Cod Almighty | Diary

Diary - Friday 24 February 2012

24 February 2012

Mardy Diary writes: I don't feel I can really make my mind up on this Anthony Elding thing, you know? I think it's the lack of any real evidence in either direction - so what we're left with is rumour, conjecture and supposition. And this then becomes fact just through internet repetition. If we say it enough times, then it is so.

Paul Hurst told the Telegraph: "The way we understand it, there is no video evidence." This is immediately interpreted, in the comments section of the Telewag website, as evidence that it is merely the viewpoint of a single fan that has sentenced Elding. But, to me, that in itself is not evidence enough. Now, I don't want to jump to the defence of the FA - they are useless at the best of times - but before I fire any missives in their direction I'd like to be in full possession of the facts. Unfortunately, fans are unlikely to get access to full transcripts of the hearing and any evidence put forward in the case, so this is unlikely.

But supposing there is no video evidence, this doesn't preclude the possibility of evidence from other sources. For all we know a police officer, steward, match official or other neutral at the game may have provided corroborating evidence - or perhaps Elding fessed-up (unlikely, I know). Without knowing that, we can't be sure that the decision is right or wrong. We do know that Elding's agent (licensed, we hope), after initially leaning towards an appeal, has had a change of heart. Is this based on knowledge that further evidence is available? Who knows?

And none of this excuses the lack of consistency in the FA's judgement - a single-match ban for Suarez (caught on camera) but two matches for Elding. There should be a level of transparency to that decision at least, because again we don't know what that decision is based on, and so we have no way to deduce whether it is fair or not. Conduct, past transgressions, a level of culpability shown by the player - these can all have an effect on the judgement. Or it could just be a complete travesty of justice. And whatever my views on the FA, I'm not quite ready to make an assumption.

Of course, if Elding did make this gesture then - provocation or not - he should have shown some restraint. There seem to be more of these sorts of incidents across football - and while some level of abuse from the stands is to be expected, there should still be the expectation that professionals on the field act, well... professionally. There's an argument that fans dish out abuse so shouldn't take offence when it is returned by players. But if a barman called you a wanker because somebody else in the pub was swearing at him, you wouldn't be best pleased and may feel the need to make a complaint to the management/brewery.

None of this excuses the racist abuse allegedly directed at Elding during the match though - but there are laws in place to deal with this already. And if that sort of abuse was used during the game and no action was taken against the Lincoln fan(s) using it, then that is a failure of stewarding and policing at Blundell Park. There's no space for that sort of language in modern football. Oh. Oh.

And so to Saturday then and along with Elding, Town will be without Miller, Hughes-Mason and Soares, who are all cup-tied. Add to this the injuries of Artus and Garner and the options are somewhat limited. This does at least give I'Anson a chance to cement a place back in the side, albeit as part of a somewhat inexperienced central defence. More difficulty perhaps lies in midfield, where the choices on the wings are simply Coulson and the almost-forgotten Makofo. The SNOS, however, seems to be suggesting that a loan player may be brought in. But with whose fackin' money?

Although with York supposedly thinking of switching from their favoured 4-3-3 formation for the match, maybe Town should hoodwink them by switching to 4-3-3 themselves. It worked so well early on in the season. Oh.