It doesn't help the public image when the SFA's new Compliance Officer, Vincent Lunny, is referred to on Sky Sports News as "Vincent Loony".
I assume it was an unfortunate autocue error, though since the same channel called Caley Thistle's goalscoring midfielder Andrew Shinnie "Andy Shiny" on Saturday, I'm inclined to wonder whether there is a smartass in the studio.
For the record, Lunny has a fairly impressive legal background, including working in war crimes prosecutions at The Hague. Why he would give that up to deal with Scottish football's problems, on a full-time basis, is beyond me.
His career change sees him go from prosecuting Slobodan Milosevic, to prosecuting Sone Aluko.
For Aluko is the main focus of the Scottish football press this week - it's a slow news week - after a rather naff dive at Ibrox on Saturday which conned Steve Conroy into awarding a penalty to Rangers (soft penalties to the Old Firm?! Where have we heard that before?). Conroy's reputation has not been helped by the comments of former SPL ref Kenny Clark, who described the contact by Dunfermline's Gary Mason on Aluko as "not enough to cause a man to spill his pint in the pub".
A fat lot of good this does Dunfermline; the resultant spot-kick conversion from Nikica Jelavic was the decisive goal in a 2-1 Rangers victory when a point would have given the Pars a welcome bonus in their relegation battle. But the SFA appears keen to make up for their official's horrendous blunder; Aluko has been charged with "simulation", and threatened with a two match ban. Which seems a little odd, considering that, if the referee had done his job properly, the former Aberdeen winger would have been shown a yellow card.
When the case is heard on Thursday, expect it to be thrown out.
It matters not that Aluko clearly cheated; there is already precedent this season, when the SFA tried to meet out the same punishment to Hibs' Garry O'Connor when he won a penalty against St. Johnstone with an epic 6.0, 6.0, 6.0 effort. TV pictures showed quite clearly that there was no foul, and, to further fuel the fire, O'Connor's own assistant boss Billy Brown admitted on Sportscene that it was a dive. Yet, when Hibernian challenged the ban, the SFA gave in faster than an Italian on the North African front in 1940. O'Connor escaped a ban, a fine, and even a retrospective yellow card. He got off scot-free, which is more than he is likely to manage when he appears in court later this year regarding charges of drug possession and fraud.
The problem with "simulation" is proving it, just as UEFA found after they tried to punish Arsenal's Eduardo for a dive in a Champions League game versus Celtic. It's very easy to find a TV angle that shows a slight possibility of contact. The attacking player can also claim that he lost his balance. Take the case of Sunderland's Sebastian Larsson who, this weekend, won a dubious penalty at Molineux (his subsequent miss from twelve yards shows that sometimes, there is justice in football). It was a dive, no doubt about that; the way the Swede puffed out his chest reminded me of a sprinter leaning forward to cut the tape at the finish line. But one TV camera suggested a bit of miniscule, minute contact with the leg of Jody Craddock - who was doing his level best to get out of the way - and I bet, if push came to shove, Larsson would claim that he felt the contact, was put slightly off-balance, and has the right to go down as a consequence
So Aluko will, I think, be exonerated, though you'd like to think his reputation might have taken a hit and, the next time he goes down in the box, the referee might look twice. But whilst I agree with the SFA's attempts to root out diving, I just can't see how they will be able to ban players for multiple matches for what ultimately is a bookable offence.
As for Vincent Lunny, his main role as Compliance Officer is to provide a figurehead to the panel thats make retrospective decisions regarding red card appeals and the like. One hopes he can provide some objectivity; the previous philosophy appears to have consisted simply of 'what the referee says goes' - so that if the referee looks at it on TV and refuses to change his decision, the appeal gets thrown out. This is a big deal for a club like Caley Thistle when each appeal costs £1,000 a time, and even more so when very disputable red cards such as Chris Hogg's against Motherwell for denying a goalscoring opportunity are upheld without even the slightest debate.
So I'd like to see Lunny do well; there is a real opportunity to make a significant impact on the Scottish game here. Unfortunately, there is also a real opportunity here for him to become a hate figure of Rangers or Celtic fans (or somehow, like journalist Graham Spiers, a hate figure for both). I can't help feeling that even a lawyer like Lunny will be unable to untangle the bureaucracy involved, and that he'll be dealing with a few smashed windows once Old Firm fans find out where he lives. I'll be surprised if he lasts a year in the post. But I hope I'm wrong.
L.
No comments:
Post a Comment