] ; and
(b) “of a racialist nature” means consisting of or including matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting to a person by reason of his colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
Now, whilst the Police were able to prosecute several Spurs fans for racist chanting against Sol Campbell last season, the Man United chant could only fall within the area of "indecent chanting".
Its a typically vague and somehow appropriately English notion to describe the offence as "indecency", which is a subjective test and hard to quantify.
However, I am sure that there are chants at the Emirates almost every match which could be described as "indecent" - it perhaps depends on your expectations of the atmosphere, your sense of humour and the thickness of your skin. I also say this against the background that the general level of Arsenal fans behaviour is impeccable compared to most other grounds.
However, there can be no doubt that chants occur at the Emirates that are offensive towards Jews, for instance, which would also potentially fall within the racist or indecent offense chanting described above.
Now, my question is, what are we to do about that? And where should we draw the line?
Clearly, you cannot defend anti-Jewish chanting. It is abusive and I would urge all Arsenal fans not to join in and to do their best to stamp it out. However, to take a slightly more extreme example at the other end of the sclale of what I am talking about, there are quite a lot of people who really don't like referees. I mean, really, really, don't like referees, to the extent that 99% of the time the referee is a disgrace for not having perfect vision and getting every decision correct. And those sorts of people call the referee lots of very naughty and offensive words, as loudly and as often as they can.
Now, if you are going to be puritan about it, chanting that Graham Poll is a fucking arsehole over and over again is clearly offensive and possibly indecent. It may also be factually incorrect.
Similarly, the repetitive suggestion that Scousers are all jobless scroungers who should sign on the dole, with a pen, in their hand, might be thought as being less offensive, and probably not indecent, but gets closer to an insult by reason of someone's origin. And we all know how much Scousers like to whinge (just ask Boris Johnson).
So its not inconceivable that Arsenal fans could end up in the dock for signing the Spurs chants (and rightly so). But the charmers at the FA could also lead a campaign to punish any fans who chant offense about the ref, which is an entirely different prospect. Or the whinge-ridden scousers could use the Wenger situation as a platform for their own campaign to clampdown on the "sign-on" chant.
And if that sounds unbelievable, then the recent experiences of the Eduardo 'divegate' scandal should show that anyone who has expectations of universal fairness and consistency within the system will be sorely disappointed.
I guess the point is that if the United chant was an isolated incident, its hard to say the Man United chant against Wenger goes beyond what might be expected at a football match. What makes it different, in my book, was its sustained nature over many years and it was great news that something will be done about it. But its not easy to see where the lines should be drawn for "indecent" chanting and these things might well be better dealt with along these informal lines, using pressure via the media, rather than police involvement.
The sustained level of abuse directed at Wenger by United fans for singing that chant for around the last 10 years probably puts the incident in a minority of cases. Wenger is in that unusual position, along with Ferguson, of having enjoyed a long career in the Premierleague. Whereas the same cannot (yet) be said of Phil Brown.
However, I have no doubt that Phil Brown, given his nature, will also be subjected to regular abuse by opponents fans. But is that abuse as "appalling" as the abuse given to Wenger? Maybe it is? Maybe not. I guess it will depend on what is said. But I think the question poses something of a problem for those who want to see anything wider done by the FA, or even the Police, about the treatment that United fans give Wenger.
The Man United chant against Wenger is factually incorrect and rude to an extreme degree. It is abusive chanting in the proper sense of the word "abuse". However, it is not racist, homophobic, sexist or any of the other trigger events that get the police interested under discrimination or race relations legislation.
Instead, the police have to look at the Football (Offences) Act 1991, section 3 of which makes it an offence to:
"(1) ......engage or take part in chanting of an indecent or racialist nature at a designated football match.
(2) For this purpose—
(a) “chanting” means the repeated uttering of any words or sounds [(whether alone or in concert with one or more others)] ; and
(b) “of a racialist nature” means consisting of or including matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting to a person by reason of his colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
Now, whilst the Police were able to prosecute several Spurs fans for racist chanting against Sol Campbell last season, the Man United chant could only fall within the area of "indecent chanting".
Its a typically vague and somehow appropriately English notion to describe the offence as "indecency", which is a subjective test and hard to quantify.
However, I am sure that there are chants at the Emirates almost every match which could be described as "indecent" - it perhaps depends on your expectations of the atmosphere, your sense of humour and the thickness of your skin. I also say this against the background that the general level of Arsenal fans behaviour is impeccable compared to most other grounds.
However, there can be no doubt that chants occur at the Emirates that are offensive towards Jews, for instance, which would also potentially fall within the racist or indecent offense chanting described above.
Now, my question is, what are we to do about that? And where should we draw the line?
Clearly, you cannot defend anti-Jewish chanting. It is abusive and I would urge all Arsenal fans not to join in and to do their best to stamp it out. However, to take a slightly more extreme example at the other end of the sclale of what I am talking about, there are quite a lot of people who really don't like referees. I mean, really, really, don't like referees, to the extent that 99% of the time the referee is a disgrace for not having perfect vision and getting every decision correct. And those sorts of people call the referee lots of very naughty and offensive words, as loudly and as often as they can.
Now, if you are going to be puritan about it, chanting that Graham Poll is a fucking arsehole over and over again is clearly offensive and possibly indecent. It may also be factually incorrect.
Similarly, the repetitive suggestion that Scousers are all jobless scroungers who should sign on the dole, with a pen, in their hand, might be thought as being less offensive, and probably not indecent, but gets closer to an insult by reason of someone's origin. And we all know how much Scousers like to whinge (just ask Boris Johnson).
So its not inconceivable that Arsenal fans could end up in the dock for signing the Spurs chants (and rightly so). But the charmers at the FA could also lead a campaign to punish any fans who chant offense about the ref, which is an entirely different prospect. Or the whinge-ridden scousers could use the Wenger situation as a platform for their own campaign to clampdown on the "sign-on" chant.
And if that sounds unbelievable, then the recent experiences of the Eduardo 'divegate' scandal should show that anyone who has expectations of universal fairness and consistency within the system will be sorely disappointed.
I guess the point is that if the United chant was an isolated incident, its hard to say the Man United chant against Wenger goes beyond what might be expected at a football match. What makes it different, in my book, was its sustained nature over many years and it was great news that something will be done about it. But its not easy to see where the lines should be drawn for "indecent" chanting and these things might well be better dealt with along these informal lines, using pressure via the media, rather than police involvement.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Djourou shocker, honest Wayne and BBC inadequacy
The bad news about Johan Djourou's knee means that he is going to be out of action for around 6 months. I suspect the problem with Johan's knee is an osteochondral defect, I shall try to explain this to those of you without the medical knowledge. An osteochondral defect means an area where the smooth joint lining, the cartilage, has been damaged, this is different to the meniscus of the knee which is the cup shaped bits which are made of fibrocartilage.
If Johan had torn his meniscus then one would expect him to have it tidied up with key hole surgery and he'd be back relatively quickly. Either he is having a repair to his meniscus which would take a lot longer to get back to football from, or he has an area of damaged cartilage, an osteochondral defect. There are different treatments for osteochondral defects and none of them are perfect by any means. One can try to regrow a sort of cartilage in the hole by 'microfracture' treatment, one can transplant cartilage from the patient or from elsewhere, plus there are some emerging stem cell treatments. All require a substantial period of rehabilitation to allow the new cartilage to bed down as it were. Good luck and a speedy recovery Johan, it's a shame to lose such a talented young player when he was showing such signs of developing into a very solid centre back.
Who watched Wayne 'honest' Rooney win the penalty for England against Slovenia last night? The media's silence since speaks volume for the inconsistent way in which they deal with these kind of incidents. Rooney and the defender yanked at each other's shirts, Rooney then kicked the defender, not only that but Rooney appealed for a penalty when he clearly knew that he had done more fouling then being fouled, the referee obliged. Rooney quite clearly and dishonestly conned the referee, could this be cheating? Could it heck. Mr Bendtner scored a cracker for Denmark yesterday and for me he looks like a natural central striker, playing him wide is not really making the best use of his abilities is it?
The BBC have responded to a number of our complaints about the rude and abrupt manner of Alan Green as he shouted and cut off a polite and reasonable caller the other day who had the great audacity to suggest that Wayne Rooney may have dived:
"Thanks for your e-mail.I understand that you were unhappy with the way that Alan Green dealt with a caller to 6-0-6 on BBC Radio 5 Live on Saturday 29th August after the Manchester United v Arsenal match.The caller was comparing Eduardo's alleged 'dive' during the Celtic game earlier in the week to the challenge that led to Wayne Rooney's penalty. The resulting exchange between Alan and the listener was indeed fiery and reflected Alan's passion for the game. Alan is a well respected commentator who is popular with our listeners and is known for his forthright opinions.I am sorry that you felt that on this occasion Alan's manner was abrasive. Many thanks for contacting us. Regards"
I have replied to the BBC indicating that I am quite unhappy with their inadequate response. Alan Green's one way tirade was no 'exchange' and it was not just that I 'felt' it was abrasive, it was downright rude and offensive from a man who is meant to be working for a public sector broadcaster. Alan Green should apologise live on air for his behaviour. I would urge anyone who has received this BBC response to write again to complain about the inadequacy of the response, I would also write to Ofcom to complain about the incident as if enough people write they shall be obliged to act.
Saturday, 5 September 2009
Round up as boring weekend commences
I have to start with the noble John Terry's words of great wisdom this morning, he has felt the need to let everyone know what he thinks about Eduardo:
His words hardly need comment, they embarrass themselves with their rank stupidity. Just remember this is coming from a man who has recently shown his great loyalty to Chelsea by blackmailing them for more money by pimping himself for a move to City, what loyalty, what class. In fact I've seen cans of cider with more decorum and class that JT. The man is the epitomy of the scum that resides in the heart of chav England. This kind of mindless moron should be someone our nation despises, not idolises, he was clearly brought up by a rather classy lady himself. Using JT as role model is about as cunning as cleaning one's ears out with a shot gun, he has captained Chelsea through some of the most appallingly undisciplined acts of any club in the modern era.
"Diving is something the England lads don't do. Sometimes we're too honest. Even in the Premier League, we see the English lads get a bit of contact and try to stay on their feet and score from the chance. The foreign mentality coming in is any little clip, you go tumbling over because of the speed of the game nowadays."
His words hardly need comment, they embarrass themselves with their rank stupidity. Just remember this is coming from a man who has recently shown his great loyalty to Chelsea by blackmailing them for more money by pimping himself for a move to City, what loyalty, what class. In fact I've seen cans of cider with more decorum and class that JT. The man is the epitomy of the scum that resides in the heart of chav England. This kind of mindless moron should be someone our nation despises, not idolises, he was clearly brought up by a rather classy lady himself. Using JT as role model is about as cunning as cleaning one's ears out with a shot gun, he has captained Chelsea through some of the most appallingly undisciplined acts of any club in the modern era.
"When you see the opponents' team-sheet you know who you've got to be careful with but there's nobody in this England squad like that."
Owen, Gerrard, Rooney, Lampard, Cole (times two), just to name but a few, these chaps have never dived routinely have they? JT also claims that Didier Drogba has stopped all his gamesmanship, I'll believe that when I see it last for more than two weeks, or has he simpy stopped diving and converted it into a JT like barracking of officials? How noble. Not all the money in the world could buy JT a brain, how very unfortunate.
My heart does bleed for Chelsea as regards their potential transfer ban. They have always behaved morally as a club, they have never thrown around money in an unethical way, they have never tapped up players before in a blatant manner, they have also never paid people off to keep quiet about their unethical and illegal dealings. The parallels to the Eduardo case are just not there, the Mirror make this point today. A club that looks to Peter Kenyon for moral leadership was always going to find itself up shit creek without a paddle. Chelsea may in yet more trouble over an 11 year old this time.
Elsewhere Fabio Capello has been praising our Academy system, some of the fruits of this will be harvested in the next few years, Jack Wilshere being one of them. Aaron Ramsey's goal against Italy's under 21s is well worth a peek, while young centre back Kyle Bartley has been made reserve team captain for the season. The club have sensibly appealed the Eduardo 'decision' and they should have a very strong case given the video evidence and the fact that UEFA are singling him out in a completely unfair manner. Even Sir Alex Ferguson agrees on the inconsistency point. Finally Amazon have seen that even free speech has its limits.
ps Arseblogger has an interesting story this morning about the delightful Fat Willy, aka Will Robinson of WR 'talent', a man who spoke of the delightful manu chant about paedophiles standing up:
"This is the first I've heard about it and I'm surprised. There is nothing defamatory. That track you are talking about is not directed at anybody."
It's not directed at anybody is it Will? My words 'disingenuous' fat c*nt are also not directed at anyone.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Manure fans reveal their cretinous nature
Reading Arseblogger this morning I was pleasantly encouraged that the media have finally (finally finally) started to talk about the disgraceful abuse that has been dished out to Arsene Wenger ar Old Trafford for over a decade now. This Guardian piece is particularly spot on, 'chanting cretins' sums it up nicely. These moronic chants are well below anyone's belt line and should be stopped. It would help if certain high profile people would speak out against it a bit more forcefully. Any fans singing Munich songs in response should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, sinking to the level of these idiots is not big or clever.
Amazon.com are still selling a selection of rather unimaginative Manure chants by 'Fat Willy', the offensive one that Arsene is subjected to is no4 there, the customer reviews say it all, while it is pretty poor from Amazon that they are refusing to withdraw this item all in the name of 'free speech'. Play.com have withdrawn the rather pathetic item from their online shop. In my mind there is no doubt that Manchester United should do more. It is also worth bearing in mind the chants that we sing about various opposition players, for example there is an Ashley Cole song that I do not sing for this particular reason, it is well below the belt, we should all try to do our own little bit to stamp out certain things in football and every little helps.
Elsewhere Diaby has continued his run of bad luck by injuring the French goalkeeper in training. Patrick Barclay talks a lot of sense on the Eduardo situation in the Telegraph:
Indeed, it is completely stupid work from UEFA, they are now damned whatever they do, they have stuffed this one up good and proper. Bendtner and Denilson have both signed new long term deals at the clubs, good news, while Fran Merida appears to be making strides towards starting a few first team games after another fine performance for the reserves in midweek. Graham Poll continues to reinforce his reputation as one of the biggest c*nts around. Wayne Rooney talks of his honesty and how he doesn't dive, I'm surprised he doesn't then move on to talk about his good looks, his pretty and educated wife, and his dislike of older scouse prostitutes.
The big breaking news is that Chelsea have been banned from the transfer market until January 2011 for encouraging a young Lens player to break his contract. This kind of punishment is needed as Chelsea have been caught with their hands in the till several times in the past, and well done to Lens for actually seeing this through rather than taking a pay off like Tottenham did. I am sure Chelsea will appeal as they did when caught with their pants down over tapping up Ashley Cole, the ban is needed though as 70 thousand pound fines mean nothing to them.
Amazon.com are still selling a selection of rather unimaginative Manure chants by 'Fat Willy', the offensive one that Arsene is subjected to is no4 there, the customer reviews say it all, while it is pretty poor from Amazon that they are refusing to withdraw this item all in the name of 'free speech'. Play.com have withdrawn the rather pathetic item from their online shop. In my mind there is no doubt that Manchester United should do more. It is also worth bearing in mind the chants that we sing about various opposition players, for example there is an Ashley Cole song that I do not sing for this particular reason, it is well below the belt, we should all try to do our own little bit to stamp out certain things in football and every little helps.
Elsewhere Diaby has continued his run of bad luck by injuring the French goalkeeper in training. Patrick Barclay talks a lot of sense on the Eduardo situation in the Telegraph:
"It is a cowardly judgment that was made simply to appease the English press. Uefa will find it very difficult to show any consistency going forward."
Indeed, it is completely stupid work from UEFA, they are now damned whatever they do, they have stuffed this one up good and proper. Bendtner and Denilson have both signed new long term deals at the clubs, good news, while Fran Merida appears to be making strides towards starting a few first team games after another fine performance for the reserves in midweek. Graham Poll continues to reinforce his reputation as one of the biggest c*nts around. Wayne Rooney talks of his honesty and how he doesn't dive, I'm surprised he doesn't then move on to talk about his good looks, his pretty and educated wife, and his dislike of older scouse prostitutes.
The big breaking news is that Chelsea have been banned from the transfer market until January 2011 for encouraging a young Lens player to break his contract. This kind of punishment is needed as Chelsea have been caught with their hands in the till several times in the past, and well done to Lens for actually seeing this through rather than taking a pay off like Tottenham did. I am sure Chelsea will appeal as they did when caught with their pants down over tapping up Ashley Cole, the ban is needed though as 70 thousand pound fines mean nothing to them.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
The Scottish FA - meddling self interest
One of our readers has kindly alerted me to some rather interesting information about the Scottish FA and their recent influence in all things UEFA related. As we know the Eduardo decision is a very strange one, it was a borderline dive for one thing, there was some contact and the Celtic keeper did make an uncontrolled lunge for the ball, so to see him banned for two games in the context of much worse dives routinely going completely unpunished is bizarre. Something smells fishy.
Interestingly the last time a player was banned for diving was way back in 2006 and the Scottish FA were heavily embroiled in this as well, what a coincidence. In fact the very same Gordon Smith was pushing for the player to be banned, Mikoluinas of Lithuania was the hunt victim that time. Lithuania were not happy with this punishment and in fact argued that Gary O'Connor should also have been banned for feigning injury in the same game, it appears double standards were applied yet again in the interests of serving the mighty Scottish FA.
The Scottish 'conspiracy' has also been touched upon by Arsene who has hinted that the Scottish FA's power in UEFA was largely the reason why Eduardo was charged for diving. The Scottish FA has also been rather key in the stupid resistance to goal line technology and the expansion of the European Championships to 24 teams. The Scottish FA seem to be out to represent themselves and they appear to have a bit too much power to affect the decision making apparatus in UEFA. How can they be so keen to ban someone in retrospect using video technology directly contradicting the referee's decision at the time, but also their policy is against the use of technology in sport because it takes the human element out of it? Selfish interest appears the name of their game to me.
Whatever the ins and out of the Scottish FA's role in all this malarkey, it is quite clear that politics have no place in these affairs, a disciplinary system should treat everybody the same, the club they play for, their nationality and the media exposure of events should not come into it. Even if takes that Eduardo did dive, there was no contact and it was complete 100% cheating, he should still not be charged because they need to treat everyone the same or charge no one. The video clip above shows one of Ronaldo's blatant dives, each one of these should not get a two match ban and it shouldn't matter where the dive takes place, whether in our outside the box. Any dive should now see a two match ban, wherever it occurs and whoever does the diving, this situation is clearly farcical as things currently stand.
There are clearly malignant things going on inside FIFA, UEFA and the FA, certain people have far too much influence and this is stifling progress for the game. The game of football will never move on into the 21st century unless these vested interests are taken on and crushed, for all of us who want fairness and consistency it appears there is a long way to go before the likes of Blatter, Platini and Smith will embrace proper reform and progress; these hypocritical cretins want an inconsistent system that can be manipulated as they see fit, they simply want to hang onto their own comfortable positions of power.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Appeal and UEFA idiocy
So UEFA have banned Eduardo for two matches, the club are set to hear the full details by Thursday and will then have three days in which to appeal:
We have been deeply frustrated by the perfunctory and apparently arbitrary process that Uefa has followed in this instance. We believe it is imperative that Uefa’s explanation for its decision provides clear and comprehensive standards that will be consistently enforced. It is also critical that Uefa provides specific details of the processes it plans to adopt in reviewing all games under its jurisdiction."
How on earth UEFA can reason this Kangeroo judgement appears almost beyond comprehension. How can they simply start charging people at random because the media start making a bit of noise? This cannot be consistent, it cannot be fair, it is by nature random and haphazardly unfair. As the Telegraph explains there is a bit of inconsistency here as Article 10(1c) which was introduced over three years ago states that:
This is directly contradicted by another of their random rules:
If UEFA were to enforce Article 10(1c) consistently then it could result in many bans for every game played as every single act of dishonestly appealing for a throw in or corner could be deemed to break this rule. It is a ludicrous idea.
Arsenal also feel that the video evidence shows quite clearly that there was contact to Eduardo's ankle from the Celtic keeper, something I pointed to at the time. It remains clear that if there is any justice in the world then Eduardo will not be punished, however it appears there is very little justice when football's governing bodies come into it.
Who can forget Van Nistelrooy punching Freddy, who can forget numerous leg breaking tackles that have been ignored, who can forget the ridiculously over the top punishment we have received for various hand bagging incidents against both Chelsea and Manu, and who can forget the FA's trial by video of several Arsenal players for the most inocuous of incidents while the GBH of others has been ignored? Justice never came into these decisions, consistency certainly didn't come into it either, it was a question of a corrupt institution reacting to the blood curdling cries from the moronic media.
“We have been informed that we will receive a “reasoned decision” from Uefa by Thursday of this week. Once we receive Uefa’s rationale, we will make a decision on the next steps.
We have been deeply frustrated by the perfunctory and apparently arbitrary process that Uefa has followed in this instance. We believe it is imperative that Uefa’s explanation for its decision provides clear and comprehensive standards that will be consistently enforced. It is also critical that Uefa provides specific details of the processes it plans to adopt in reviewing all games under its jurisdiction."
How on earth UEFA can reason this Kangeroo judgement appears almost beyond comprehension. How can they simply start charging people at random because the media start making a bit of noise? This cannot be consistent, it cannot be fair, it is by nature random and haphazardly unfair. As the Telegraph explains there is a bit of inconsistency here as Article 10(1c) which was introduced over three years ago states that:
“for acting with the obvious intent to cause any match official to make an incorrect decision or supporting his error of judgment”
This is directly contradicted by another of their random rules:
"Decisions made by the referee on the field of play are final and may not be reviewed by Uefa’s disciplinary bodies.”
If UEFA were to enforce Article 10(1c) consistently then it could result in many bans for every game played as every single act of dishonestly appealing for a throw in or corner could be deemed to break this rule. It is a ludicrous idea.
Arsenal also feel that the video evidence shows quite clearly that there was contact to Eduardo's ankle from the Celtic keeper, something I pointed to at the time. It remains clear that if there is any justice in the world then Eduardo will not be punished, however it appears there is very little justice when football's governing bodies come into it.
Who can forget Van Nistelrooy punching Freddy, who can forget numerous leg breaking tackles that have been ignored, who can forget the ridiculously over the top punishment we have received for various hand bagging incidents against both Chelsea and Manu, and who can forget the FA's trial by video of several Arsenal players for the most inocuous of incidents while the GBH of others has been ignored? Justice never came into these decisions, consistency certainly didn't come into it either, it was a question of a corrupt institution reacting to the blood curdling cries from the moronic media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)