Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
Eduardo Ban Betrays Concepts of Justice
by Paul Gardner, September 4th, 2009 12:46AM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner



By Paul Gardner

Back to the courts we go -- not the real courts, not the legal bodies, but these special quasi-legal, pseudo-legal bodies, these disciplinary bodies that the professions set up keep their own members in order.

We've been down this route earlier this year, the one that leads to UEFA's Disciplinary Committee. In April that committee was called upon to hear Barcelona's appeal against English referee Howard Webb's diving call on Lionel Messi in a Champions League game. The DC got out of that one rather nicely by announcing that it was not allowed to change the factual decision of a referee (except, perhaps, in cases of the mistaken identity of a player). So it never heard the appeal at all, and Webb's absurd call was allowed to stand -- meaning that Messi was labeled a cheat.

Now we have the case of Arsenal's Eduardo. Already labeled a cheat by the British press, this verdict has now been confirmed by the UEFA DC. Oh yes, said the DC, definitely, Eduardo dived in the game against Glasgow Celtic. He wasn't touched by Celtic's goalkeeper Artur Boruc. Therefore Eduardo was guilty of attempting to "deceive the referee," therefore he has been banned for the next two Arsenal games in Europe.

Arsenal has announced that it will lodge an appeal against the decision -- and well it should. It is a quite outrageous decision. Before the DC even sat down to its deliberations, there was a problem. Why was it investigating this particular case? Both the referee and the assistant referee concerned had confirmed the decision made at the time, which was to give Arsenal a penalty kick. Thereby ruling out a dive by Eduardo.

The "Scots" complained, though -- not so much Celtic as the Scottish FA. Evidently that sort of political pressure pays off. So the DC was called into action in unusual circumstances.

What follows is something that we should be used to by now -- but which the soccer community should howl and protest about until things are changed. It is the same old high-and-mighty attitude of the rule-makers in the sport. They make a decision -- an important one -- and do not feel obliged to issue a full explanation of their reasoning or of the evidence weighed.

In Eduardo's case, the evidence must be video evidence. Eduardo himself has not been heard -- his busy schedule with Arsenal and Croatia has ruled that out. Never mind. The things to bear in mind in a crypto-hearing of this sort are just two, but they are two absolutely fundamental concepts of justice: 1) the presumption of the innocence of the accused; and 2) that, in the verdict, justice be not only done, but that it be seen to be done -- meaning that the deliberations of the "court" must be open to full public scrutiny.

The points are vital in the Eduardo case. It is essential to know what video evidence the DC viewed in reaching its guilty verdict. I have closely and repeatedly watched the videos that have come up on line and can state, unequivocally, that a guilty verdict based on any of those is simply unsustainable. Maybe UEFA has access to better videos -- OK, but we must see them.

In lodging its appeal against UEFA's two-game ban, Arsenal had this to say: "We strongly believe that the decision taken is deeply flawed and not based on any forensic view of the video evidence available. There are obvious errors and inconsistencies in UEFA's judgement ..."

There certainly are. But one inevitably has grave doubts about the appeal procedure. Why would it be any more transparent than the DC's original hearing?

To go back to the very beginning. These calls -- a sprawling goalkeeper, a speeding forward -- are difficult ones for the referee to make. In fact, before his decision, they are difficult plays for both the forward and the goalkeeper.

Some considerable wisdom on this topic has come, today, from England's Wayne Rooney -- another forward accused of taking a dive when challenged by a goalkeeper (Arsenal's Manuel Almunia). After protesting his innocence, Rooney added his opinion that the decisions are best left to the referee, not to post-game tribunals: "It is difficult to prove. You see some that should not have been penalties but get given and others that are clear and do not. The decisions are down to the referee. It is a difficult job but they do the best they can."

Just so. Accept the referee's decision, unless there is some glaringly egregious reason for believing it to be wrong. Yet Manuel Gonzalez, the Spanish referee involved in the Eduardo incident, is being second-guessed -- and has been over-ruled by the UEFA DC -- on the flimsiest of evidence.

I guess you never know, but I'll admit to an almost total lack of faith that the UEFA DC will admit an error and correct an injustice -- or even admit that there was never any reason why Eduardo's alleged offense should have been singled out for investigation.


  1. Austin Gomez
    commented on: September 4, 2009 at 9:36 a.m.
    ! RIGHT ON / LEFT OFF!, as usual, Paul........................................ AmG
  1. Ian Plenderleith
    commented on: September 4, 2009 at 1:06 p.m.
    Poor Eduardo. Because we all saw him stand up and tell the referee that there had been no contact, and so he didn't want the penalty. And then we rejoiced at his sportsmanship as he deliberately missed. While it's maybe true that we can not prove for certain that Eduardo dived, we can make a reasonable judgment based on the evidence, and if UEFA is tackling this issue by setting a precedent and clamping down on cheats, good for them. But then I would say that because I am a "Scot" (though I prefer Hamilton Accies to Celtic).

Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
The Mauro Diaz tragedy: MLS at fault    
So we've seen the last of Mauro Diaz for this season. He will not be part ...
Another over-hyped game turns into an unwatchable 0-0 bore-draw    
You will have been aware of the recent game between Liverpool and Manchester United. Won't you ...
The Maturing of Wayne Rooney    
Wayne Rooney's career is coming to a close. Which seems ridiculous, given that my memory informs ...
Big Sam's Big Fall     
Poor Sam Allardyce. Well, maybe. Depends how you see things. Not long ago, Allardyce was one ...
De Jong's barren MLS stint helps debunk the holding-midfielder myth    
Holding midfielder. Defensive midfielder. Are they the same animal? I'm not sure. And frankly, I don't ...
Jordan Morris: ruthless enough to be a great goalscorer?     
The pitiful lack of clarity that infests English-language soccer terminology was intriguingly exposed in Taylor Twellman's ...
The truly Greek Olympic final: Apollo vs. Dionysus     
So the men's Olympic final comes down to this: Apollo vs. Dionysus. Apollo, god of reason ...
Under-17 age cheating and FIFA's mysterious MRI tests    
FIFA's Under-17 World Cup -- for me, the liveliest and the most enjoyable of all the ...
Olympians bring back soccer with a smile, Brazilian soccer    
Watching Brazil toy with Denmark was quite like old times. Not so old, of course -- ...
The tedious Martyrdom of Marsch -- but he happens to be right     
The New Jersey Red Bulls, it seems to me, had every reason to be miffed after ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives