|
 |
APPEALING TO THE FRIVOLOUS 8-3-08
Toby Higgins
Precedent: an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time. A precedent will ordinarily govern the decision of a later similar case, unless a party can show that it was wrongly decided or that it differed in some significant way.
So when Frank Lampard was shown a red card by referee Peter Walton during Chelsea’s 4-0 thrashing of West Ham last Saturday, it didn’t take a genius to see that an appeal would be forthcoming and that the FA would have a big decision to make.
The appeal is the first of its kind since Boro’s regarding Jeremie Aliadiere, who was sent off for a rather girly slap around Javier Mascherano’s right cheek. Following the club's appeal, the FA added an extra match to Aliadiere’s original three match ban citing the club's appeal as being 'frivolous'.
Chelsea's was nothing of the sort and Lampard's red card was withdrawn, not because he is a Cockney or because he plays for Chelsea. Not because he’s English, or because he’s got dark hair, or because he’s called Frank, or any of the other claims made by those who love conspiracy.
The fact is that Lampard’s appeal is not frivolous because he didn’t break the rules to the extent that a red card should have been shown. That makes it nothing like Aliadiere’s sending off.
Aliadiere raised his hand to the face of an opponent. No matter how little contact was made, by the law, it’s a red card. Gareth Southgate said so afterwards.
Mascherano should have been sent off too, for he did the same thing as Aliadiere. It is this that seems to be what many are complaining about - that on the pitch, at the moment of sending off Aliadiere, the referee made a mistake by not sending off Liverpool’s Argentine midfielder.
His mistake was not in sending off Aliadiere as he had to go, by the letter of the law. The mistake was that he should also have dismissed Mascherano. However, we appealed that Aliadiere’s red card should have been rescinded. We therefore indicated that we felt Aliadiere had been sent off incorrectly, which he hadn’t.
What made us look stupid as far as an appeal goes, is that Southgate himself said on camera just moments after the game that Aliadiere deserved to be sent off.
Frank Lampard, on the other hand, had a little kick at Luis Boa Morte and then pushed him in the chest.
It has been suggested that the reason he was sent off was because the assistant referee believed Lampard pushed Boa Morte in the face and is this turned out to be true, meant Lampard definitely had a case for wrongful dismissal. He didn’t do anything that warranted a red card but was shown one anyway when a yellow would have sufficed.
MFC seem to have appealed because they felt that not sending Mascherano off was unfair, not because they thought Aliadiere was wrongly carded.
The appeal system is in place so you can contest any wrong decisions with regard to your player and therefore it was an appeal we were never going to win. Aliadiere was blatantly in the wrong and should 100% have been sent off according to the Laws of the Game.
The word ‘frivolous’ is the one which has appeared in every article and has riled the top men at the club.
Not every failed appeal can be classed as frivolous. If a decision has sparked a debate because it’s hard to tell if the red card is justified, then it can hardly be classed as silly or trivial.
But when it is as clear as day that a red card has been correctly issued, then an appeal is a waste of time.
Frivolous may not be the best word to have used (something Gibson made clear in the aftermath of the decision to increase the ban) but the gist of its meaning isn’t far from being an accurate reflection of the club's grounds for appeal.
The FA are clearly setting a precedent that if a player has been red carded correctly (when even the manager agrees) and you appeal, you are wasting our time and abusing a system that is in place to correct errors.
The popular consensus amongst Boro fans is that the FA hates us. This is not entirely true but you wouldn’t be entirely surprised if they did harbour a little resentment towards us when our top brass undermine the rules of the league that are put in place for everyone to obey.
Which came first, our repeated challenging of the rules and systems in place or the FA’s willingness to make an example of us as and when they can is a bit hazy.
Maybe the men at the top decided to appeal knowing that this could happen and that yet again being the victims of the FA’s fearful wrath would unite the club and its fans as we push forward in search of a Cup Final appearance at the stadium the FA built.
I doubt it.
Undermining the FA and its rules is something we have a habit of doing because the people at the top think they know best. It’s no wonder we are constantly the ones who are made an example of.
Same time next week
Up The Boro
RETURN TO THE ROCKLIFFE FILES INDEX HERE
 |
|
|
|
