Tweet
Totally stumped by ruling on King
published: Thursday | February 15, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody XvEED="true">
Banned Reggae Boy Marlon King. - file
WHEN THE Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) touring management team booted striker Marlon King from camp ahead of the England friendly for rowdy behaviour, I thought it was a tough but understandable decision.
However, I must admit to being totally stumped by the recent ruling which has seen the striker handed a two-year ban from international football.
If reports coming out of the JFF delegation when the Reggae Boyz went on that infamously disastrous tour of England last June are true, King was said to be "boisterous", "disrespectful" and "unapologetic" to the member's of the JFF delegation on that fateful Wednesday morning.
Don't get me wrong! Behaviour like that could certainly not have been ignored or gone unpunished and sanctions must be taken against King for that type of disrespect. However, let's take the time out to examine some of the details of the situation.
After a night on the town, King and teammates Jason Euell and Jamal Campbell-Ryce, who are said to have left the camp without permission, returned to the team hotel.
Intoxicated
According to the JFF management team's account, King, who according to his side of the story was further infuriated by being locked out of his room, was intoxicated. So perhaps staying up to host an emergency meeting in the wee hours of the morning with already-aggravated and drunk players wasn't a wonderful idea in the first place. Discipline is important, but the players are after all grown men and should have been treated as such.
However, let's put that aside, King did what he did and, according to the report issued by the JFF disciplinary committee, the issue of breaking camp curfew, which the players claim to not have known was in place, had already been dealt with by the body by, I assume, expelling the player from camp. However, King has been handed an additional two-year ban for telling off the JFF contingent and that is absolutely ludicrous.
A two-year ban! In most sports that is a punishment generally reserved for athletes who are found guilty of things like testing positive for cocaine use or getting caught using performance-enhancing substances.
Are we to believe that King falls into this category because of a spat with the administration?
No player is bigger than Jamaican football but, then again, neither is the game's administration and decisions taken regarding players - or any footballing issues - should not have that atmosphere about it.
In my estimation, there can be no justifiable reason that the federation can give for dropping King in the two-year ban category and that decision upon closer examination reeks of one made with bruised egos or stems from some other issue not mentioned.
Lest we forget, King apologised for the incident later the same day, well - according to his account anyway. The hallmark of bad refereeing, which is an art despised by sports fans everywhere, is when decisions taken by the official make him and not the players themselves the focus of the game. Who knows, perhaps the same can be said of bad administrating.
That's how it looks from this corner, what about yours? </DIV>
published: Thursday | February 15, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody XvEED="true">
Banned Reggae Boy Marlon King. - file
WHEN THE Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) touring management team booted striker Marlon King from camp ahead of the England friendly for rowdy behaviour, I thought it was a tough but understandable decision.
However, I must admit to being totally stumped by the recent ruling which has seen the striker handed a two-year ban from international football.
If reports coming out of the JFF delegation when the Reggae Boyz went on that infamously disastrous tour of England last June are true, King was said to be "boisterous", "disrespectful" and "unapologetic" to the member's of the JFF delegation on that fateful Wednesday morning.
Don't get me wrong! Behaviour like that could certainly not have been ignored or gone unpunished and sanctions must be taken against King for that type of disrespect. However, let's take the time out to examine some of the details of the situation.
After a night on the town, King and teammates Jason Euell and Jamal Campbell-Ryce, who are said to have left the camp without permission, returned to the team hotel.
Intoxicated
According to the JFF management team's account, King, who according to his side of the story was further infuriated by being locked out of his room, was intoxicated. So perhaps staying up to host an emergency meeting in the wee hours of the morning with already-aggravated and drunk players wasn't a wonderful idea in the first place. Discipline is important, but the players are after all grown men and should have been treated as such.
However, let's put that aside, King did what he did and, according to the report issued by the JFF disciplinary committee, the issue of breaking camp curfew, which the players claim to not have known was in place, had already been dealt with by the body by, I assume, expelling the player from camp. However, King has been handed an additional two-year ban for telling off the JFF contingent and that is absolutely ludicrous.
A two-year ban! In most sports that is a punishment generally reserved for athletes who are found guilty of things like testing positive for cocaine use or getting caught using performance-enhancing substances.
Are we to believe that King falls into this category because of a spat with the administration?
No player is bigger than Jamaican football but, then again, neither is the game's administration and decisions taken regarding players - or any footballing issues - should not have that atmosphere about it.
In my estimation, there can be no justifiable reason that the federation can give for dropping King in the two-year ban category and that decision upon closer examination reeks of one made with bruised egos or stems from some other issue not mentioned.
Lest we forget, King apologised for the incident later the same day, well - according to his account anyway. The hallmark of bad refereeing, which is an art despised by sports fans everywhere, is when decisions taken by the official make him and not the players themselves the focus of the game. Who knows, perhaps the same can be said of bad administrating.
That's how it looks from this corner, what about yours? </DIV>
Comment