Tweet
Brad Friedel is an honest man, but the FA have set a dangerous precedent with their ludicrous decision to rescind his one-match ban for a professional foul on Fernando Torres.
Having served Blackburn Rovers with distinction before moving on to have a fine season with Aston Villa, Friedel is a man who deserves respect.
If he says he tried to get out of the way rather than trip Torres as the Spaniard attempted to score a fifth goal for Liverpool on Sunday, we should believe him.
But the sympathy ends there, because his reasons for unfair dismissal represented an even less valid defence than Villa’s exploding back four.
Friedel’s complaint about his red card was surprising and his decision to appeal baffling.
This seemed a classic case of an appeal so spurious that it warranted an extension of the ban for wasting the FA’s time. Yet, incredibly, the appeal was upheld and the automatic one-match suspension withdrawn.
Fifteen years ago, Friedel might have had a point. As Torres pushed the ball past him, the American attempted to get out of the way.
But the days of intent counting for anything – a flashback to a million park games where the phrase ‘I went for the ball, ref’ was shouted ad nauseam – ended when the laws changed in 1996.
Friedel advanced to challenge Torres and only when it was too late did he curl up like a hedgehog on the M6.
Whether he could have avoided Torres was irrelevant, the only thing that mattered was that Torres could not have avoided him and a goalscoring opportunity had been denied.
Some have pointed to the presence of a covering defender, but had it been the other way round a covering goalkeeper would not have been enough to prevent a red card for a defender.
Many had sympathy for Friedel’s plight and felt common sense should prevail.
But the day the FA rules purely on a sympathy vote is a concerning one.
The laws of the game are the bedrock on which the sport is built and the appeal panel must have begun to realise they had made an error when the referees’ governing body started angrily waving the rulebook at them.
An explanation must now be given to avoid mistrust of the secret shufflings within Soho Square, where rules should really be rules.
That, of course, is unless it involves a couple of disorientated Argentinians and the dear old auntie of English football - West Ham, not Niemi - in which case it is probably best to make things up as we go along.
And now the essence of the professional foul has been thrown into jeopardy.
Is it okay to bring down an attacking player, providing it is made to look accidental?
Could Willie Young be digging the boots out of the garage and making a comeback, if first he learns a little subtlety?
It was once said that ‘young men know the rules, but old men know the exceptions’.
One can only hope the venerable sages on the FA appeal panel let us in on their little secret some time soon.
Having served Blackburn Rovers with distinction before moving on to have a fine season with Aston Villa, Friedel is a man who deserves respect.
If he says he tried to get out of the way rather than trip Torres as the Spaniard attempted to score a fifth goal for Liverpool on Sunday, we should believe him.
But the sympathy ends there, because his reasons for unfair dismissal represented an even less valid defence than Villa’s exploding back four.
Friedel’s complaint about his red card was surprising and his decision to appeal baffling.
This seemed a classic case of an appeal so spurious that it warranted an extension of the ban for wasting the FA’s time. Yet, incredibly, the appeal was upheld and the automatic one-match suspension withdrawn.
Fifteen years ago, Friedel might have had a point. As Torres pushed the ball past him, the American attempted to get out of the way.
But the days of intent counting for anything – a flashback to a million park games where the phrase ‘I went for the ball, ref’ was shouted ad nauseam – ended when the laws changed in 1996.
Friedel advanced to challenge Torres and only when it was too late did he curl up like a hedgehog on the M6.
Whether he could have avoided Torres was irrelevant, the only thing that mattered was that Torres could not have avoided him and a goalscoring opportunity had been denied.
Some have pointed to the presence of a covering defender, but had it been the other way round a covering goalkeeper would not have been enough to prevent a red card for a defender.
Many had sympathy for Friedel’s plight and felt common sense should prevail.
But the day the FA rules purely on a sympathy vote is a concerning one.
The laws of the game are the bedrock on which the sport is built and the appeal panel must have begun to realise they had made an error when the referees’ governing body started angrily waving the rulebook at them.
An explanation must now be given to avoid mistrust of the secret shufflings within Soho Square, where rules should really be rules.
That, of course, is unless it involves a couple of disorientated Argentinians and the dear old auntie of English football - West Ham, not Niemi - in which case it is probably best to make things up as we go along.
And now the essence of the professional foul has been thrown into jeopardy.
Is it okay to bring down an attacking player, providing it is made to look accidental?
Could Willie Young be digging the boots out of the garage and making a comeback, if first he learns a little subtlety?
It was once said that ‘young men know the rules, but old men know the exceptions’.
One can only hope the venerable sages on the FA appeal panel let us in on their little secret some time soon.
..
Brickie have you ever seen accidental contact being no foul in the game of...not jax or whatever it is you have been basing your position...but football?
Comment