Originally Posted by Joga_Bonito View Post
And the FA, as Graham Bean has rightly noted, don't even follow their own rules most of the time, which further adds to the confusion of what is acceptable and what is not.

I would go as far as to say that the biggest problem facing the English game at this point in terms of discipline is not a lack of respect, per se, but the abitrary nature of the FA's disciplinary process, which appears -- and which they have even admitted: (from the Telegraph) In response, an FA spokesman said: 'Consideration is given to any comments reported to us...' -- to rely on them first being made aware of any potential offence having taken place.

It doesn't take a genius to figure just how unfair and open to abuse is a process that relies on the authority responsible for disciplinary matters first being made aware of a potential offence, particularly when the body that usually provides that service -- the media -- is itself in the business of reporting on all aspects of the game in which the supposed offence has taken place, and when it is obvious that they do not cover all parties equally (conflict of interest, anyone?).

That quote from an FA spokesman, as well as a comment made by Graham Bean in the same article -- 'The FA reacts to media pressure...', Bean said, '...the media coverage of Manchester United is out of comparison to every other club in the country' -- supports something which I have long thought, but haven't bothered to look at in any serious detail: that the FA disciplinary process is thoroughly corrupted, not by a particular bias towards or against Manchester United or any of the other big clubs, but by an inherent flaw in the way that discipline is handled.

It first dawned on me after Wayne Rooney was banned for three matches for pushing Tal Ben Haim in the face against Bolton at Old Trafford several years ago. It was a fairly innocuous offence that the referee missed during the game, but the media coverage was, as usual with anything relating to United and Wayne Rooney, intense (in comparison to the actual offence). Roughly one week later, United were away at Aston Villa and Nolberto Solano did exactly the same thing to Mikael Silvestre (it was literally the same offence!). Absolutely nothing was made of it, for fairly obvious reasons (non-conspiratorial reasons, it just wasn't news), and Solano wasn't charged or even criticized.

If the FA (or anyone else) was really serious about policing the game, and consequently, about 'respect' for officials, they would not only convene a panel every week to look at every game in detail from the previous weekend in order to find potential breaches of the rules that have been missed by the referee, but they would also watch every interview given after the games by both players and managers.

This is because it is only through a fair and consistent application of the laws that players and managers will learn (through experience) where the boundaries actually are. In the absence of a consistent application, players and managers, who will always push at the boundaries of what is acceptable in the pursuit of their own interests, are largely being scapegoated for a lack of leadership on disciplinary matters within the games governing body.

One of the hallmarks of a fair justice system, unless new laws have recently been enacted, is that existing laws should be consistently applied, and that punishments should be in line both with the magnitude of the actual offence, as well as the precedent set in previous cases. Currently, the FA meets none of these standards, and by failing to do so, they are not only sending out a confusing message about what is acceptable, but they are exhibiting a profound disrespect for their own mission.