Join Now
Eduardo's ban lifted ... and maybe they got it right
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 04:44 PM by writered21
Quick post - I need to get this in before Kanye West interrupts me. ...
... So the news broke today that Arsenal player Eduardo's (no relation) ban in UEFA Champions League play for an alleged dive against Celtic will not be punished with a two-game ban, after all.
And while I'm all for getting diving out of football - in a moment of honesty, I have to think this is the right decision.
It's not that I don't think Eduardo dove. But in the end, that's not really the point here. During the game, he was judged to have been fouled by the official, Arsenal were given the penalty, and they scored. Done deal. Had it gone the other way and Eduardo had been booked for diving, I don't think Celtic would have gotten back into the tie.
But I'm also not sure that handing out suspensions post-game is the valid way to handle this type of situation. If anything, it's the referee that needs to have the conversation with the governing body involved, to discuss what he saw, what he didn't see, and how the official can find himself in a better position to see such a play accurately when it occurs again (and it will).
It's one thing to suspend a player later for violent conduct. If that player has already been red carded for whatever he did, I don't see anything wrong with the league in question then deeming it worthy of a couple extra matches away from the field. The key in that situation, though, is that the ref has already done all he could do by sending the player off.
In this case, whether the ref was "deceived" or what have you, he still made his call. To suspend Eduardo in the aftermath opens a precedent wherein UEFA and national FAs would need to review tape of every match and start handing out suspensions left and right - because players on all the top teams dive when there's no contact and embellish when there is. While it's a bad part of the game, it's just that, a part of the game - like other distasteful things such as the short corner and the penalty kick two-step.
It doesn't mean that I like to see it. I do think refs need to be better at identifying dives and punishing them appropriately - but I don't think federations getting involved later on in these situations is necessarily the right answer.
... So the news broke today that Arsenal player Eduardo's (no relation) ban in UEFA Champions League play for an alleged dive against Celtic will not be punished with a two-game ban, after all.
And while I'm all for getting diving out of football - in a moment of honesty, I have to think this is the right decision.
It's not that I don't think Eduardo dove. But in the end, that's not really the point here. During the game, he was judged to have been fouled by the official, Arsenal were given the penalty, and they scored. Done deal. Had it gone the other way and Eduardo had been booked for diving, I don't think Celtic would have gotten back into the tie.
But I'm also not sure that handing out suspensions post-game is the valid way to handle this type of situation. If anything, it's the referee that needs to have the conversation with the governing body involved, to discuss what he saw, what he didn't see, and how the official can find himself in a better position to see such a play accurately when it occurs again (and it will).
It's one thing to suspend a player later for violent conduct. If that player has already been red carded for whatever he did, I don't see anything wrong with the league in question then deeming it worthy of a couple extra matches away from the field. The key in that situation, though, is that the ref has already done all he could do by sending the player off.
In this case, whether the ref was "deceived" or what have you, he still made his call. To suspend Eduardo in the aftermath opens a precedent wherein UEFA and national FAs would need to review tape of every match and start handing out suspensions left and right - because players on all the top teams dive when there's no contact and embellish when there is. While it's a bad part of the game, it's just that, a part of the game - like other distasteful things such as the short corner and the penalty kick two-step.
It doesn't mean that I like to see it. I do think refs need to be better at identifying dives and punishing them appropriately - but I don't think federations getting involved later on in these situations is necessarily the right answer.
Share
Post a Comment
Total Comments 19
Comments
-
What I don't like is that everything gets overturned on appeal. Why is there an appeal process at all? Can't UEFA make a decision and stand by it?
I almost believe they decide to appear tough in the first instance and 'send a message' by doling out a ban, and then back off and be nice in the appeal now that the message has been sent (but we don't want to pick on Eduardo, or whomever).
Same with the Chelsea transfer ban. What odds do Ladbrokes give that the ban will be reversed on reduced? UEFA, like FIFA is a joke when it comes to discipline.Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 05:48 PM by Mullet&Talon 
-
Look at it this way: Imagine a player waited until all of the officials' backs were turned, then punched an opposing player in the head. Nobody saw it, not the linemen or the fourth official, and so there is no discipline.
Would you support a post-match ban in that case?
To me, it's the same question. A deliberate violation of the rules done in a way intended to fool the referee.
I don't have a problem with post-match review of diving, as long as it's handled by a clear, reasonable standard. If there's a television angle that clearly and unambiguously shows that there was no contact, punish the player. If it's not completely clear, take no action.Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 05:53 PM by chapka 
-
Yeah, I see only two rational positions here:
1) Post-match review/second-guessing of the refs
2) Say that diving isn't a big problem and do nothing
Saying "let's make the refs better" isn't a solution, it's what you say to make yourself feel better about not having one.
The refs will NEVER be as good as the players, and for obvious reasons--they pay the players 1000x as much, and there are 1000x as many aspiring footballers as refs. So it's likely that any time you pit these underpaid, under-appreciated refs against the players in the heat of the moment, the players are likely to win. The introduction of careful, technological, dispassionate post-game review is the only thing I can see giving the players a second thought about trying to pull a fast one.Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 06:16 PM by Stan Collins
-
they also need more refs. its a laughable comparison that an american football game has like 6 or 8 refs or something, and soccer with like four plus times as much in-play time in a match only has 3 refs.
your reasoning sucks. it seems to me that you're arguing that because it can't be done perfectly easily, it shouldn't be done at all. i know when i get a speeding ticket, i might be upset and feel like i was wronged because i got away with driving above the speed limit 10 different times in the last month, but getting caught once definitely affects me to drive more slowly for the first couple of weeks after a ticketPosted 14 Sep 2009 at 07:03 PM by cwilke1
-
i think a 2 match ban wasn't enough for the offense. i think bans ought to be longer if someone produces a PK out of the dive. if someone dives elsewhere on the field to earn a free kick, then a 2 game suspension would be just. i say even give a 1 match penalty for dives that the ref didn't fall for
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 07:06 PM by cwilke1
-
Hmm, I wonder if it would improve things to have the refs themselves review the matches after they are over and hand out or rescind cards, or recommend additional punishments. The refs will have more context since they're on the field at the time of the incident, plus it wouldn't seem as harsh to them to have their decisions examined since they would be the ones doing the examining.
I'm not a fan of replay being used during a game though - it would slow it down too much, so refs wouldn't be able to affect the outcome of the game through review, but at least it would give a modicum of fairness.
I agree that there should be more refs on the pitch; perhaps one behind each end line, on the side of the goal opposite the existing assistant on the same end of the field.Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 07:28 PM by thomco312
-
if technology allows us to make the game better, then it ought to be done. a business owner ought to use technology to improve his product. if they want the game to grow more in a huge potential market (the u.s.), they need to get fight against diving
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 07:33 PM by cwilke1
-
easy solution is for ingame review of questionable goal-line clearances and automatically for penalty calls. the ref won't feel guilty calling a penalty...they just review it and continue with the penalty kick or not. dives can be punished on the spot.
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 10:37 PM by bob_deniro
-
clear simulation with intention to deceive = lifetime ban = no one ever dives again
problem solved.Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 10:49 PM by tomwilhelm
-
Your post means exactly that you like diving because your unwilling to do something about it. Deceiving the referree is gross unsportsmanlike behaviour and should be punished.
Look -- this is easy. I'm sure referree's review video of the games they do. Allow the match referree to hand out red cards after a game if video shows him that a player intentionally deceived him.
Your argument is "since Eduardo succesfully cheated, it is wrong to punish him." I've rarely seen a more wrong headed thought.Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 11:13 PM by DonJuego
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
