Cricket escapes censure; right or wrong?

As soon as the window smashed at Lord's you could hear the journalists' keyboards being frantically tapped, the headlines had been made.

Matt Prior, the England wicket keeper, had returned to the famous pavilion after being run out and, presumably still annoyed with himself, entered the dressing room and smashed a window.

There were, rather embarrassingly, many conflicting stories of how the window pane shattered, including many over-elaborate stories that akin to that of a school boy trying to get out of detention.

The first reaction captured by the television cameras was that of Andrew Strauss, the England captain, whose disparaging shake of the head was enough to signal his true feeling of the act of petulance shown by Prior.

However, despite the initial reaction displayed by Strauss, the angst towards Prior immediately waned as soon as comments were sought from former cricketer's such as Michael Atherton and Nasser Hussain.

"The incident shows Prior cares and that's what I want to see from England cricketers" said Hussain.

Funny isn't it? If this was football you couldn't begin to imagine any degree of support or sympathy for such a reaction. It would be considered 'yobbish' and in-line with football which, to everyone disconnected with the sport, is inherently arrogant and loutish.

The fact this was cricket, a gentleman's game, means that staunch criticism is seldom given in comparison to similar misdemeanours in other sports considered less gentleman-like.

The Rugby Football Union is just as guilty for failing to condemn its professionals. Last month saw a much anticipated game between Northampton Saints and Leicester Tigers remembered for nothing more than the barbaric attack from Leicester's centre, Manu Tuilagi, on Northampton and England's Chris Ashton.

It was immediately dismissed as being 'part of the game' by fans and pundits with the ever-predictable 'its a man's game' concluding statement which, in their eyes, is all the justification you need to repeatedly punch an opponent in such brutal fashion.

When the RFU did act it was, as we have come to expect, shrouded in farce. Tuilagi, the aggressor in this instance, was banned for just five weeks. The original sanction was 10 weeks but this was reduced due to mitigating circumstances.

Jeff Blackett, the RFU disciplinary officer, said: "We determined that there was some provocation from Chris Ashton who pushed and struck him in the back with his knee...the top-end range is eight to 52 weeks and we determined that the appropriate entry point within that range is 10 weeks.
"This was reduced by 50% to reflect Manu's youth and inexperience, his admission of guilt and his genuine remorse" Blackett concluded.

So there you have it. For an offence that would have seen a member of the public tried in a criminal court, Tuilagi gets a reduced sentence because he showed genuine remorse. Oh, and he's young.

Its enough to make you reel in despair at the thought of a 20-year-old being considered old enough to play the game professionally yet too young to fully understand what is morally acceptable on a playing field.

Still, at least it shows he cares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?vOM

Inconsistencies at The FA: Toure ban to be revised

Kolo Toure could see his ban for a failed drugs test increased after it emerged that sporting watchdogs were going to revise the sanction to decide whether The Football Association were too lenient.

Toure, the Manchester City defender, was banned after testing positive for using a banned diuretic in February.

Testing positive for any illegal substance can carry a two-year suspension and many within the game were bemused when The FA-appointed panel awarded only a six-month ban last month which, back-dated to March, could see him play as early as September.

Similarities were instantly drawn to the treatment of Rio Ferdinand, the Manchester United and England defender, who was banned for eight-months for missing a drugs test in 2003.

It would appear that this kind of inconsistency is where the sticking point is.

Ferdinand, although not completely innocent, merely missed a drugs test. It would be naive and misguided to make a judgement on whether there was any sinister motive for missing the drugs test but miss it he did. Toure, on the other hand, actually failed a drugs test.

At the time it was felt that eight-months was lenient and that Ferdinand was lucky to escape with such a minimal ban. How times and opinions have changed.

Of the two, Ferdinand lost the most and not just because his ban was more severe than Toure's. The eight-month ban actually meant that he missed an entire season and would not be eligible to play for England at the 2004 European Championships.

There are, of course, conspiracy theories that will not relent until a review of Toure's ban is undertaken. Many feel that David Bernstein, The FA chairman and former Manchester City chairman, has had something to do with the sympathetic ruling handed to Toure.

Stories like these will always persist but it may be worth pointing out that Bernstein played an active part in the three-game suspension handed to Wayne Rooney for the Manchester United striker's foul-mouthed rant at a television camera after scoring a hat-trick against West Ham United.

For the balance, it should be noted that The FA have not been quite so quick to hand out similar punishment to Mario Balotelli and Micah Richards who were guilty of the same act following their FA Cup final win over Stoke City. They both play for Manchester City.

Both the UK Anti Doping and the World Anti Doping Authority are believed to be weighing up their power to appeal any sentence that they feel is inadequate.

You get the feeling that they may see it as inadequate - the ban, not The FA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz8nc1X1rC8

The FA and the need for reform

The Scottish Football Association have taken a huge step forward in becoming more in tune with the modern game, something many will argue The FA should be doing.

The chief executive, Stewart Regan, heaped praise on the organisations members after his proposed reforms gained unanimous support at Tuesday’s AGM.

Regan said: "I'm really proud, I'm proud for my staff, proud for the board and proud for the members that they have had the guts to make the change. It really is a huge day for Scottish football.”

As exciting as this is for Scottish football it is equally worrying that The FA seem reluctant to make any changes despite the increasing inadequacy of the processes involved at the top of the English game.

So united in support were the member clubs that all 93 supported each of Regan's proposals to streamline and modernise the governing body's decision-making processes during the Hampden meeting.

Rather than rest on his laurels, Regan realised on his first day in office that the processes were outdated and reform was needed.

The main changes include the reduction of the size of the SFA board from 11 to seven, including an independent member. The SFA say the board will become more strategic than representative and focus on "corporate strategy and top-line decision-making", also making sure the governing body plans for the future.

Two new boards will be created under the main board in time for the new season - one for the professional game and another for the non-professional game - with relevant representatives in each.

The much-maligned disciplinary procedures will be rewritten and a compliance officer will quickly decide whether cases will be heard by the new semi-autonomous judicial panel.

Five of the now disbanded committees - including the disciplinary and general purposes panels - were previously involved in a lengthy and often confusing structure for punishing misdemeanours, with cases sometimes taking several months to resolve.

Now a compliance officer will decide whether a case merits disciplinary action and three members of the semi-autonomous judicial panel will make "quick, up-front and transparent" rulings before the next fixture.

These are simple but effective steps that The FA could follow in order to drag the organisation into the 21st century.

Countless times last season the disciplinary process was shown to be flawed and inconsistent.

Whilst Wayne Rooney was rightly punished for his foul-mouthed comment at a television camera, Mario Balotelli and Micah Richards have, seemingly, escaped similar punishment despite being guilty of the same offence.

Under the new reforms by the SFA there will be a ban on managers attempting to influence match officials before a game, a change brought about following the referee strike in November.

The SFA have shown great humility in learning from their own mistakes and from other countries and perhaps it is time The FA followed suit.

It has become more frequent than it has widespread with the talk of match officials before a game and this needs to be stopped for the integrity of the sport.

The FA may feel that following suit would be detrimental to their pride and esteem as the home of football but the changes by the SFA have delivered a timely reminder of how important change can be.

With many still critical of The FA for not acting sooner and withdrawing from the World Cup bidding process at the first sign of corruption and the hypocrisy shown by David Bernstein, the FA chairman, for opposing the one-horse race election for the Fifa presidency; maybe its time to start regaining some faith in our game.

Is Crouch the latest player to join England exodus?

It is becoming an all too familiar story for the England football team when a player announces their decision to retire, with Peter Crouch rumoured to be the next.

If newspaper reports are to be believed then Crouch, the Tottenham Hotspur striker, will opt out of future England squads whilst under the management of Fabio Capello.

According to reports, Crouch felt humiliated at his exclusion from the squad for Saturday's lacklustre 2-2 draw with Switzerland at Wembley, with Capello preferring Bobby Zamora of Fulham as substitute striker.

Crouch, who has an average strike rate of a goal every other game, was believed to be reeling after being overlooked by the England manager and, if reports are true, is considering temporary retirement until Capello is replaced in July 2012.

It is a sad indictment of our national team when you have such a flurry of players believing that they are too important to sit on the bench for their country.

When England actually achieved success by lifting the World Cup in 1966 it was done with a group of players who saw playing for their country as the biggest privilege that could be bestowed upon them. It seems a far cry from the mentality of some modern day footballers.

Jimmy Greaves, arguably one of the greatest strikers the country has produced, didn't appear in that World Cup Final because Sir Alf Ramsey, the manager of England at the time, preferred Geoff Hurst.

It is hard to imagine the anguish Greaves must have been feeling at his omission but when the final whistle was blown, Greaves was one of the first to congratulate Hurst.

It is even more difficult to comprehend a similar gesture with the apparent discontent within the current England squad.

At the centre of these 'retirements' is a complete disregard for fellow professionals who have remained available for their country and continue to do so. Michael Owen, for instance, is one of the finest strikers this country has seen in the last 15 years and is the closest contender to Bobby Charlton's 49 international goals record.

Many will argue that he doesn't play regularly enough to warrant a starting place but is a complete exclusion from the squad wholly justified? Darren Bent, the Aston Villa striker, missed two gilt-edged chances on Saturday that would have victory for England.

We can only have hypothetical thoughts as to whether Owen would have scored at least one of them but one thing we can be sure of is that he is proven at international level.

If Owen was any other nationality he would be treasured by the fans. Miroslav Klose, the Germany striker, is remarkably poor at club level but has an imperious goal-scoring record on the international stage. David Healy, the Northern Ireland striker, is another example of someone who has the knack of scoring at international level but struggling at club level.

These comparisons are a little unfair on Owen given his superb career goal tally for both club and country, but the fact that he remains available for selection with the hope of one day being back in an England shirt is surely reason enough to disapprove of the attitude shown towards the pride of representing England.

Retirement should be the signal to the end of a players career or the signal of a prolonged club career, it should not be a card played to avoid embarrassment of being surplus to requirements.

FourThreeThree is back...

Back after a break to Australia. I know what you're thinking, I should have stayed.

Well if it wasn't for the chance to moan about the lack of leg room on the return flight, I would have done.

If Carlsberg did football blogs....this wouldn't be one of them.