Football thread 13

[Paddy]

I'm OK with booking him, because that's the rules, and I think he should get a suspension for the stamping bit, but to imply that he's at fault for fans acting like jackasses is ridiculous. Shall we blame the actions of West Ham fans on the existence of Millwall?

He's not at fault for fans acting like jackasses, but there is such a thing as incitement, and it's generally recognised as a bad thing and that one who incites bears a degree of responsibility for their actions.

[Daeric]

From the statements released so far on the ban over turn all I can make out is that UEFA declared that he wasn't trying to decieve the player based on the referee and assistant reports and Arsenal statements saying that they managed to prove that there was contact however minimal.

[Renasko]

UEFA pussy out, due to Arsenal peer-pressure. Pathetic. :thumbsdown:

[Maltaran]

The article I read seems to indicate that UEFA are taking a page from the Scottish law book and declaring it "not proven".

[DJDonegal]

To be fair, Ser Renasko, I think the pressure was greater coming from those who wanted to see Eduardo receive some form of punishment. I doubt one clubs grievance would carry as much influence as anothers outrage and all the support from other figures in the game as well as a large section of the media and public.

Based on the reasoning I have seen UEFA give for turning the ban over, it does sound pretty wimpy. I can't see any contact between goalkeeper and player, and if there is any it's minimal and long after Eduardo begins to go down. Had they given the reason that a dive is only worth a yellow card, ergo making a ban unjustified, then I would understand the reason for the reversal. But that would involve them admitting they were wrong to issue the ban in the first place, and I guess that was never realistically going to happen.

[Isis]

He's not at fault for fans acting like jackasses, but there is such a thing as incitement, and it's generally recognised as a bad thing and that one who incites bears a degree of responsibility for their actions.

Exactly.

Some people seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. You can't draw a parallel between A) one player deliberately inciting the opposition fans (of his old club) and B) animosity between opposing fans which is unrelated to anything that players did on the pitch. Although it's doubly stupid to do A a few weeks after B took place and is still fresh in peoples minds.

[BLU-RAY]

Exactly.

Some people seem to be misunderstanding the situation here. You can't draw a parallel between A) one player deliberately inciting the opposition fans (of his old club) and B) animosity between opposing fans which is unrelated to anything that players did on the pitch. Although it's doubly stupid to do A a few weeks after B took place and is still fresh in peoples minds.

I'm not trying to say they're the same thing; I just have a rather low opinion of anyone who can be incited to violent behavior over sport. I also feel like players in general are unfairly put upon by fans in terms of the abuse they have to endure, so if a player is dogged by a fan base, I don't really mind him showing them up if he performs well against them. It's probably classier to be the "bigger man" and not respond as such, but I feel that it's ridiculous to claim incitement as though the poor fans had no control over their actions. Derision should be a two-way street, and I would argue that the party that crosses the line into violence has no right to pass the blame off on anyone else.

[mormont]

Based on the reasoning I have seen UEFA give for turning the ban over, it does sound pretty wimpy. I can't see any contact between goalkeeper and player, and if there is any it's minimal and long after Eduardo begins to go down. Had they given the reason that a dive is only worth a yellow card, ergo making a ban unjustified, then I would understand the reason for the reversal. But that would involve them admitting they were wrong to issue the ban in the first place, and I guess that was never realistically going to happen.

DJ, no offence, but I'm afraid you don't seem to understand the rules here.

Attempting to deceive the referee is a yellow card offence, one which the referee is the arbiter of during play. Actually deceiving the referee, as judged by a post-match panel, is a two match ban. They're two different offences with two different methods of judgment and two different penalties. Those are the rules of the game, in black and white. You might not agree that those should be the rules, but they are the rules.

Therefore if Eduardo dived in this case, that is worth a two match ban and that is justified because those are the rules that were in effect when he did it. If UEFA had decided that the dive was only worth a yellow they would have been guilty of rewriting the rules of the game on the hoof. That's something they have done before, to be fair. But it's not as if the distinction between 'attempting' and 'doing' is an outlandish one that FIFA just made up.

[Paddy]

It's probably classier to be the "bigger man" and not respond as such, but I feel that it's ridiculous to claim incitement as though the poor fans had no control over their actions. Derision should be a two-way street, and I would argue that the party that crosses the line into violence has no right to pass the blame off on anyone else.

An individual fan who claims that he beat someone up because Adebayor ran the length of the pitch to shove his goal in their faces does not get a reprieve because of that.

No one is thinking or saying "Oh well, he couldn't help himself, he was incited by Adebayor." Or that his individual responsibility is diminished because of what Adebayor did.

There is no passing off of blame.

But Adebayor did incite the fans and got a deserved yellow card because of it.

[DJDonegal]

None taken, Mormont. I didn't know about that distinction.

[Ser Howsmelly]

If UEFA had decided that the dive was only worth a yellow they would have been guilty of rewriting the rules of the game on the hoof. That's something they have done before, to be fair. But it's not as if the distinction between 'attempting' and 'doing' is an outlandish one that FIFA just made up.

The Eduardo decision was overturned? :D Good. Thank god for the absolutely infallible decision making process apparent at UEFA. bam.

re: Adebayor, antics of.

Yes there is no excuse for spectators behaving in the manner that they did. But it is inexcusable for a player to behave in the way that he did. The prejudice was already there. The feelings of both fans and Adebayor were known. I would compare the incident to waving a red flag in front of a bull. You know what reaction will be incited. Therefore if you are gored there is no room for complaint.

I wish one of those fans had managed to get on-pitch and knock the tall bastard out. Or at least pull one of his dreads out. And then bash him with it.

I mean if he had done the same ritual a year later (god i hope he doesnt get the opportunity) there would not be as much overt reaction as there is now. I think a celebration in the vein of Robbie Keane's when scoring against his former club would definitely have been more appropriate.

[mormont]

DJ - cool. :) It's a point that's been missed by many so-called 'expert' commentators and journalists.

The decision to overturn makes the whole thing farcical, but at this point I just want it to end so I don't have to listen to any more players spouting a lot of nonsense about how incredibly honest and fair they are and how they would never, ever dive or cheat.

[DJDonegal]

I wish one of those fans had managed to get on-pitch and knock the tall bastard out. Or at least pull one of his dreads out. And then bash him with it.

Hopefully you don't actually wish this...

In other news, I hadn't heard that the Premier League was placing financial restrictions on itself. I agree that something needs to be done about the spiraling costs of the game, but it needs to be done continent wide, or world wide, otherwise the Premier League may not be able to attract the same kind of talent to its shores.

Although the teams who would be in immediate danger of transfer sanctions etc at first would be Chelsea and Manchester City. Arsenal, I hope, would be in a relatively safe position as they seem to run finances quite well.

ETA: Seems I posted this before reading the whole article. UEFA are set to vote this week on a stricter measure than the one being implemented in the Premier League.

[mormont]

The Premier League finance proposal seems sensible and uncontroversial:

Clubs must submit independently audited accounts to the Premier League by 1 March each year with requirements to note any material qualifications or issues raised by auditors.

Clubs must submit future financial information to the Premier League by 31 March each year as early warning for any club taking undue financial risk.

An annual requirement to demonstrate to the Premier League Board that a club does not have outstanding debts to other clubs.

An annual requirement to demonstrate to the Premier League Board that a club is not in debt with regard to income tax or National Insurance and payroll taxes.

The squad size proposal seems sensible to me too, but will be much more controversial. The SPL has had a rule trying to encourage youth development for years, but they are actually looking at getting rid of it under pressure from the big clubs. Although they're also looking at a 'home-grown' rule like the EPL.

[Ser Howsmelly]

@DJs.... kidding of course.

though seriously how funny would that be in a style reminiscent of Celebrity Deathmatch, MTV.

RVP v Ade, David v Goliath... With Wenger and Hughes on the sidelines. and maybe ser alex as ref? and then you could have Eduardo getting tagged in and flopping about all the place.... woops i mean appearing to flop but then having the decision overturned by the ruling committee.

[Isis]

I also feel like players in general are unfairly put upon by fans in terms of the abuse they have to endure, so if a player is dogged by a fan base, I don't really mind him showing them up if he performs well against them.

Unfairly put upon? :lol: That is all part of being a professional footballer and I think most people would agree that they are well compensated by their obscene salaries. If they don't want to take the negative attention along with the positive they can go and work in an office instead of doing something that accords them celebrity status.

It's probably classier to be the "bigger man" and not respond as such, but I feel that it's ridiculous to claim incitement as though the poor fans had no control over their actions. Derision should be a two-way street, and I would argue that the party that crosses the line into violence has no right to pass the blame off on anyone else.

I don't think anyone would claim that players should be punished for an incident and fans (who are guilty of an offence) not be. What should happen is that everyone involved should be punished for their role in the incident. As has already been mentioned inciting opposition fans is an offence within the rules of the game and the players know the rules.

ETA: Soz, didn't see Paddy's last post

[Mathis]

Unfairly put upon? :lol: That is all part of being a professional footballer and I think most people would agree that they are well compensated by their obscene salaries. If they don't want to take the negative attention along with the positive they can go and work in an office instead of doing something that accords them celebrity status.

I've never understood this mindset. So just because they payed to get in, you think fans should be able to shout abuse and the player should be expected to just shrug and accept it?

The salary is irrelevant.

[mormont]

I've never understood this mindset. So just because they payed to get in you think fans should be able to shout abuse, and the player should be expected to just shrug and accept it?

The salary is irrelevant.

I'd tend to agree, but that doesn't mean that abusing the opposition fans en masse is justified. For a start, it's not a case of 'turnabout is fair play', because some fans shouting abuse from the stands is not the same as one player taunting all the fans from the park. Most of the fans that player is abusing didn't do anything, and you can't just say 'oh, it wasn't directed at them'.

The best response to abuse is a good performance and to celebrate your goals in front of your own fans. Adebayor should have gone to the Man City fans and been cheered to the rafters by them. The best revenge is living well, after all. ;)

[Mathis]

I'd tend to agree, but that doesn't mean that abusing the opposition fans en masse is justified. For a start, it's not a case of 'turnabout is fair play', because some fans shouting abuse from the stands is not the same as one player taunting all the fans from the park. Most of the fans that player is abusing didn't do anything, and you can't just say 'oh, it wasn't directed at them'.

I agree, I'm not sure why this is directed at me. I never said players should be allowed to do what they want towards the fans, just that Adebayor isn't responsible for any injuries caused by rioting fans.

Adebayor was, quite rightly, booked.

[lessthanluke]

Just my opinions I guess.He was booked for celebrating for too long? Thats fine. Getting booked or banned for celebrating in a certain place however is ridiculous. If the fans can't control themselves well boo fucking hoo, thats not Adebayors problem.