The Frivolous FA

“Absolutely perverse”. That was the damning verdict of Middlesbrough chairman Steve Gibson towards the FA this week, in a week where the respective footballing associations on both sides of the border got it in the neck from football fans and those within the game.

First in line for a spot of tongue lashing was England’s governing body in the wake of the Jeremie Aliadiere affair. For those of you not in the know, the ‘Boro striker was sent off during the weekend defeat to Liverpool for a slap on Javier Mascherano. According to law 12 of the beautiful game, which states that “A player is guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball”, the French striker’s offence was deemed to be violent conduct and so automatically resulted in a 3 match ban.

(pic courtesy of the BBC)

Above: Aliadiere sees red at Anfield

As is their right, Middlesbrough launched an appeal against the suspension on behalf of their player, feeling that the red card produced had been of a harsh nature. However, not only was the appeal rejected, the FA in their wisdom decided to increase it by a further match, which has incensed the ‘Boro hierarchy.

Chairman Gibson commented that “we could’ve taken it on the chin if the appeal had simply been rejected. But to extend the ban by a further match, I find absolutely perverse.”

Above: ‘Boro chairman Steve Gibson

And his chief executive, Keith Lamb, went further in his stinging attack on the FA, saying that “there is one rule for the big boys and one rule for the rest of us.” The mood of the Riverside outfit was not helped by the FA’s appraisal of Middlesbrough’s appeal, which was that it was “frivolous”. And to spare you looking it up, though you can here, the term means ’shallow’ or ‘not serious’. Now, given the club had the right of appeal, if I were Middlesbrough I’d be feeling rather insulted by that remark- clubs don’t submit appeals knowing full well there’s no chance of it being overturned!

Backing up ‘Boro were Derby manager Paul Jewell and Harry Redknapp, the Portsmouth boss, who branded the FA’s decision “scandalous”. The FA’s reply was that each case is dealt with on its own merits, that they “refute any suggestion that certain clubs are treated differently to others” while if they feel the appeal is as they claimed “frivolous”, then they can extend the suspension. But why have that rule there? Who are they to question the integrity of clubs involved in appeals by dismissing them as silly? If an appeal was doomed to failure, clubs wouldn’t do it- as has been evidenced by Manchester City, who have decided not to appeal Martin Petrov’s red card in Monday’s defeat by Everton for fear of the ban being increased.

And Lamb’s point about the likes of ‘Boro, Manchester City and Everton being treated differently from the so-called ‘big four’- thats Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea- may not be as far fetched as some may think. It could be said William Gallas of Arsenal acted in a violent manner during his side’s FA Cup thrashing by Manchester United by kicking Nani off the ball, but he received no punishment while Mascherano raised his hands to Aliadiere but received no card from the referee.

Above: The FA- home of the silly

So is it a case of bias toward the big clubs? Perhaps. Or most likely it is true to say that those in power at Soho Square, to put it kindly, lack common sense with regards certain decisions. If you want to be brutal, you could say that they simply do not have a clue at times. The smart thing to do would be to reject the appeal if they felt the referee’s decision was correct, then get on with it. But to increase the ban by a game, simply because a club felt they had an obligation to defend their player?

There’s only one thing frivolous about this sorry situation, and it certainly isn’t Middlesbrough’s appeal on behalf of Jeremie Aliadiere.