Some questions people will be considering after Aluko ban.

08 December 2011 13:44
Another bad day for the SFA under The Transparent Mr. Regan.

Given that the last person to be given a ban for simulation under these new procedures was later cleared – and this after his own asst. Manager had acknowledged the player had cheated (1) – what do we make of today’s SFA decision to uphold the two-match ban for Rangers’ Sone Aluko?

Is it worth noting that Hibernian striker Gary O’Connor - the man of whom Bobby Brown told the nation on Sportscene: "It was a dive and we got a wee break there” – is someone that national coach Craig Levein is very keen on welcoming back into the international fold once his ‘personal’ problems are concluded?

Should we be asking who was on this panel of transparent men who – and let’s be very clear here – reviewed the incident and found clear evidence to suggest the player had cheated, when the footage available is – at best – inconclusive?  The panel have to be sure that the referee – who was in a good position – was conned and that the available materials can, beyond any doubt, prove that the player dived. How this can be accomplished with the video and stills evidence presented beggars belief.

But, as this decision cannot be appealed, it doesn’t matter who made it or why they made it. That's it. Get it round ye, Rangers.

At what point are Scotland’s officials – and you’ll remember here they weren’t best pleased last season – going to consider the intervention of the Compliance Officer, Vincent Lunny, to be more of a curse than a blessing? Those in the game who are in favour of action – specifically that taken against the Rangers player – claim the CO is merely correcting a mistake or amending a decision somehow ‘missed’ by the official. The official didn’t, however, miss anything – he was in perfect position and gave a penalty.  If the CO is to make a point of looking at moments in games where a referee may have made a mistake then there are a good number in recent weeks he appears to have been too busy to consider: why, for example, did we see a Greek player fake injury to get a fellow pro sent off, and why did said player spend several minutes on the field seeking treatment for an injury that did not exist?

Why, after the clear precedent established in the O’Connor case, was the case against Rangers upheld?

Clearly, it’s not because of institutional bias, but nor is it because the evidence in the Aluko matter is clearly more substantial than in that of the Scotland international O’Connor. It’s dangerous to try to get inside the minds of some of those paid to talk and write about Scottish football (see, for example, Matt Lindsay of the Evening Times’ hysterical tweets today) or indeed those with a legal background (witness John Paul Mcbride’s remarkable recent record and most notably his comments on juries) but it’s hard to come up with a sensible reason.

Perhaps Aluko simply isn’t one of those players with whom pundits have an affinity. He’s non-white, and, although born in England, is from a Nigerian background, so to all intents and purposes is a ‘Johnny Foreigner’ and it’s always been the perceived wisdom amongst the red-tops and the idiot phone-in culture that the foreign players, with the silly names, are more likely to cheat. The fact he seems a personable chap and isn’t someone for whom controversy may as well be a middle name – see the ludicrous O’Connor – clearly doesn’t penetrate the minds of some.

What must also be cleared up is the lineage of a complaint: as it stands, and perfectly legitimate under the SFA’s own guidelines, it can go as follows:

Someone listening to the radio (not even watching a game) can text or email a radio station and say “Player X dived, that’s scandalous” and said radio station – in this case, Radio Scotland this past Saturday - will read it out and make it a talking-point during Richard Gordon’s half-time summary. From there, said radio station and those who Tweet will pick up on it and the incident will – of course – be placed in the highlights provided by the BBC for online viewers and the fifteen people still watching Rob McLean try to stir someone into conversation on Sportscene (McLean’s tweet trailing Sportscene on Sunday was all about the Aluko ‘dive’ and how he hates diving).

Listener>BBC Radio>BBC TV>CO

Now, that would of course be fair enough but there’s a huge problem here, as anyone who follows the editing of the highlights will be aware: What if an incident isn’t in the highlights or the BBC don’t fancy pushing it? Is that it? Does that make it less likely to be “brought to the attention” of the CO?

The answer here – unless you really believe Lunny asks for and then studies the full tape of each and every SPL game every weekend – is YES.

I’m not sure, in light of recent developments, that we should be at all comfortable with having to rely on the decency or the editorial judgement or independence of someone who is entirely unaccountable.

No doubt people will come to their own conclusions regarding the Aluko matter (and many will not only be wondering about O’Connor and about other missed incidents but noting how many times a player could be booked for diving during a game until he would have run up the equivalent of today’s sentence) but there are wider considerations which lead to deeply troubling conclusions for the SFA and the ability to offer transparency and a system which is fair to all member clubs.

Rangers must not be slow in responding and noting their own concerns. Those who have previously complained most loudly and vociferously have, after all, been duly rewarded.

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15160202.stm

Source: FOOTYMAD