By Billy “the Dog” McGraw, resident psycho analyst at the Football Association
Gabriel Paulista was not sent off at Chelsea, or if he was sent off he should not have been and thus has not got to serve a ban of three matches for a twitch of the leg against the alien beast Costa.
Arsenal’s appeal was on the fact that the dismissal should never have happened. The panel, said that since Dean was a vegetable he was unable to make a judgement and thus wrong. Actually I may have overplayed that a bit and may not be quite accurate in my reporting, but anyway they said Dean was wrong – even though Dean had a perfect and uninterrupted view of the event. (That is odd – normally they use the get out clause of the fact that the ref did not have a clear view and that the Video Ref system was… well, wasn’t.)
Next… what happens to the manifestation known as Dean. The Guardian says he “can expect to be demoted from the Premier League list.” Well, well. And with only 87294 having signed the petition. But don’t give up – Dean might sneak back and the aim of the petition is to evacuate him from the presence of Arsenal forever.
So no red for Gabriel and technically he could play against the Tiny Totts tomorrow, but is unlikely to, given that Mert is fit and well.
But, and this is now the BIG story, Gabriel reacted to being sent off, and had to be aided by his team mates. So the FA is now charging him with failing to leave the field of play AFTER HE WAS NOT SENT OFF!!!!!!!!
That charge is improper conduct – a charge levied by an improper authority. So I suppose it is balanced. The FA is very likely to go after this offence and find him guilty because they can then fine Gabriel, and the FA needs every penny it can lay its hands on. It recently made about a third of its staff redundant, so desperate is its financial situation.
As suggested before, the precedent has been set with Nemanja Matic saw his ban reduced after reacting to a dangerous tackle by Burnley’s Barnes, with the FA accepting over a glass of sweet sherry that he had used a moderate “level of force” when pushing.
The FA also has a charge against both Chelsea and Arsenal for failing to control their players. So what will they do with this one? Arsenal had no one in the fracas sent off and rightly so. But Chelsea had no one sent off and should have done. So there is a disparity.
One thing is certain: the most likely outcome is going to be the wrong one.
Meanwhile Dr Carneiro is reported by the BBC to have left Chelsea, despite pleas from the club for her to stay, and it seems that given that the Premier League has failed to take action against Chelsea (word is Chelsea threatened all sorts of things against the PL if the PL did take action) she is free to sue them herself. (Legal action is strongly discouraged by employees against a football club, although of course the law of the land permits it. These things are supposed to be sorted out internally).
The claim, if it is made, will be constructive dismissal, which in essence means that the employer behaves in a way that makes it impossible for the employee to carry on. So, for example, a contract might not say that a senior person in a company has an office, but if the company move him/her from his prestigious office into the data room among the IT geeks, that sort of action is good grounds for constructive dismissal.
It is reported that Dr Carneiro was told she should not attend training sessions, matches or be part of the preparations for a game at the team hotel, each of which would alone be grounds for a constructive dismissal charge.
The essence of the case has never been in doubt. The medical team were twice waved onto the pitch by the ref. The manager then called her naive and reduced her role at the club.
Then, with Chelsea already deep in the mire Mourinho destroyed any last vestige of hope that his club might have had of having a case, by making a public criticism of Dr Carneiro. If you want to be sued by an employee engage in what is known as “public humiliation” – that usually does it.
The basic law of England concerning working relationships makes it clear that the employer cannot and must not, without reasonable and proper cause, “conduct itself in a manner calculated and likely to destroy or seriously damage the relationship of trust and confidence between employer and employee.”
The old dinosaur of the Football Association is investigating a complaint that Mourinho used abusive language during the incident which is also an offence in football. If Mourinho were found guilty he could be banned from the touchline for five games. But this is the FA and Mourinho so the chances are he will probably be given a knighthood.
The allegation is that the Chelsea “manager” called the Doctor a son of a bitch in Portuguese. As the Doctor is Gibraltarian she speaks Spanish and Portuguese as well as she speaks English.
Heather Rabbatts of the FA said that, “Eva was one of the few very senior women in the game, a highly respected doctor who has acted with professional integrity in difficult circumstances and whose skills have been highly praised by her colleagues, the club and governing bodies.”
But, you know, that’s Chelsea.