English FA has set a dangerous precedent
Almost a week after the dust has settled, the English FA is handling the aftermath of the London Derby between Arsenal and Chelsea. There was definitely no love lost between the two, with Chelsea getting the better of their rivals 2–0. Arsenal finished with 9 men on the pitch, and Chelsea were three points richer.
However, the scoreline was barely the main talking point in the match.
The major flash point in the game was around the 43rd minute, when Chelsea’s Diego Costa was caught on camera physically attacking Arsenal’s Laurent Koscielny, hitting him in the face and using too much of his body to gain an advantage in the box. Minutes later, he used his chest to knock the French defender over, and this is when the controversy really began.
Arsenal’s youngster Gabriel came over to defend his teammate, and got into it with Costa. They both “handled each other” along with using abusive language. Neither acted according to FA standard, that is for certain. Both received yellow cards on the play.
However, after walking away from the initial incident, the two stayed at it. Gabriel was caught flicking his heel at Costa as he backed into him. Unfortunately for the youngster, Mike Dean, the match’s referee, was right there. He saw it, and went straight to his red card. Gabriel was sent off, leaving much of Stamford Bridge in awe of what had occurred. Obviously, this benefitted Chelsea and the Blues went on to win the game, especially after their insurance goal once Arsenal went down to 9 men.
The major talking point at the end of the match was Gabriel and Costa. Should have Costa have been sent off? Absolutely, there is no question his actions were outside the lines of the sport. It deserved a yellow card at minimum, with a red card probably justified. Thanks to visual evidence, the Spaniard was caught, charged and banned all within a tidy three days. The 27-year-old will serve a three match ban, with his first match already being completed midweek, with Chelsea defeating League One side Walsall, 4–1.
Chelsea released a statement expressing their disappointment with the FA’s decision, especially given their lack of explanation of the ban.
The bigger issue is the fact that the FA also decided to repeal Gabriel’s ban, expressing that he was wrongfully sent off. This to me is where they went wrong. Costa was at fault, they established that by retrospectively punishing him. However, by repealing Gabriel’s suspension they condone his behavior. This means that his heel flick was deemed okay. His obvious attempts at retaliation allowed. This is absolutely where they lost legitimacy.
There has always been an emphasis in soccer to protect players against retaliation. Regardless of initial actions, there is always a need to make sure the issue ends there. Last season contains a perfect example.
Chelsea’s Nemanja Matic was on the receiving end of a horror tackle by Burnley’s Ashley Barnes. It was studs up, high on Matic’s leg. It should have been a straight red. However, Matic got up and pushed Barnes over. He received a red card and a three-match suspension. Barnes was let off without so much as a yellow card. Is this the correct action? No. Barnes should have also gotten a red, or retrospective punishment or something. But the FA chose to allow it to pass, opting to punish retaliation instead.
So if that was the case last season, how is Gabriel’s incident any different?
Matic’s push last year served to wound Barnes’ ego, not cause injury. Although Gabriel’s heel flick failed to cause harm, it’s the action of retaliation that creates fault. Mike Dean CORRECTLY chose to send off Gabriel for this reason. Even Arsene Wenger, Arsenal’s manager, admitted in a press conference after the game that his player was at fault. The FA should have upheld Dean’s decision, as it was clear retaliation. They set the precedent with Matic last season, and they needed to uphold it this season. Instead, they chose to go after the initial offender, Costa, which begs the question, where was this action last season against Barnes?
We live in a time where we have the ability to watch games after they happen. On paper this ability to retrospectively punish players should be a great tool in the pocket of the FA. They should be using it to follow the rules, keep players safe, and uphold/set precedent. However, it needs to be fair across the board. They should have punished Barnes last season, and they should have upheld Gabriel’s red this season. These inconsistencies are what give the FA a bad reputation. They need to follow their own precedents, use logic in making decisions, and use the retrospective power to make the English Premier League better.
They haven’t done that this season, and they didn’t last season. It’s a dangerous precedent to create. What motivation do players have to play within the rules, if the rules themselves have more gray areas than the league intends? The FA is quickly moving down a dangerous path.
Furthermore, offering these incredibly short statements aren’t doing them any good, as they provide almost no insight into there decisions. If they truly believe their logic is legitimate, than it’s their duty to publicly defend them. Otherwise they become this mysterious governing body, one that has no system of checks and balances, supreme overbearing authority, and no evidence to back up their decisions. That’s not what the FA needs to be.
Overall, the English Premier League is the most popular league in football. There is the most competition, some of the greatest players in the world, and passionate fanbases. A league like this deserves oversight that makes sense, a governing body who is transparent and fair. The only consistent thing the FA has done in recent years, is be inconsistent.
