Presumably you are referring to the fact that a proper robust tackle that gets the ball often ends up in a card? Totally agree. I do not want to return to the old days of Chopper Harris and Norman 'bites yer legs' Hunter, but great tackling a la Booby Moore at his best was one of the great skills of the game.
Do you not think that the Skill involved with a good hard tackle has changed to the art of not allowing the other fellow to get past at any cost? Alternatively to foul without being found out. Or put in another way.....to cheat better than your opponent?
Is this being turned into a mountain out of a molehill as its Balotelli? His card is marked before he kicks a ball, would there of been such publicity if it had been say Dzeko or Aguero that had twisted and stepped on Parker's head....? until next time!
Not sure we should be encouraging players to take out their frustration when tackling! Although it probably should have been a red, and I'm not condoning it, I think some people need to cut Balotelli some slack. Yes, it doesn't look good, he seemed to intend contact, though he can't have known it would be with Parker's head. He's just one of those players who gets an occasional rush of blood to the head and I think it's frustration rather than malice.
That's a good point you make. As for Beddy's point on the severity of bans, I think Balotelli's action was easily comparable in severity to David Prutton's pushing the official aside. 10 game ban was it..? A footballer who deliberately sets out to injure another player, whether it be spur of the moment, or planned, as in the odd Roy Keane tackle, needs to be banned way over the standard red card punishment of 3 games. And clubs need to be severely handicapped if they allow their players to take it upon themselves to dish out the law of the game, as they see it, by losing that player for several games. I'm not saying 10 games [incidentally I thought Prutton paid dearly for his actions], as the next level up, but perhaps these punishments need to be graded properly, with say 5, 7, 9, 10 game bans, and proper fines which bloody well hurt the player's pocket, and suggest to him it might be a good idea to temper his behaviour.
There's no way an impetuous swing of the leg can be compared with shoving an official (surely assaulting the officials is the worst possible crime in the game), and it's very hard to argue that he intended to injure Parker.
I think that the biggest problem regarding effective sanctions is the process defined by the FA for imposing them. It is hideously outdated and frequently made an absolute mockery of. For example, if a referee "sees" something, no further sanction can be applied at a later date. So, last year (I think) Wayne Rooney clearly and maliciously elbows McCarthy from Wigan in the face. This would have constituted at least a four match ban for violent conduct with intent. However, because the referee "saw" it and thought that it was a coming together due to his poor viewing angle, nothing is done to Rooney despite a worldwide audience of millions seeing it clearly. There is absolutely no shame whatsoever for a referee to miss something in a match yet the FA's process is aimed more at protecting the absolute authority of a referee than for improving the game. This is wrong and simply adds to unnecessary criticism of referees who, if they were allowed to just come out say what they saw straight away, would add to the experience of a match. How many sports actually have the referees miked up these days? It's a farce that process gets in the way of progress in the world's biggest sport but that's what happens when dinosaurs run something.
This could easily be remedied by using the system used in Rugby Union of citing, where players can be disciplined retrospectively on the strength of video evidence. That would have taken care of the Rooney issue, and it would make sense if the blanket "3 match ban for a straight red unless it's intentionional, in which case it's 4 matches" rule was dumped completely in favour of sentencing after the event. An FA panel could review footage of every sending-off (for straight red cards) from each round of matches and decide on the length of the ban. In some cases players might even be reprieved if the evidence showed they weren't guilty, without the need for an appeal panel to be set up.
Never heard of this 4 match ban if it's intentional before, surely by it's very nature a red card offence has to be intentional? Agree with you regarding citing though, works well in rugby and it's the fairest way to do it.
I agree that 10 games was a lot but Prutton did deserve a strong penalty, for the same reason that if you start fighting a copper they are probably not going to let you off lightly, anyway that's in the past. On Balotelli, I am unconvinced that he will face further action over this. Since the Suarez case everyone seems to be an expert on the FA's procedures, and will therefore know that the FA have to prove the offence rather than Balotelli proving he did not do it. If it comes down to a commission he will obviously say he fell and that it was an accident, and I don't really see how the FA can prove otherwise. Also Webb was looking straight at it and didn't think it was violent conduct, making me think it might be the end of the matter.
I agree with the citing principle. It works so well in rugby union - why is it the so-called professional game is so slow to adopt lessons from its newer professional counter-parts? Miking up of referees and assistants was in rugby long before football took it up; never mind their use of replays. I would also use the citing for players who persistantly dive or fake injury too. There are just too many cheats in football - yet it is badged as 'professionalism'.
There is no such thing as a four game ban if it's intentional, but you can get extra game bans for aggravating factors/further misconduct (more than one strike, failing to leave the field of play etc). If Balotelli got sent off it would have been his second red card of the season, which means an additional one game ban = four games (Kompany got this as well).
Thanks, I was a bit vague about the rules. The other thing about citing is that it could be used in a situation where none of the match officials have seen an offence, but one is reported by one of the players or managers. It could even be used where simulation has led to a player being sent off. Divers beware!
