This post comes in reaction to the Spanish Leagues decision to overturn a red card given to Villarreals Cani at the weekend, but in reality it’s something that has been bugging me, and probably many football fans of all colours, for some time. Just who decides the punishments handed out to players? Who is behind the overturning of these decisions? And what on earth do they use as a guide? Because from where I’m standing they seem to be making these decisions up on the spot. Jose Mourinho, who was directly involved in Canis red card after having a water bottle hurled in his direction by the Villarreal winger, gave his reaction in a press conference today. ‘If it had been one of my players they would have suspended him for three months. Had it been me, I would never have been allowed on the bench again’. Characteristic overexaggeration from Mourinho, but he has a point.
Just Who Does Decide The Punishments In Football? And How?
For it was not long ago that the 'Special One' and various players from his squad were subject to the iron hand of UEFA for forcing yellow cards in a Champions League match to avoid possible suspension in the knock-out stages. Was this illegal? Was their unequivocal proof that's what they planned to do? No. Yet several Real Madrid players recieved fines and Jose Mourinho was sent to the stands for two matches. The manager hasn't faired much better at home, having already recieved two separate bans for what can only be described as using 'forceful language' towards officials. Yet a player throws a bottle at him, rightly recieves a red for violent conduct and then gets his ban overturned. You can understand his frustration.
In reality, the few examples I’ve given so far don’t even tell half the story. Every weekend across all the major leagues, you’ll see players get a straight red for a nasty tackle and then recieve the customary three match ban. Then the next week another player will commit the same offence, get sent off (or not) but then see his red card overturned. The inconsistency is astounding. Now while the ‘big’ clubs always seem to get the decisions on the pitch, it would appear they get the harder end of the deal off the field. Perhaps it’s the associations wanting to make an example out of the higher-profile clubs. But while you can sympathise ever so slightly with the pressure put under referees in matches, there’s no excuse for bias from league officials in the comfort of their plush committee rooms with plenty of time to make a decision.
What would I like to see? Plain and simple rules. None of this ‘Rule 5.4.11 a)’ that leaves you so confused you wish you hadn’t asked in the first place. Keep it simple. Do this you will get a two match ban. Do that and you’ll get a three match ban. Kick a player in the back, pull his hair, stamp on his leg and punch his teammate in the face, just like a certain Pepe did not too long ago, and you’ll get a ten match ban (Do what Pepe did in the street and you’d be put in jail!). Only overturn the ban if camera footage proves beyond all doubt that the action wasn’t committed. Maybe it would be a good idea to get impartial, independent arbitrary bodies involved with the sole task of dealing with suspensions and appeals from the start. I’d also like to see transparency. Broadcast these meetings live or at least post the videos on the football association website. Let’s see the logic behind these crazy decisions.
