Inconsistent football bans for criminal acts

By Freud of Football / Roar Guru

Bolivian defender Sergio Jauregui has been suspended from football for a year following his recent fly kick, while young Belgian talent Alex Witsel has received a ten match ban for his leg-breaking tackle at the weekend.

But why the huge difference in their punishments?

Many traditionalists will argue that when crossing the white line, players’ aggression is part of the game and should be treated as such and nothing they do should result in any consequences of a criminal nature.

Realistically, though, it isn’t quite so cut and dry.

Perhaps the most (in)famous incident involved Eric Cantona way back in 1995.

His fly kick on a Crystal Palace fan after being red carded saw the Frenchman fined £20,000 by the FA (a very hefty fine in 1995) and a further two weeks wages by his club. He was stripped of the French captaincy and suspended for more than eight months, as well as copping a two week prison sentence for common assault, which became 120 hours of community service upon appeal.

Cantona’s case is exceptional in that he attacked a fan, not another player.

Obviously he would be more harshly dealt with for this than an attack on a fellow player. However, the recipient of the fly kick (who doesn’t deserve to be given any more claim to fame) was not badly physically injured and was also convicted for his part in the event.

Leonardo Medina, the man taking Sergio Jauregui’s boot to the chest, on the other hand, was hospitalised and out of action for two weeks.

It would seem, however, that there will be no criminal repercussions, no fine, no community service.

Then there are the tacklers.

Polish defender Marcin Wasilewski, the man on the receiving end of Alex Witsel’s brain fade, was not so lucky. He faces twelve months on the sidelines after suffering a horrendous leg break.

Witsel’s ten matches pales in comparison. He’ll have no surgery, no extensive rehabilitation, he’ll come back refreshed, and will move on.

Wasilewski, on the other hand, could quite possibly never play again.

Arsenal’s Eduardo found himself in the same boat after Martin Taylor’s horror tackle, which was adjudged to have been “unintentional” but still managed to put him out of competitive action for nigh on a year.

There were fears he wouldn’t return at all and if he did, that he wouldn’t be the same player. In the end, Taylor received only a three match ban, the standard for a red card.

Where is the consistency?

Jauregi gets a longer ban than Cantona but no fines or criminal punishment. Witsel gets ten games, Taylor three. And if you compare the tackles, they could both have been “avoided”.

That’s not to say they were intentional, though. It seems no-one can decide what punishment should be handed out for what crime.

Last year former Manchester United youth player Ben Collett was awarded £4.5 million in a landmark settlement. He successfully argued that the leg breaking tackle from Middlesbrough’s Gary Smith five years prior had ended his aspiring football career and he was in turn compensated for loss of future income.

What is to say that Eduardo or Wasilewski shouldn’t do the same? Why should they suffer when the culprits come back a few weeks later and continue uninterrupted?

Administrators need to look into this aspect so it is clear to players what responsibilities they have.

As it is, the punishments handed down are far too inconsistent.

How can one justify Danny Vukovic getting a 12 month ban for high-fiving a referee when Paolo Di Canio missed just 11 games after he floored the referee?

There needs to be set punishments that fit the crimes and these need to be enforced by an individual panel, not the FA, and not UEFA or FIFA, who are too heavily influenced by the clubs that rely on these players.

Accidents will always happen, but the length of time a player might miss should be taken into account. Maybe this will act as a deterrent to such appalling acts of brutality.

The Crowd Says:

2009-09-04T00:56:06+00:00

FIsher Price

Guest


Martin 'Tiny' Taylor got a three-week suspension. Laughable. Seemingly, Alex McLeish (note, he's a Scot) saying that Taylor was "not that sort of lad" served as a deal-sealing character reference for leniency.

2009-09-03T23:33:01+00:00

True Tah

Guest


Pip the IRB does have a system which might more appropriate for futbol than that in AFL, that is suspensions can carry over from club games to internationals (a few years ago with Al Kanaar getting suspended after the club grand final and couldnt play for the Wallabies).

AUTHOR

2009-09-03T23:17:28+00:00

Freud of Football

Roar Guru


Nor should it happen overnight. The AFL's system is also flawed and wouldn't really work in football as you can't exactly give points that carry over etc when players are competing in a domestic league, possibly a european league and various domestic cup games, it would be a nightmare. The problem is more, there seems to be no consistency in the definitions of what is what. Di Canio's attack on the referee, while obviously not intending to harm him is far worse than Vukovic's yet the huge discrepancy. No-one seems to know what the bans should be for which offences and someone needs to control and police this more.

2009-09-03T22:13:56+00:00

Pippinu

Roar Guru


For decades, the soccer system was that the ref was policeman, timekeeper, judge and jury. The transgression was either punished there and then on the field, or that was it. The phenomenon of taking further action after the completion of the game is a realtively recent thing. As such, you don't really find anything like the AFL tribunal that has been going for the best part of a century (an independent body specifically charged with dealing with onfield transgressions after the fact). We can see in a few years that the FFA has slowly been trying to get something similar going (no doubt pushed along by Buckley), but it takes years of experimentation, mistakes, controversy, etc to get it even remotely right. It doesn't happen overnight.

Read more at The Roar