Blacktop

Blacktop · 12-10-2007, 03:15

I was surprised when I saw this article, and even more so at the source.

Great result for Celtic, but UEFA let Milan down
HUGH MacDONALD, Chief Sportswriter
October 12 2007

LAUGHING all the way to the bank?

A visit to the cash dispenser seems unnecessary given the 12 and a half large ones Celtic will have to pay up front to UEFA. There will be that, and some change, in the celebrated biscuit tin.

The noise emanating from the East End of Glasgow last night was Peter Lawwell wheezing after he had completed a lap of honour at an empty Celtic Park. "This penalty is proportionate to the incident in question and a fair outcome," said Celtic's chief executive when he got his breath back.

He had a point. A cursory glance at the recent decisions of UEFA'S control and disciplinary committee shows that the tariff for the Celtic offence was always going to be a fine. Points deductions, the closing of the stadium, the end of civilisation as we know it . . . all had been touted as possible punishments for Celtic after Robert McHendry was involved in a clash with Dida, the AC Milan goalkeeper. It should be no surprise the outcome was a fine.

In common parlance, the fine for Celtic will be known as a Balde. Even if they have to pay the suspended part of the sanction and cough up £25,000, it is less than Bobo earns in a week. Though, to be fair, McHendry has been on the park more often than Bobo of late.

The deliberations of the UEFA committee raise two significant points.

The first concerns Celtic. There is no doubt that the management of the club acted swiftly and cleverly to what unfolded on the pitch. The only blip was an unwise remark by Brian Quinn, the chairman, about Dida's antics. The official line was that it was an unfortunate incident, that the offender had been apprehended and dealt with by the club and by courts. Everybody stuck by this. All were suitably contrite.

But a fan did get on to the park and he did touch an opposition player. Celtic will be discussing with police and the contracted security firm to find out how this happened. Those who stand by the pitch may state that the incursion of a fan on to the field as 60,000 celebrate a last-minute winner is difficult to stop. Perhaps.

But McHendry ran on to the park, touched the goalkeeper and then sprinted towards the corner flag and was left unmolested by the security forces. Indeed, he was ushered back into the stands by a steward. He could not have been more visible if he had stopped to give a trackside interview. He should have been spotted and "lifted".

This may form the basis of vigorous discussions between Celtic and those that charge them thousands for security, including Strathclyde's finest.

The second point concerns AC Milan and, specifically, Dida. Milan's gracious and noble stance during and after the game showed just how a great club should behave. They insisted that the result had not been affected and left the matter to UEFA. They have been let down.

Dida's punishment should have been the ridicule of his peers. The Milan goalkeeper was an object of scorn throughout the sporting world after he collapsed in front of the watching millions. He is the tube on YouTube. The sentence of a two-match suspension is ludicrous. It sets a precedent that may cause UEFA some angst in the future. Banning a player for going down too easily when hit by a spectator does not pass the most cursory of examinations.

There is a hysteria against "simulation" and against cheating. Dida has been a victim of this self-righteous rage. Yet a hundred acts of cheating occur in every match. Most claims for a throw-in are made by players who know the award should be made against them. That is cheating. It is seeking to gain an advantage through a lie.

Dida may have sought to gain an advantage by forcing the game to be abandoned or replayed. His club simply substituted him. His "simulation" had no effect on the game. This criterion was used to excuse Juninho from punishment when he dived against Rangers in Lyon. The same escape clause should apply to his fellow Brazilian.

Milan will appeal. They are right. Celtic will not appeal. They are relieved.

(theherald.co.uk)

12-10-2007, 03:15	#11
Blacktop Registered User Join Date: 10 2006 Location: In your sock drawer Fave Players: Abbiati	I was surprised when I saw this article, and even more so at the source. Great result for Celtic, but UEFA let Milan down HUGH MacDONALD, Chief Sportswriter October 12 2007 LAUGHING all the way to the bank? A visit to the cash dispenser seems unnecessary given the 12 and a half large ones Celtic will have to pay up front to UEFA. There will be that, and some change, in the celebrated biscuit tin. The noise emanating from the East End of Glasgow last night was Peter Lawwell wheezing after he had completed a lap of honour at an empty Celtic Park. "This penalty is proportionate to the incident in question and a fair outcome," said Celtic's chief executive when he got his breath back. He had a point. A cursory glance at the recent decisions of UEFA'S control and disciplinary committee shows that the tariff for the Celtic offence was always going to be a fine. Points deductions, the closing of the stadium, the end of civilisation as we know it . . . all had been touted as possible punishments for Celtic after Robert McHendry was involved in a clash with Dida, the AC Milan goalkeeper. It should be no surprise the outcome was a fine. In common parlance, the fine for Celtic will be known as a Balde. Even if they have to pay the suspended part of the sanction and cough up £25,000, it is less than Bobo earns in a week. Though, to be fair, McHendry has been on the park more often than Bobo of late. The deliberations of the UEFA committee raise two significant points. The first concerns Celtic. There is no doubt that the management of the club acted swiftly and cleverly to what unfolded on the pitch. The only blip was an unwise remark by Brian Quinn, the chairman, about Dida's antics. The official line was that it was an unfortunate incident, that the offender had been apprehended and dealt with by the club and by courts. Everybody stuck by this. All were suitably contrite. But a fan did get on to the park and he did touch an opposition player. Celtic will be discussing with police and the contracted security firm to find out how this happened. Those who stand by the pitch may state that the incursion of a fan on to the field as 60,000 celebrate a last-minute winner is difficult to stop. Perhaps. But McHendry ran on to the park, touched the goalkeeper and then sprinted towards the corner flag and was left unmolested by the security forces. Indeed, he was ushered back into the stands by a steward. He could not have been more visible if he had stopped to give a trackside interview. He should have been spotted and "lifted". This may form the basis of vigorous discussions between Celtic and those that charge them thousands for security, including Strathclyde's finest. The second point concerns AC Milan and, specifically, Dida. Milan's gracious and noble stance during and after the game showed just how a great club should behave. They insisted that the result had not been affected and left the matter to UEFA. They have been let down. Dida's punishment should have been the ridicule of his peers. The Milan goalkeeper was an object of scorn throughout the sporting world after he collapsed in front of the watching millions. He is the tube on YouTube. The sentence of a two-match suspension is ludicrous. It sets a precedent that may cause UEFA some angst in the future. Banning a player for going down too easily when hit by a spectator does not pass the most cursory of examinations. There is a hysteria against "simulation" and against cheating. Dida has been a victim of this self-righteous rage. Yet a hundred acts of cheating occur in every match. Most claims for a throw-in are made by players who know the award should be made against them. That is cheating. It is seeking to gain an advantage through a lie. Dida may have sought to gain an advantage by forcing the game to be abandoned or replayed. His club simply substituted him. His "simulation" had no effect on the game. This criterion was used to excuse Juninho from punishment when he dived against Rangers in Lyon. The same escape clause should apply to his fellow Brazilian. Milan will appeal. They are right. Celtic will not appeal. They are relieved. (theherald.co.uk) Last edited by Blacktop; 12-10-2007 at 03:18.