Following
Wigan youngster Callum McManaman’s challenge on Newcastle’s full-back Massadio
Haidara- and Mark Halsey’s totally obstructed view of the challenge- there is
been heated debate across social media, the radio, the internet, the TV and
just about any other platform you can imagine. Just to inform those who have
been in a very deep slumber, the storm was caused by Mcmanaman’s studs-up,
knee-high challenge on Haidara, which failed to draw even a free-kick from
unsighted referee Mark Halsey.
For those
who haven’t seen it- here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXHT3k0pX70
Following
the incident, people failed to disappoint with their instantaneous response of
outrage and shock. The tackle was undoubtedly very bad- but quite how bad it
was clearly became exaggerated in a myth-like fashion. In fact, as is the way
in the age of social media debate, it wasn’t long until an unsuspecting twitter
user would have been forgiven for mistaking that McManaman had committed
murder, such was the ferocity directed at him.
In regards,
to my own opinions on the challenge- it was a clear red. Despite getting a
slight touch on the top of the ball he all but missed and went over the ball,
with his studs up and leading leg well off the ground, making heavy contact
with Haidara’s right knee- causing the subsequent serious knee ligament damage
that will see Haidara miss the rest of this season. So I certainly agree with
Dave Whelan, who asserted that the challenge was “fair”. A puzzling statement,
which caused an understandable mix of outrage and bemusement across media
airwaves. Whelan’s comments could have be perceived as staunch defence of the
club he holds dear to him, but even if they were his honest opinions, to make
the comment in public was at best ill-advised and at worst plain stupid, as
they only served to strengthen the regular view of Wigan as a small club
adopting an ‘us against the world’ mentality.
However, it
was clear that McManaman was making an effort to win the ball- albeit a
careless one- and that there was therefore no intent to injure Haidara.
Although the matter of intent certainly shouldn’t impact whether or not the
challenge merited a red card- which it definitely did- it should be taken it
account when a retrospective suspension is awarded- a point which many failed
to account for- calling for McManaman to serve a long-term ban, or some even
calling for punishments almost equivalent to a prison sentence.
I personally
think that the lack of malicious intent in McManaman’s tackle should mean that
a standard 3-game ban would be sufficient, or at most a 5-game ban, as the
challenge was simply ill-judged and a costly mistake, but banning McManaman for
a lengthy period would do no anyone good. There was no need to ‘make an example
of him’ as the laws regarding tacking in football were firmly laid down long
ago; handing out a severe suspension won’t aid Haidara’s recovery or likely
make him feel better at all; McManaman is young, and will undoubtedly learn
valuable lessons from this regardless of the length of the ban and a lengthy
ban would rank McManaman’s innocent error alongside actions with clear
malicious intent- such as Suarez’s racism and Ryan Shawcross’ vicious
assault/tackle on Aaron Ramsey (yes, I still clench my fists in anger at the
thought of it). Before people jump to saying that Sunday’s incident and the
Ramsey-Shawcross incident were similar, I’ll point out why they were not, and
why Shawcross merited a ban in excess of 3 games, whilst a 3 game ban would
suffice for McManaman’s offence. Firstly, the tackles themselves were very
different. Shawcross jumped into the air with both feet off the ground,
chopping down on Ramsey in a scissor-like motion, despite the ball always being
positioned on the ground, which immediately shows the intent that existed in
the challenge- if there had been no intent to hurt Ramsey, he would not have
left the ground. This is a contrast to the McManaman tackle, which despite
being high, was made at the height of the ball- quite a logically concept- and
one which shows the opposite, that McManaman only intended to win the ball and
not hurt the player. Another clear difference is the past records of the
respective offenders. As far as I am aware, Callum McManaman has no previous
history of making dangerous tackles- a contrast to Ryan Shawcross, a repeat
offender, who broke Francis Jeffers’ ankle in 2007, injured Adebayor with a
nasty challenge and a season later made his worst challenge yet in the same
fixture- and those are just a few of the horror made by Stoke's Mr No-malice' Shawcross. Clearly this shows that Shawcross hadn’t learned, and that to make him
learn, a ban longer than the standard 3 games should have been issued. With
McManaman, it should work the opposite way, with no previous history, a 3 game
ban would be suitable for a starting point in regards to disciplining the young
player.
Here are some clips of Mr 'No-malice' Shawcross in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JImCLHKXTOs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9FJKunkmKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSVLGMjJDE
However,
this is all hypothetical. Shawcross’ challenge was only punished with a
standard 3-game ban, and McManaman’s...well, here we go again, the stupidity of
the FA’s disciplinary system has been highlighted once more. The key flaw is
the pointless and ludicrous rule- totally and unsurprisingly unique to
football- that if so much as one match official casts an eye over the incident,
retrospective action cannot be taken. Yes, I find it as puzzling as you
undoubtedly do. If an official makes an incorrect decision, they should stand
to be corrected by a judiciary panel. This is not to say that blame should be
attributed to officials, it is a simple fact that they cannot get every decision
right and I’m sure they would admit that they get some decisions wrong. It
would not undermine their authority whatsoever, as on the field of play they
would still be 100% in charge of proceedings. All this would simply do is mean
that when a referee has innocently made a bad mistake or, in Mark Halsey’s
case, not even seen the incident due to a player blocking their view, then they
should be given assistance in assuring that the best and fairest outcome is
reached. This isn’t the first time this ass of a law has been brought to the
attention of eagle-eyed football fans, and unless the law changes, it won’t be
the last. The FA- who were yesterday the victims of a fiery, yet largely
justified rant by Newcastle’s managing director Derek Llambias would be well-advised
to take the simple steps required to amend the rule, as it will help restore
the ever waning credibility of their disciplinary system, as well as appeasing
the masses of football fans, players, managers and pundits alike, who are
craving for change.
I would also
wish to end by wishing Massadio Haidara a strong, quick and full recovery from
what was clearly a very unfortunate incident and I hope it does not affect the
promising career of a talented young footballer.
No comments:
Post a Comment