The events at Newcastle on the Premier League's opening day show the game is becoming impossible to police
Thank goodness the FA was not seduced by Ars�ne Wenger's sophistry and did the right thing in upholding Gervinho's three-match ban for violent conduct. The decision was about the only sensible, logical and justifiable reaction to all the silliness that surrounded Arsenal's fractious first-day encounter at Newcastle.
I know, I know, I know. Gervinho was not really guilty of violent conduct any more than Joey Barton was innocent of at least three more crimes, from hauling the Arsenal man up off the deck to instigate the argument in the first place, to pretending to be knocked out cold by a girly slap and then having the cheek, the sheer effrontery, to claim he had been punched. He all too clearly had not been punched, not in any meaningful sense of the word, but, and here's the important bit, he did not punch anyone else. When the referee, who will inevitably need assistance in these situations, looks across to the touchline for guidance on what happened, all a linesman can realistically offer by way of help is something along the lines of Player A hit Player B. Or, if you like, Player A raised his hands, Player B did not.
The frequently cited fact that raising one's hands is not mentioned anywhere in the laws of the game, and therefore cannot be proof positive of violent conduct, is neither here nor there. There may be no designated offence of raising one's hands, but striking an opponent in the face or head is clearly outside acceptable behaviour and can only be interpreted as aggressive and violent conduct. While it was clear to all on Saturday that Barton acted far more aggressively than Gervinho, he was not stupid enough to strike his opponent. Grabbing an opponent by his shirt front and giving him the benefit of your forthright opinion may be sailing close to the wind in terms of acceptable behaviour, but it stops short of violence.
I am still not really sure what Barton did to warrant even his yellow card. It was not his place to decide that Gervinho had dived and take matters into his own hands, but try finding that offence in the rule books. It was easy to understand why he may have felt annoyed. And though he undoubtedly exaggerated his reaction to a light tap on the temple from an opponent, it is hard to class that as simulation when an offence had been committed and contact made. For the past few days people have been arguing that Barton was guilty of perpetrating a bigger con on the referee than Gervinho. I don't think so, because Barton was on the end of a clearly deliberate assault, however feeble its execution. Gervinho may have been hoping for a penalty by going to ground when he felt contact in the area, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was trying his luck rather than diving to fool the referee, but it is almost impossible, even now, to argue that Cheik Tiot� fouled him or tried to stop him by illegal means.
Wenger was perfectly entitled, and indeed correct, to suggest that what Gervinho did hardly amounted to serious violent conduct, but the idea that the FA should operate some sort of sliding scale based on the powder-puff rating of attacks to the head is plainly daft. Just as linesmen cannot be expected to shout in from the touchline to distinguish between a haymaker and a handbag, the FA's disciplinary panel has better things to do than grade assaults according to severity. There is no need to differentiate between wet paperbag punches and the full Mike Tyson, because any punch (or slap) thrown on a pitch is outside the rules and the spirit of the game.
Roy Keane once threw a venomous punch at Alan Shearer and missed, but was still properly charged with violent conduct. An attack is an attack. It is not strictly necessary to take all physical confrontation out of the game and deem any contact above nipple height an automatic dismissal ? to those with long memories Barton's shirt-grab was no worse than Dave Mackay's annoyance with Billy Bremner in the famous and much-loved 1966 photograph ? but hitting out is a loss of control as well as a dangerous act and the FA could do worse than follow rugby league's example and write the specific phrase "attack to the head" into the rulebook. Not that attacks to the head in rugby league bear much resemblance to the sort of thing that goes on in football. Wholly illegal and downright dangerous, a biff on a rugby pitch quite often results in the recipient being carried off on a stretcher and only properly waking up four hours later, not jumping to his feet to restart the game.
Like the nation's streets at the moment ? not that modern footballers know much about streets ? the events at Newcastle United on the opening day show the game is becoming impossible to police. Peter Walton, the referee, was roundly condemned for missing the deliberate stamp on Barton that saw Alex Song retrospectively banned, though I must confess I did too. In my defence I was writing a running report and therefore dividing my attention between the game and my laptop (The Observer wanted 900 words, and the late kick-off meant they had to be ready to file at the whistle) but by their very nature sneaky attacks when the ball has gone will often go unnoticed except by the all-seeing TV cameras.
Reporters at St James' Park did not get to see proper replays until after the game, and even repeated ones could not firmly establish whether Gervinho had been fouled or not, neither could Kevin Keegan and Robbie Savage agree on the matter. When Walton formed the instant conclusion that no offence had taken place (correctly, in my book) he was then confronted with Barton's tough-guy-to-dying-fly transformation within a few seconds, with the ball still in play so that he could, had he been so minded, have awarded a penalty to Arsenal for Barton's rough treatment of Gervinho.
At the heart of all this, with a referee who once gave three yellow cards to the same player in a World Cup match giving Walton the benefit of his experience in a national newspaper on Monday morning, is a development the game needs to sort out quickly. If the referee does not see a foul he should not give a penalty. If the referee does not see a dive he does not have to produce a card for simulation either. Players go to ground all the time. It does not have to be a foul or a dive, and in some cases it may be neither. But if nearby players are going to take their own view of the matter, and act accordingly, only mayhem can result.
Initially, on Saturday night, I had sympathy with Alan Pardew's argument that his player was incensed at what he regarded as cheating. You could imagine feeling that way yourself, if that's what you thought the player was doing. Yet it is not Barton's job to make that call, still less to act on it. He should have played to the whistle. As a penalty had not been given, he had nothing to get worked up about.
At the risk of sounding like Geoffrey Boycott giving his stentorian opinion of the Ian Bell run-out at Trent Bridge, he should have taken his cue from the official and got on with the game. If this sort of anarchy is to continue, and if experience is any guide it will not only be copied but spread like a rash, the FA will have to consider adding yet another new offence to the statute book. Impersonating a referee.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/aug/17/barton-gervinho-fa
No comments:
Post a Comment