One thing I have always found interesting is the difference between discipline English football vs. discipline in the NBA or NFL in the USA. The Arsenal -- United match last week will likely result in 20 something matches worth of suspension. If the exact same thing had happened in the NBA, it is doubtful that anyone would have even been ejected (except maybe for the Vieria kick). For instance, the Lakers and the Kings of the NBA got into a huge brawl before last season with punches thrown and connecting. I don't think anyone got suspended -- not even Rick Fox or Doug Christy who started swinging at each other and then wrestled on camera in the tunnel. In the NFL, a flag would have been thrown for Unsportsmanlike Conduct -- probably for both teams, but little else. The only ejection so far this NFL season I am aware of after 3 weeks is Rod Smith and that was because he hit the ref while trying to hit another player. Had he missed the ref, he would have been penalized, but probably not sent off. I for one like the stricter standard. I play footie and there is almost always a brawl in our games because the ref cannot control the match, and our league does not punish people for anything. Unfortunately, the behavior seen at Old Trafford happens every weekend in my league, and after a 1 game suspension for a red card, the perpetrators are back again (I have somewhat clean hands since I have picked up only 3 yellow cards in 10 years). What does everybody else think?
Fox got 6 games and Christie got 2. Rod Smith got an automatic ejection for throwing a punch, whether it connects or not. In some ways you are correct, a lot of BS is allowed in our leagues and labeled as "passion" but our leagues actually do a good job with suspensions and ejections. My baseball team, the St. Louis Cardinals (where I lived all of my life until three months ago) had a catcher suspended 3 games for bumping an umpire (not much, didn't even knock him back, imagine what Lehmann would have gotten!) and the manager suspended for 2 for his post-game comments (Wenger would never get to coach!). This is with an outside shot to win the division with four games left. Part of the problem is the fans, a certain poster on this board said that in the Man United/Arsenal incidents all Keown did was be excited and that his screaming in Ruuds face is done in every NBA and NFL game, implying that he thinks this is an ok action to take. While we certainly allow more posturing and "showing how big your d!ck is" we are pretty good about suspensions.
Well, I understand what you are trying to say, but the facts that you rely on are not accurate. In that fight between the Lakers and Kings last year, there WERE suspensions. Christie got a couple of game suspension and Rick Fox was suspended for the first 5 or 6 games if I recall correctly. That was one of the excuses (along with the absence of Shaq) that LA used to explain their poor start. I do generally believe that discipline is handed down more quickly in almost every country than it is in the U.S. just because of the nature of our system.
discipline I think the main reason why the Epl is a little bit more stricter is because of the fans, Imagine how many hoolifans(closet hooligans) go to a game and hope for a good fight, in the states this is not the case so I think it's more than what meets the eye, I think in 94 in the brazillian league right after the world cup Viola nutmegged and shamed a few players from the opposing team and instead of passing the ball he motioned them to come for more, well Edmundo was having none of that and alas! we can figure out what went on next in the stands
My bad on the Christie/Fox thing. I think the NFL is pretty hit or miss on fighting though. People get facemasked or forarm shivered all of the time during a fights and nothing happens. The baseball point one of you made is valid, although suspending a starting pitcher for 5 games for throwing a 95 mph fastball at your head (assuming you can tell it was intentional) is weak.
Re: discipline firstly, I can't recall a single incident ever in English football where a fight on the field has resulted in crowd trouble. Even though that is something often raised in the media, as they really think fans are so easily influenced that they will think it's OK to fight in the stands if players fight, it's complete nonsense. secondly, part of the problem is that the rules are too severe. It's not only far too easy to cheat and pretend to have been fouled (or even punched) by an opposition player in order to get him sent off, the instant red card and obvious advantage that gives makes it worth playing for. While I fully agree that violent conduct should merit a red card, I don't think just pushing someone should. The problem is worsened by the fact that referees are so poor that they react to how a foul effects a player, not if it is a foul or not. For all the complaints about diving in the box, the fact is if a player is fouled but doesn't fall over, then he won't get a penalty. Likewise, if a player shoves another player, but the other played stays on his feet, then he'd get no more than a yellow card, possibly just a warning. But if the player falls over, clutching his face (regardless of where the contact was) then the player will be sent off. Such refereeing standards not only encourage cheating, but have made it a necessity to get anything out of officials.
Re: Re: discipline Not to turn this into a referee thread as opposed to a league/administration thread, but would you say that the switch to full-time referees hasn't had its intended effect yet (whatever effect the FA may have been intending)? Because although Uriah Rennie would be the best MLS ref ever, alas, I don't think that "professionalizing" the referee ranks has resulted in a noticeably higher standard. I mean, I don't think Premiership refs are any worse than those of any other league I see on a regular basis (and they are generally better than some), it doesn't seemed to have created the most solid officiating corps in all of football.
Re: Re: Re: discipline I don't think it's had any effect at all. As for the administration, I don't think the FA have any right at all to decide what's good or bad for the game when they turn a blind eye to the fact that the hyper-inflation of wages, crippling 75% of England's professional clubs, is directly caused by the cash-consuming monster they created.
The rules call for an unreasonable judgement on "intent" - an action isn't an offence unless it's "intentional". But it's very difficult to judge intent - it effectively requires the official to read the mind of the player. It's much easier to look for "consequences" - does the offending team benefit from the action? If so then call it. Even in the rules the consequences can override the intentional - the advantage rule means ignoring the intentional offence when the consequence is the victim team gains/retains an advantage. Not surprising then that officials go for the easier judgement - a judgement based on what they can see rather than what they can't.
I'm no fan of how American sports are run, but I have to say that the FA is much more of a meddling organization than any American professional sports governing body. If an American sport applied its standards as inconsistently as the FA does on things like video review, the American teams in that league would go crazy and ensure that things were changed to a more consistent understandable way of doing things. I can't think of an American sport where the governing body has it in for one team like the FA has it in for Arsenal. There may be individual instances where a team seems targeted, but not a consistent pattern over a number of seasons.
discipline Well i think you are wrong about the discipline angle somewhat. I'll never forget when my Knicks basically got the title taken from them after the brawl in Miami.Ewing just wandered 4 feet away from the bench,when the brawl was under the basket,and he got booted for a game.I believe at least 4 of their best players were out of the next couple of games,when they were absolutely destroying Maimi and enede up loosing the series. The funny thing is is that if the Arsenal/Man U thing happened in the MLS it probably would have been a good thing,i'm sorry to say.
Re: discipline But wasn't the Knicks thing really a one time thing, rather than something that was done over and over again to them? Of course in the US, the professional leagues also make a point of not assigning refs to games if those refs have had controversy with those teams before. I can't recall a time (there may be, but they are rare) when there have been repeat problems with a given official between the same US teams in a league. The FA was just plain stupid to assign Bennett to the game.
Oh Contrare. At that time the Knicks were alway's in the wars with the Pacers,Chicago and miami.No other team had as many rivalries as the knicks and the problems ensued. The comparisons are somewhat uncanny to arsenal,because throughout the the 90's the Kicks were known as the bad boys of the NBA,and labelled a physical team with the stifling defence.Everytime there were questionable decisions they would alway's go to the other team.Look at Sprewell for instance he played for the Knicks when most of the team were disbanded and the stigma gone,but he got the most ridiculous fines ever. Ask any knicks fan who followed them in the 90's and theyw ill tell you,they got bum deals a lot of the time. I think most of it came from the NBA commission themselves,because the players of the team hated the media and would always get fined for not doing interviews.
Re: discipline 1. The Knicks weren't destroying anybody...they had home court advantage at that point, either because of a better record, or they'd won one in Miami. (I'm pretty sure it was the latter.) The suspensions weakened them for a game in New York, which they lost. 2. The NBA merely enforced its rules wrt Ewing. The rules apply to everyone, even teams from New York.
I don't really see the comparison. The Knicks were a very physical team, even by eastern conference standards. I don't recall them having players suspended on a regular basis, nearly the way Arsenal does. I think a lot of people think that the Knicks, due to their reputation for physical play, probably got more slack than a lot of teams, as it was just considered part of their game. Of course the NBA has become unwatchable anymore, but that's a different topic.
Superdave are you kidding. I remember this somewhat because at the time i was touring in Europe and i thought the knicks would be knocked out by Miami.The DESTROYED charlotte in the first round i believe,then they went up two or 3 games to nothing against miami, and miami had home advantage i'm sure of it.That's why i was so shocked.They day they got knocked out i was on the plane back home when i got news of them being out of the play-offs and couldn't understand why.Now in my world bieing up 3 games to none is having a team on the ropes in the best of 7. As for the Knicks getting slack,i guess you didn't follow the Knicks,because i see myself as a fair person,but some of the treatment they got was atrocious.Their reputation preceeded them into ever arena,but they were not a dirty team just tough defensively.Anyway back to the best sport in the world.
Back to the subject at hand, the FA would make a shambles of any league in the US that it was in charge of. As "the other poster on this board" that was quoted earlier by someone, my reaction was "WTF is all the excitement about?" Some yelling and a grade school shoving match? Even though the US does allow quite a bit more in the way of "trash talking" and posturing in their sports, all the leagues do draw the line at actual punches being thrown. There is an immediate and swift reaction to fighting in all of our major sports (immediate ejection in baseball/basketball/football and a 5 minute major in the NHL), but I've seen more shoving and "trash talk" in an average Major League baseball dust up where both benches empty on to the field, usually after someone has taken offense at having a fastball aimed at their ear, and basketball players routinely "talk trash" to one another, yell and scream following an especially vicious dunk, etc. Football and hockey are really not a great example, since violent physical contact is an integral part of the game. Of course, "diving" is a problem in the NHL as well as soccer, but at least in the NHL, those that "dive" can be sure to receive some retribution either later in the game or later in the season. Long story short, we tolerate more in our sports, and many Europeans say it is because we live in a violent society. I'm not really capable of engaging in a anthropological debate on the subject, but to me it all seems like much ado about nothing, but for Lauren to receive more games suspension for a few shoves than Lucas Neill will get for breaking another player's leg and causing him to miss perhaps 6 months? Isn't the hypocrisy readily apparent if the FA were to come to that conclusion? If they do come to that conclusion, I only think of how much more violent conduct that the FA will see as players know that they must merely keep their cool during a break in the action, wait for open play, and then tackle an opponent with intent to maim and get off lighter than they would have for shoving an opponent and screaming at him.
i find it interesting how much the FA focuses on the idea that players actions on the pitch will provoke violence in the stands e.g. celebrating a goal in front of the wrong people. but then the FA probably thinks the English fans have a bit of a reputation and it only makes sense from a business point of view to eliminate trouble in the stands.