Arsenal News
Arsenal News & Transfers
As featured on NewsNow: Arsenal newsArsenal News 24/7

Arsenal News, Only Arsenal, Blogs, Transfer News

Archives

August 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

UEFA: corrupt, criminal, incompetent or deluded?

The trouble with the UEFA vs Eduardo story is that the number of strands within it keeps getting bigger.

It is a bit like trying to grasp the nature of the universe.   Just when you have got your head around the fact that space and time are all part of the same entity, along comes string theory that says well actually you need ten dimensions not four, and two of those might be time.

Or something like that.

So, to begin at the end and work into the middle…

We know that top dogs at the Scottish Football Assn were instrumental in getting UEFA to consider using Article 10 (1) (c) of the UEFA codebook, an article which does indeed allow them to charge players retrospectively.   (I believe I suggested recently that there was no such statute – my apologies, there is.)

But it has never been used – because once it is, it opens up the opportunity for it to be called upon time and time again.  As the Lord Wenger has said, every action can be questioned from now on.

The Article also has the flaw in that it requires UEFA to look inside the mind of the players and know what they are thinking!

Did the SFA do this to support Celtic?  Ask a Celtic fan and he or she would scream with laughter – every Celtic fan I know, and I admit it is only a small number, tell me that the SFA is a masonic protestant organisation that is institutionally biased against their club.

It is also interesting that on the saturday after the Arsenal / Celtic game Celtic had a player sent off for diving – the Celtic manager blaming Arsenal for making Celtic and diving a high profile case.

So if the SFA did not act to support Celtic, then what we it all about?

To understand most criminal activity it is generally a good idea to understand motive.  What is UEFA’s motive in doing this?  Not to support Celtic, that’s true, because even if Arsenal had not got the first goal at the Ems, and had gone down to ten, I am not that sure that Celtic would have scored three and won.  That is too long a shot.

And, in my opinion, not really to hit Arsenal.  Eduardo is not playing every game – and so if he misses Standard L away on Sept 16, then he is more than likely to play against Manchester Arabs on September 12, and Wigan home on September 19.

The same is true next time: he might play against Fulham on 26 September, miss the Olympic game on 29th and play against Blackburn on October 4.

So if this doesn’t really hurt Arsenal or Celtic, then what is going on?

I think we have to look at other events – including the bizarre way in which UEFA comes out with, well, wild, crazy and eccentric statements such as the  notion that Chelsea and Milan support a restriction on spending by owners of clubs.

At the same time it does seem that UEFA would like to cut the power of the EPL – and particularly the Lord Wenger.   Arsene was the only EPL manager to say that game 39 overseas was a good idea.  He is one of the few to come out in favour of a Euro League away from the clutches of UEFA.  For UEFA he is the enemy within.

At the same time the EPL were desparate to get the media off the issue of the rioting at West Ham.  So it could be argued that things just came together – UEFA attack the pro-Euro League Wenger, and knock the EPL, while the EPL distract from West Ham by putting out the word to journalist friends that the big story is not West Ham, not a man being knifed, but one player falling over.

But I don’t think the picture is complete – although it is slowly coming together.

What is still unclear is why the SFA would join in so quickly?   Was it as revenge for the fact that Arsenal slaughtered Rangers in the Ems Cup and made Scottish football look foolish?  A bit of a long shot, but with people as deranged as those inside UEFA and the SFA seem to be, anything is possible.

What makes all this so interesting, and to conclude by returning to my scientific theme at the start, is that in science there is thing called Occam’s Razor, which in essence says, if looking for an explanation of a phenomenon, go for the simplest answer.

But what is the simplest answer to the fact that the SFA got in touch with UEFA and demanded that for the first time they actually use Article 10 (1) (c) and claim that they can see inside a player’s mind?  And what is the simplest answer to the question: why on earth did UEFA agree?

At the moment, I have no idea.  All suggestions welcome.

(c) Tony Attwood 2009

“Making the Arsenal” (which I manage to mention in just about every other post now, but somehow failed to slip in this time) is a novel, telling the story of the collapse of Woolwich Arsenal and the birth of the modern club through its take over by Norris in 1910.  It comes out in October, and guess what – I might actually mention it when the time comes.

30 comments to UEFA: corrupt, criminal, incompetent or deluded?

  • tester

    First time poster here! Tony you write the best articles on Arsenal. Keep them coming. I love a good conspiracy theory. Here is mine on the above…

    The Scottish FA was influenced by none other than the Scotsman in charge of Manchester B. Seeing as how we were due to play them a few days later, it was the perfect opportunity to brand the Arsenal as being cheats so as to influence the referee and the other officials.

    And as we all saw(Fletcher on Arshavin), influenced he was.

    I am almost certain that if it wasn’t the “dive” there would have been something else blown out of proportion by the media. And I am sure that if you follow the trail back to its origin, it would take you back to the Old Toilet!

    Let’s hear some more theories!

  • walter

    Two seasons ago there was an argument going on between Wenger and Platini. If I remember right it was about the 6+5 rule and about the signing of young players by Arsenal.
    In those days the relation between AW and Platini didn’t seem to be very good.
    In that period we reached the 1/4 final against Liverpool in the CL. And in the first game we got a ref who’s name is “Vink” and in Flanders we got a meat that we call: “blinde vink” and blinde=blind in English. (Vink is the name of a bird in Dutch but I do not know the English word) And indeed the ref was blind. He refused to see the clear pull from Kuyt on Hleb and we didn’t get the penalty. Okee you say: bad luck.
    But my first reaction (I sometimes look something behind things that just seem to happen) was: this is Platini.
    Then we played at Liverpool and looked to have qualified and then the ref suddenly gave a penalty for a blantant dive from Babel and out we went.
    And then I knew almost for sure: this was the hand of Platini.
    I know how referees get appointed for games on a higher level. If you please the head of the organisation (Platini in this case) as a ref you know you have more chance of getting even better games.
    Those refs are not dumb and know about the words exchanged between Platini and Wenger and they might think by themselves: “Hey, if I give my boss what he wants, maybe I get the chance of refereeing the CL final or a semi final”.
    I am not telling you that Platini takes his phone and calls the ref and says: “Hey I would like if if that Wenger loses his game” but the refs know about the incidents and this may slip in the mind of a ref.
    So these things can influence the refs on the field. I can assure you that if I see strange things in the CL this season, I guess I know what it is and where it comes from.
    Looking for ghosts ? Maybe but I know the situation from first hand in my own country and how it works in the higher leagues and its just disgusting.

  • rajivinindia

    Hi all Personally, I still find it very hard to get over defeats like this but just judging on performance rather than result, we did well in midfield with no Cesc. We held our own so credit to the lads. It wasn’t always perfect but we played a very positive brand… and we did so at Old Trafford. Not many teams dare do that. Not many teams r that confident or even capable. Ferguson playing a lone striker at HOME shows that he knows how dangerous we can be. RvP and Arsh tried…a very spirited performance from all.

    On the UEFA well there is not much needs to be said the artice magnificently sums it up – the theories are all true – they ARE ALL OUT TO GET US

  • tim

    You’re spot on connecting tbe Eduardo fiasco to West Ham/ Millwall. UEFA simply couldn’t have two huge “stains” on the game in the same week. Not when they are on a cash-hungry mission to spread the gospel of football worldwide.

    UEFA chose to follow the media’s lead in making Eduardo the scapegoat because it’s the easier case to handle. 1.) It let’s them show that they are in control, protecting the “sanctity” of the game 2.) Showing a picture of Eduardo falling is a lot prettier than showing pictures of drunk fans beating beating the crap out of each other, especially when somebody was knifed! 3.) It will probably take months before all the fans who were involved in West Ham/Millwall are identified and charged. The Eduardo fiasco, by contrast, allows swift action.

    Using the same logic, there’s no way in hell UEFA would ever charge Rooney for his similar action. Not when you have thousands of kids in Malaysia, the West Indies, or Sri Lanka wearing his famous red shirt!

  • tim

    as for why the SFA has acted like they have, i think, at some level, they genuinely believe that they were cheated (remember all those articles about how crucial they felt getting the first goal was?), and are on a holy war to protect the “sanctity of gentlemanly football” worldwide. they feel like they have the will of God and The People behind them.

    their arguments have no logic, and are full of moral righteousness. simply put, it’s really just a hissy fit because they lost out on millions of dollars of champions league money. it’s easy to whine when you are on such a high horse, especially one that’s backed by an army of anti-Arsenal journalists. ain’t that right, david taylor?

  • Gunnerz

    UEFA: corrupt, criminal, incompetent or deluded?

    All of the above choices…

  • rajivinindia

    Platini last week talked about limiting the amount of money a club can spend to turnover generated by a club. My question would be, would this finally kill domestic football, as we know it? I think it would. We see today that around Europe the different domestic leagues are more or less dominated by the same teams. Using England as an example, the top four positions in the league have been monopolised by the same four clubs. So, it is the same four clubs every season that are competing in the wealthiest competition in club football. Because of the worldwide coverage of the Champions League, and the fact that the same clubs compete in it, you find football fans from other countries picking their favourite teams based on who the most successful are. In Malaysia, its United, Liverpool, you don’t find people supporting Stoke City for example. These fans purchase merchandise from these clubs, generating a huge amount of turnover. If Platini gets his way, the gap between clubs competing in the Champions League and other domestic rivals will only increase as they can spend more than say Burnley who generate £xx less than Manchester United or Arsenal. What will then happen is the formation of a European Super League, because the same teams compete for domestic competitions. All of Europe¿s top clubs playing in one league. That¿s what will happen. If what Manchester City are doing now is not allowed to continue, football as we know it will die. How else are clubs going to compete? FIFA are acting too late, they should have been able to see this coming from a mile off and done something about it when they had the chance. All they will do by acting now is kill domestic football. But may be that was the master plan all along???

  • Marc

    Am I right in thinking that Scotland are about to play Croatia in a world cup qualifier? The whole Eduardo thing might just be Scotland trying to gain an advantage for the upcoming international, with Arsenal caught in the middle.

    rajivinindia – You are completely wrong, if we continue to allow clubs to overspend 2 things will happen i) Clubs like Liverpool will go bust trying to compete with the clubs who have sugar daddies. ii) Instead of ability being the benchmark and clubs who are well run and who pick talented managers prospering, the teams that dominate will be the ones with the richest owner. Conceivably a pub team could win the CL if a rich enough owner decided to fund it.

  • FZ

    David Taylor, ex Chief Executive of the SFA and now UEFA official. Gordon Smith current SFA Chief Executive. These are the two principal actors in the Eduardo saga. David Taylor has criticised Arsene Wenger for his comments and has denied any role in bringing charges against Eduardo, so vociferously that he is obviously as guilty as hell. Add in the fact the Michel Platini is openly at war with Arsene Wenger and there you have all the ingredients you need. Gordon Smith is out to make a name for himself, David Taylor is out to make a name for himself. That is all the motive you need. The great thing is that they are about to be hoisted by their own petard..and I think they have only just realised.

  • walter

    Gunnerz is right, it applies all.

    In fact it would be a great thing if Eduardo got a ban. It would bring the team together even more. It would be even more us against the rest of the world.
    We should do it without Eduardo at Standard which is a good thing because there are some players around who know how to break a leg.
    If you want to see some horor look at the internet on youtube for tackle witsel on wasylewski (f.e.: witsel breaks wasilewski leg in two). See first if you got something on hand to put in the content of your stomach after watching.
    Better not risk him against them anyway.

  • tim

    marc, while i agree that what you suggest will happen to clubs like liverpool (stupid rafa), i think rajivinindia does makes a valid point in that platini’s policy will further increase the difference between the haves and the have nots. it takes money and time to challenge the elites. while a club (say everton, for example) can, with a talented manager and smart decisions, slowly build up their team over time, the problem is that while this said club is building up slowly, the big boys like man u can further multiply their wealth through funding outlets unavailable to that club, and then they can poach their players. what platini’s plan amounts to is a gated community for clubs that are already well-established. it reeks of hypocrisy when platini says the driving force is someone like roman abramovich. as sean connery’s character said in The Untouchables, “It stinks more than a whorehouse at high tide!”

    that being said, i still hate man city.

  • Marc

    tim – There have always been powerful teams, there always will be. We have a simple choice between how teams become powerful. Either through intelligent management both on and off the pitch or by having rich owners spending way beyond the means of anyone else. If Man City continue they will eventually dominate, no one will be able to compete unless an even richer owner comes along. If we are going to pursue this route why do clubs need fans? The only person who now matters at Man City is the owner. They could play in an empty stadium and as long as the owner keeps chucking money at the club they can continue buying players and paying wages that no one can compete with.

    This does not reflect the sport I love and is the bigger threat to football. Platini is a twat, you only have to see his change to the CL format to see his attempt to even the playing field for smaller federations has just made it easier for the “big clubs”. I don’t care who brings the required changes but we must control the money in football and limit club spending to football related earnings. This of course will benefit Arsenal.

  • tim

    marc: you’re right. but what i’m saying is that what about the teams that are already powerful? that’s why this plan reeks of hypocrisy. i agree that man city needs to be stopped, but from their perspective, roman a., who did everything they are doing now, except a few years ago before the economic recession, already got his share of the cake, and now wants his henchman platini to take away all the plates.

    i think there is a better way. for example, american sports implement things like salary caps or luxury taxes…maybe that might be a better way. but with soccer being so global–and with an ass clown of an organization like uefa–it’s pretty freaking hard to pull off.

  • Marc

    tim – Unfortunately there is no perfect solution but if they were to limit wages to say 50% of turnover and link transfer fees with profit or the balance sheet of the club it would make clubs like Chelsea run like Arsenal. If this were to be introduced for the start of next season Chelsea would have to either massively increase turnover (if they could do this they would have already) or cut their wages bill. All round a win win for Arsenal and any other clubs that operate correctly. The major problem is stopping the rich owners getting round the rules. What is to stop Man City’s owner paying £100 million a year for a seat?

  • LRV

    Tony you constantly outdo yourself. Another fantastic piece. Taylor & Smith definitely have their own agenda, whatever that may be. Plantini has not in any way surprised me. Two motivations, without doubt, for him are: (1). His hatred of English Football and (2). His envy & jealousy of Arsene Wenger. Whatever else is an addendum.

    Maybe a lot of our fans have not realised this, but there is a phobia now that Arsenal could genuinely sneak in and take the title this season. Consider all the made-up stories from preseaon to all these events now happening. Doesn’t it make sense, then, that they panic & use every available means to prevent Arsenal settling too comfortably?

  • Gf60

    Apologies for late arrival. I love a good conspiracy theory but Tester (1st post) has hit the nail on the head! Red nose was on his cell phone every time that the cameras showed him at the Celtic game. Oh for a track on those calls.

  • walter

    You’r right LRV.
    Before the season the pundits and most other people wrote us off.
    Then came preseason and the first games and everything went not like the pundits said but like Wenger had said : Arsenal is on his way up and are very close to deliver the good times back to the Emirates. First they thought : oh just a one game lucky streak. But then Arsenal showed that the young boys maybe are not 100 % on top but lets say for 80 % (I still believe there is room for major improvement in this team and they will even get better in the next months)
    This can not happen for people like Platini and other persons in English football.
    So panic and red alert : we got to stop them.
    In the PL they try to stop us like 2 seasons ago: by bad referees who blow soft penaltys against us and not give us penalty even when they are blatant for everyone to see.
    In the CL they will try to stop us by looking at every tumble and try to ban players.

    I can understand that someone who is looking from outside will say: why would they bother to try to stop the Arsenal.
    Well just because we are the Arsenal. We are all what the big fellas at the top dislike. Not English enough, a foreign manager who does everything the other way than the English do, a manager who is disliked bij Platini and argues with him on every occasion, we do it carefully financialy.
    But all this makes me realise and more determined than ever: I’m a fan of the BEST CLUB IN THE WORLD.
    Nothing and nobody can take my pride away.

  • Jazbo

    Another great artical, i agree with all of what you have wriiten and must say that i look foreward to your thoughtfull insights concerning all things Arsenal.

    Keep up the good work

  • walter

    I never read the tester entry until now and well why not.

    We alle know that AF is a person who likes to destabilise a team.
    If you look at it again:
    We had to play in midweek, MU not = disadvantage for the Arsenal.
    Instead of a calm preparation for the MU game we had to answer a lot of questions and we were treated like the most criminal team in the galaxy. again not a good thing when you should be preparing a topmatch.
    And despite all this we played very well and even without some major players …
    I think it is like Tony said just after the game: this will make us stronger

  • jbh

    Tony, key point is that AW mentioned the likely establishment of a Euro Super League after the first Celtic match. He didn’t have to mention it and did it in a clever way in response to the question about whether Celtic would join the EPL (“no but they might be part of the Super League”). This (Super League) would be an unmitigated disaster for UEFA, hence a warning shot across the bows by Platini towards Arsenal. This is not due to the history between Platini and AW but something far more dangerous for Platini.

  • Gooner in Kansas

    I used to respect Mowbray, but what a twit to blame Arsenal for McGeady’s booking. He might better have blamed Boruc for his reaction, and some of this other players who accosted Eduardo right after the alleged dive.

  • mark

    Having seen a frame of Witsel breaking Wasilewski’s leg, I think we need to cut to the chase here.

    The football authorities are criminally negligent, or to be factual about it, have their heads stuck up their own arses.

    These authorities have had years to retrospectively punish wrongdoers, from the benign, such as Maradona and his high profile cheating, to the malign……..and we can cite any number of players who have gone in to challenges with criminal intent.

    Given the laws of libel, I won’t name names, because any footballer can argue that their challenge was for the ball. But we all can think of cases where a player has gone in with the unmistable intent to harm an opposition player. Of course, the grey areas start when we try to prove intent….but football should have long ago established criteria for severely punishing dangerous play.

    Now we watch Wayne Rooney week after week throw a hissy fit and hack someone down, and week after week he goes unpunished.

    We see lethal challenges go by with not a flicker from the football authorities.

    We watch Manchester United for years using bullying tactics to influence referees…..tactics that have serious social consequences, because they teach young people that authority figures are a tiresome inconvenience when you are squealing for your own infantile way.

    All in all the football authorities are criminally negligent.

    The fact that they’ve now decided to throw the book at Eduardo,
    who does not have a history of serial cheating, and who looked well within his rights to dive and avoid an impending crunch with 15 stone of sliding goalkeeper, just says it all.

    Corrupt, incompetent, yup, and whatever other adjectives you choose to name…….

  • mark

    You mention, Tony, that the SFA is a masonic organisation. I guess there are probably quite a lot of masons in these organisations. Powers and principalities in high places ……

    Perhaps I will not bother getting angry anymore, but instead pray for these people.

    It is possible that they don’t like people who declare their Christianity, like Eboue, in the team.

  • Paul

    I love the response by Arsenal on Arsenal.com on this one. Doesn’t look like they are going to take it lying down and I don’t see why we should. I eagerly await UEFA’s explanation behind the ban because I can’t honestly see how it can stand. the only place such shit would float would be in a dictatorial regime, which in retrospect, appears to be exactly what UEFA is.

  • walter

    Walk between the line or else…
    That’s what uefa is all about.
    Any team that does not walk between their lines is in trouble. And yes the Arsenal is a team that does not walk between the lines and that goes its own independent way. And it makes me proud to be a small part of that club.
    Wenger sees things long before us and anticipates on those things before we realise it.
    If people would listen more to him, football would be a nicer world and fairer world.

  • Abhishek

    A true witch hunt

    Till now I thought UEFA was atleast right in starting a precendent by punishing us. But just now came across this article which has said that referee was against changing his decision but was ignored.

    Now this is heights coz.

    1) First you pick 2 players in 3 years to punish. No they are not horrific fouls committed which broke someone’s legs. Instead both are simple dives.

    2) You punish them more than what he was to get otherwise (yellow card).

    3) You are ready to break all the rules coz referee is not ready to toe your line.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...

    “On the night, the referee awarded a penalty and he stood by his decision when questioned later about the incident. Yet UEFA’s disciplinary inspector ignored him and, instead, spoke only to the referee’s observer before issuing the charge last Friday.

    It actually goes against a FIFA ruling which states the referee’s word is final if the man in black says he has already dealt with the incident – something we have seen so many times when the FA have declared themselves powerless to act because the match officials had seen it for themselves.”

  • Trickythespur

    Yes I am a spur, and am visiting purely on the recommendation of a goon who I regularly cross paths with on another forum.

    To answer the question in simple terms are UEFA criminal? – well, unfortunately no, as the rule makers they are free to make and apply rules as tehy see fit in accordance with (their own) guidlines. The only checks and balances is the Court of Arbitration for Sport, who in the main don’t want to get involved in what effectively is an application of a governing bodies own costitution.

    Criminally negligent? – is a different situation to the eduardo dive but does apply to the leg break, you need to be careful with this one as case law (condon v basi) allows for actual harm during the course of undertaking a sport (the taking part implies assumed consent – even if the actions and consequences are outside of the normal rules of the game). And so to be sidetracked by issues where actualy harm has occured without the ‘intention to deceive’ is not relevant under the circumstances.

    Corrupt? – highly likely as any political structure where the is a power base and a constitution will attract those that would seek to gain that power by whatever means possible (anyone who has read hitchhikers guide by Mr Adams will know that it applies universally). But probably not corrutp in a way that is enforcable from an outside party.

    Incompetent? – most probably, but the interesting thing is not how they dealt with the dive (which I would hope is not in question) but what the implications of using technology retrospectively are. In all probability they will seek to apply their use ina narrow way, as eduardo was specificaly charged with ‘attempting to deceive officials’, this would mean that: Rivaldo in the WC holding his face, a certain C Ronaldo trying to get W rooney set off and other examples of a similar ilk would be up for debate in the future.
    The issue here is not whether or not a decision was correct at the time, but what was the intention on the player. Unfortunately it is probably the close up of eduardo as he flows towards the camera, takes a check back as the ref and smiles that has been critical in this part of the equation. And so the media and technology plays an important part, and that for me is the most intriguing aspect of all this.

    So they have now set a precedent, the question is how they apply it. I personally hope that it is now applied rigourosly and fairly, otherwise they make a mockery of their own decision. They will not overturn previous decisons given at the time unless there is ‘an intention to decieve’, as that is what UEFA appear to be trying to cut out of the game. And if they manage it, then good, it gives a level playing field for all.

    Eduardo was maybe unlucky to be the first player to have been so blatently caught out in a high profile game, they had to do something about it (diving and deceipt) and so this season appears to be the one that they are trying to support the refs. Like I said if it works then it is in fact good for the fans, however (and maybe this is a longer answer than necessary) will they, well only time will tell and this will determine their competence or otherwise.

    I personally wouldn’t see this as a witch hunt, but can see how the fans feel like they have been singled out, just because they are the first to have suffered this fate. And until this scenario surfaces again, and there won’t be 40-50 incidents a week like this one a whinger suggests, we will not know how ‘competent’ or able to equally apply the rules the governing body will be.

    And as for ‘are they deluded?’, well as I see it (rightly or wrongly) what do you expect a lot of the people in the position of power are either ex-players or have been involved in the game for so long that they have removed themselves from what we would call ‘normal’, the real question is should we be surprised that they are deluded?.

    nb. Eboue didn’t do you lot any favours in the honesty stakes against united either, clearly he wasn’t read to as a small child, in particular the story of ‘the boy who cried wolf’.

    nb2. in all seriousness if you start quoting the daily mail to support any arguement you’re probably fighting a losing corner, they are as anti-europe (ergo UEFA) as UEFA are anti-anything that removes power from their hands (i.e. the EPL itself).

    And whinger isn’t some miraculous visionary that you seem to think he is. He is sufficiently intelligent to see how to position his arguement to the media for his own purposes, and does things his own way because he thinks it is right. But my question on his integrity is why he did not say to his players ‘whatever you do against United do not dive’ or if he did why did he not vilify eboue when the eyes of the world were watching so carefully! His ringfencing and protectionism is as much to blame with his being at odd with the outside world, as the outside world is for not embracing some of his ideas. But I am guessing you won’t see that as anything other than a slur on your manager (which to be fair it almost is)

  • Mark

    You make some fair points, but you’ve not really grasped the nettle tricky.

    Precisely because football authorities have to police the game – and since it is extremely difficult to bring a criminal case against someone who acts violently on the pitch – they have a responsibility to the players to ensure that violence is not condoned on the pitch.I would argue that they have failed to do that, and I would suggest that it is a form of negligence on their part, maybe criminal negligence…..but I`m not a lawyer.

    The authorities seem more concerned with the image of the game rather than the welfare of the players.

    But the nub of the matter is that in adjudicating violent play, you don’t necessarily need to ascribe a motive. You just say it was reckless or dangerous play.

    But in adjudicating the dive, they have opted to ascribe a motive….deception of the referee. This is a misapplication of the law in question, which I suspect was not created for the purpose of dealing with diving. Since there is no evidence that Eduardo sought to deceive the referee, it would seem to the outside observer very strange that they have levelled this charge against him.

    The correct offence is not ‘diving’, because a player can dive for various reasons, but ‘simulation.’

    If they want to create an offence, it is simulating a foul.

    In Eduardo’s case, they would have a problem already, because there is no clear evidence that Eduardo wasn’t fouled.

    But getting back to motive, even if Eduardo had not made contact with the goalkeeper, it is easier to charge him with simulation rather than deceit, because it deals with the appearance of his behaviour rather than the motivation behind his behaviour.

  • Mark

    Article 10, paragraph 1c of the UEFA disciplinary regulations

    “Players may be suspended for two competition matches, or for a specified period, for acting with the obvious intent to cause any match official to make an incorrect decision or supporting his error of judgment and thereby causing him to make an incorrect decision.”

    This is the article under which Eduardo was found guilty.

    This article of Law clearly does not refer to the act of diving, or of exaggerating the effects of a foul.

    Why?

    Because if after a foul you then dive conspicuously, you are helping the referee to make the correct decision.You are showing him, just in case he didn’t see it, that you were fouled. Therefore you would be acting with the obvious intent of helping the referee to make the right decision.

    This article is aimed at those who attempt to con the referee.
    I.E by simulating a foul.

  • mark

    Actually, its the phrase ‘Obvious intent’ that most undermines Uefa.

    If the referee, having reviewed the camera footage, still believes it was a foul and a penalty, then it is clearly not a case of an OBVIOUS dive, committed with OBVIOUS intent.

    Either that or Uefa is saying that their referees are moronic half-wits.

    The whole business is a sordid shambles.