Is the two-match European ban a brave judgment or a stupid one? And do Uefa have any hope of upholding this ruling?
It is a cowardly judgment that was made simply to appease the English press. Uefa will find it very difficult to show any consistency going forward.
The general principle before this incident seems to have been that there should be no retrospective judgment if a referee has seen an incident during play. But in the Eduardo case the referee did see it. Therefore, it should not have been reviewed. But it was reviewed. What that means is that Uefa has made a rod for itself, leaving the governing body in a ridiculous position.
From now on every incident of diving, even if it is spotted by the referee, will have to be punished by a two-match suspension - even if it is only a yellow card offence in the rule book. So does that mean you hand out suspensions every time a referee books a player for diving?
It is the worst piece of judicial bungling I have ever come across in all my years of covering football.
Advertisement
Will Uefa now come unstuck over less obvious cases of diving?
Eduardo’s dive wasn’t clear. It was quite a shock to return from the Champions League draw and see the incident so many witnesses had condemned. The first time I watched it was in the Sky TV studio before filming Sunday Supplement. There were four journalists there, now bear in mind you can’t get four journalists to agree on anything, but we all said we couldn’t be 100 per cent certain it was dive.
So how Uefa, with the benefit of the replays we saw, came to the conclusion they did is beyond belief. I can only assume the witch-hunt mentality that Arsene Wenger has alluded to has spread to Uefa, which personally I find very worrying. I have never known such a mess.
How will Uefa police this in the future?
Uefa appear to favour retrospective punishment to video assistance for referees during matches, when wrongs could actually be righted on the advice of the fourth official. But Michel Platini is against video assistance full stop, so we will see more additional assistants, known as AARs, introduced. This policy does offer hope of a substantial improvement in justice without the hazards of video, so I like the concept.
Advertisement
An official on the goalline may have spotted the Eduardo incident and it could have been addressed immediately.
Where does all this leave the referees?
It is very difficult for a referee to police the rules as they stand, without having to play God by getting into players’ heads. There are times when there is no contact and you can see with a certain degree of certainty that was a dive but most of the time that is not the case even with the aid of video evidence.
The referees are in an extremely difficult position and Uefa have set the most dangerous precedent imaginable.
How will this play out from here?
Advertisement
Uefa have got two choices: what they should do is overturn their decision and allow Arsenal’s appeal. But what they will do is probably reduce Eduardo’s ban to one match - which is the worst outcome of all.
To take the step of admitting they have mishandled the situation is probably beyond Uefa. If they did have any honour and decency they would admit they have got this wrong. What they will probably do is uphold their ruling, maybe reducing it to a one-match ban, and then they will not touch diving again. Uefa will just hope this has the salutary effect and hope they can ride it out.
What does this mean for the wider game?
There was an incident in the Bolton Wanderers v Liverpool game on Saturday when Fernando Torres was brilliantly tackled by Zat Knight in the penalty area. The tackle was clean but slightly from behind, so Torres went over Knight’s outstretched leg and took a tumble. Torres made no attempt to claim a penalty and the referee waved play on. But Knight and Gary Cahill then stood over Torres calling him a diver and we are going to get a lot more of that from now on.
Because of Uefa’s ruling, those players, ie the ones calling Torres a diver, could be banned for two matches for simulation. Which means “acting with obvious intent to make any match official make an incorrect decision”. So if we were going to be consistent, Knight and Cahill would be looking at a two-match ban. It is a crazy situation.