Friday, April 26, 2013

Explanation please

While Llambiarse blasted the FA's disciplinary procedures as "not fit for purpose" in the wake of the Callum McManaman incident, the Silver Fox has chosen to be somewhat more diplomatic in his comments on the English game's organising authority. Reacting to news of the length of Luis Suarez's ban, he's politely asked for clarification as to the rationale.

Not that he is disputing that the Uruguayan's ten-game sinbinning was justified (and neither should he - the striker's offence was unforgiveable and yet another blot on an already heavily blotted copybook); on the contrary, it's because there remains widespread bafflement at St James' Park about how McManaman's "tackle" - an incident that was hardly much less savoury and certainly much more dangerous and career-threatening - could have escaped any kind of retrospective punishment.

Setting aside the fact that calling for transparency from the FA has about as much chance of success as the Mackems making it into Europe, the FA would no doubt trot out that line about the officials having missed Suarez's chomp but witnessed McManaman's assault - which, of course, still doesn't justify issuing a ban for one incident rather than the other, but instead just underlines the perverse and arbitrary "logic" of the rules.

In any case, we can take comfort from Suarez's absence for tomorrow's encounter with Liverpool. They may not be a one-man team, but they're not far off it. It's up to us to capitalise and save our Premier League skins.

Labels: , , ,



Post a Comment

<< Home