Lamb Tagine with Pulled Pork Parcels, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, Belgian Triple Chocolate dessert, Californian Zinfandel, Roast Dog (just another example of my irrepressible humour there) and Vodka (Come on Capello, I've got a bottle to sink here!).
Another Blagg blog
ESPN FC Blog 26th June
In which our hero complains about that bloody National Anthem and points out England are quite good at a few things but not great at any.
The Group Stage Ends
Germany beat the USA 1-0 but both went through thanks to Portugal's 2-1 win over Ghana which did nothing for either side. In the later games, 10-man Belgium beat South Korea 1-0 while Algeria drew with Russia to ensure the African side qualified for the Group of 16. This means I had only two shots of vodka but I can have some more Tagine.
Nine international games, £100,000 Swiss dollars and four months from all forms of football; the punishment for the Luis Suarez bite on Giorgio Chiellini. Yes, it's deserved of course but isn't this an interesting precedent here?
The referee didn't see the incident so Suarez has been convicted on TV replay evidence. Nothing wrong with that, of course if the evidence is conclusive - but then isn't that what TV evidence actually is? FIFA paid a lot for goal-line technology but didn't we all know Frank Lampard's shot was a yard over the line four years ago? After all, we all saw it on TV and it was being shown to millions even before a baffled Lampard had managed to run up the referee in real time.
In short, use TV evidence if you must but let's also use it for when a player is sent off for smacking an opponent in the face when TV clearly shows his elbow was nowhere near the man rolling on the floor in acute pain. Use it for poor tackles that the referee misses. Use it for offside.
In the Suarez incident, the issue is magnified by the fact that the resulting ban means Suarez's club side - currently Liverpool, but it may not be after this - lose their player too. There will undoubtedly be those who even argue that this is unfair. Should a club be punished for a misdemeanor carried out on a football pitch thousands of miles away? Let's be clear here; leaving aside the incident - difficult I know but try - a massive line has been (or should have been anyway) drawn in the sand here by FIFA.
Retrospective bans? No problem at all but let's make sure it is used fairly.
And another thing!
Uruguay and Suarez are to appeal. On what grounds can they possibly appeal? That the TV replay doesn't show the real truth? Failure to come to terms with this is making Uruguayan football a laughing stock. It's not down to the British press (If the press can coerce FIFA into doing something they don't want then the 2022 World Cup would be taking place in England!), nor the Italians and Brazilians but if the rest of the world thinks you are deranged then, just possibly, you are.
Scotland manager Gordon Strachan speaking on ITV was superb as he pointed out we shouldn't be surprised by this attempt at claiming innocence, pointing out that 'football had no morals'.
"We give Uruguay stick about defending Suarez, but every manager defends his player"
"Over the years I have played there has been wife-batterers, drink-driving incidents, infidelity, Eric Cantona jumping into the crowd and kung-fu-ing someone in the chest. The clubs stand by them"
"The supporters themselves, when these guys come back they stand up and applaud them on the pitch. So don't anybody start talking about morals - we don't have any in football"
ESPN FC Blog 26th June
In which our hero complains about that bloody National Anthem and points out England are quite good at a few things but not great at any.
The Group Stage Ends
Germany beat the USA 1-0 but both went through thanks to Portugal's 2-1 win over Ghana which did nothing for either side. In the later games, 10-man Belgium beat South Korea 1-0 while Algeria drew with Russia to ensure the African side qualified for the Group of 16. This means I had only two shots of vodka but I can have some more Tagine.
Nine international games, £100,000 Swiss dollars and four months from all forms of football; the punishment for the Luis Suarez bite on Giorgio Chiellini. Yes, it's deserved of course but isn't this an interesting precedent here?
The referee didn't see the incident so Suarez has been convicted on TV replay evidence. Nothing wrong with that, of course if the evidence is conclusive - but then isn't that what TV evidence actually is? FIFA paid a lot for goal-line technology but didn't we all know Frank Lampard's shot was a yard over the line four years ago? After all, we all saw it on TV and it was being shown to millions even before a baffled Lampard had managed to run up the referee in real time.
In short, use TV evidence if you must but let's also use it for when a player is sent off for smacking an opponent in the face when TV clearly shows his elbow was nowhere near the man rolling on the floor in acute pain. Use it for poor tackles that the referee misses. Use it for offside.
In the Suarez incident, the issue is magnified by the fact that the resulting ban means Suarez's club side - currently Liverpool, but it may not be after this - lose their player too. There will undoubtedly be those who even argue that this is unfair. Should a club be punished for a misdemeanor carried out on a football pitch thousands of miles away? Let's be clear here; leaving aside the incident - difficult I know but try - a massive line has been (or should have been anyway) drawn in the sand here by FIFA.
Retrospective bans? No problem at all but let's make sure it is used fairly.
And another thing!
Uruguay and Suarez are to appeal. On what grounds can they possibly appeal? That the TV replay doesn't show the real truth? Failure to come to terms with this is making Uruguayan football a laughing stock. It's not down to the British press (If the press can coerce FIFA into doing something they don't want then the 2022 World Cup would be taking place in England!), nor the Italians and Brazilians but if the rest of the world thinks you are deranged then, just possibly, you are.
Scotland manager Gordon Strachan speaking on ITV was superb as he pointed out we shouldn't be surprised by this attempt at claiming innocence, pointing out that 'football had no morals'.
"We give Uruguay stick about defending Suarez, but every manager defends his player"
"Over the years I have played there has been wife-batterers, drink-driving incidents, infidelity, Eric Cantona jumping into the crowd and kung-fu-ing someone in the chest. The clubs stand by them"
"The supporters themselves, when these guys come back they stand up and applaud them on the pitch. So don't anybody start talking about morals - we don't have any in football"
No comments:
Post a Comment