Time for UEFA to act strongly on Serbia

After a hard-fought win against Collingwood in 1993, Australian footballer Nicky Winmar turned to the crowd at Victoria park, raised his jersey and pointed at his chest.

Winmar is an indigenous Australian. He had spent the entire 120 minutes of the match being racially abused by the pro-Collingwood crowd. The moment was captured on film by a photographer from the Age newspaper and went the 1993 version of viral: alongside Sir Donald Bradman's final Test dismissal and John Landy helping Ron Clarke, it's perhaps the most famous photograph in Australian sporting history.

It became a cultural landmark, a very visible sign that what black men in AFL had endured to that time was unacceptable. Since then, Australian football has been prominent in the fight against racism in sport. Though it's not been fully eliminated, there's been several high-profile cases which have helped the public consciousness decide that racial abuse should have no place in sport, let alone life.

Danny Rose didn't ask to be abused when he stepped onto the pitch for England's under-21s against Serbia on Monday. He wanted to play football, to win and to play well. Any psychologist will tell you: no matter what the situation, noone ever asks for, nor deserves, abuse based upon the colour of their skin, their sexual preference or religious beliefs. Fabricating allegations of abuse of this kind does happen, but is extremely rare.

courtesy: theage.com.au

Which is why, due to the past history of Serbian fans, UEFA has to take severe action. This has to stop – it's just not OK. With fines seemingly ineffective, this leaves only two options should an investigation prove that Rose was indeed abused (as seems likely): all Serbian home matches should be played either behind closed doors or away from home; or, more simply, Serbia should be banned from International competition.

Erudite journalist Jonathan Wilson suggests a ban might be counterproductive to Serbian football. However the method of transmission, a strong message needs to be delivered: by refusing to acknowledge the wrongdoing – let alone sanction – hardline Ultras, the FFS appears at best recalcitrant and at worst recidivist. UEFA and FIFA can't afford to compromise on this issue.

In the misty realm where international sport and law meet, there really are only a few options to combat societal problems: fines, suspensions and outright boycotts. The first has been tried with only minimal success, meaning that more dramatic steps are required. It's time for the second – or perhaps third – option, no matter what effects it has on future of football in Serbia.   

Extra Time in the Grand Final? No thanks.

After watching the Australian Football League Grand Final on Saturday morning (Montreal time), you must say that two fantastic football teams played themselves to a standstill. Post game, Nick Maxwell's suggestion they'd been “robbed of a result” was a painful statement for the neutral to hear because though he may have felt denied, were extra time to be played on Australian Sports' Day Of All Days the whole AFL fanbase wouldn't bear witness to what shapes as an extraordinary second half.

On Saturday, we witnessed one of the great Grand Finals, right up there with Hawthorn and Geelong in 1989, Brisbane and Collingwood in 2002 and last year's Geelong/St. Kilda epic. In fact, the match had many similarities to last year's decider – one team dominating the first half only to be pegged back by a more battle-tested finals team. Players like Lenny Hayes or Darren Jolly deserve a second chance to show their wares while players “down” on the day (Harry O'Brien, I'm looking at you) deserve the chance to make amends. The reaction of both sides was a sight I will never forget and the baying of the crowd at the Sports Bar at the Pepsi Forum was incredible, simply because everyone became so invested in the match even if they weren't actively supporting Collingwood or St Kilda.

The last-gasp deeds of guys like Goddard and Davis demand a replay. Season 2010 demands a replay. An outstanding umpiring display demands a replay. The drama that Saturday's last quarter produced could no doubt be sustained for the ten-minute extra time period, but were the Grand Final to finish that way I think everyone would admit to feeling robbed. These teams deserve to go at it again, and for each to give the other their best shot. The greatest load this week will be on the trainers, sports scientists and the physiotherapists whose job it will be to get sore bodies ready again after such an intense encounter.

After such a battle between teams who simply couldn't best each other – take Nick Maxwell's goal-saving dive in the last quarter, Brendon Goddard's last half or Lenny Hayes' last quarter goal for example – for fans to say that five minutes of extra time each half would be for the best is a nonsense. Pending a draw next week, the AFL has gone on record as saying Extra Time will occur. The sporting calendar can't take a third Grand Final so the idea of a second replay becomes an instant non-starter. There needs to be a time where the AFL Commission says Enough is Enough and they've done so appropriately here.

History says that the team plagued with inaccuracy struggles in the Grand Final. Two years ago Geelong wasted their chances to put Hawthorn away in the second quarter. Last year, St. Kilda had every opportunity to seal the game against the Cats but were unable to convert; only for the Cats to claw their way back into the match. Collingwood will have the biggest mental hurdle to cover this week as they look at how players like Travis Cloke and Jarryd Blair muffed their opportunities to bury St. Kilda. A great point raised by Maxwell in his Sunday press conference was that the Collingwood youngsters who hadn't previously played in a Grand Final now have experience on the grandest stage of all. This could be crucial as both sides suggested that they had several players “down” and as a result they may be better equipped to deal with the crowd and pressure.

One must applaud the AFL in changing the law allowing only next week's victors to receive a Premiership medal. Until Tuesday it appeared that only those who take the field next weekend would take home a prize, leaving those who miss out – perhaps Michael Gardiner and Sean Dempster due to injury – without a medal. On Tuesday they announced changes to this, meaning any player who steps onto the field during the course of the two Deciders will be presented with his trophy.

Congratulations to the AFL, the coaches and the players involved in Saturday's triumph. Everyone involved in the first instalment of the Grand Final have surpassed themselves – except the pre-game entertainment – and we can only hope the decider, as needed as it is can provide a fitting conclusion to a wonderful year.

Past, present and future crimes

Now this post should be monitored carefully, since I am an unabashed Geelong fan. But since the name of the blog is "Balanced Sports", let's do our best.

No ifs or buts, Steven Baker is a highly effective tagger: he does jobs consistently on players who have been gifted with more natural footy-finding-and-using ability than him. The conundrum with Baker - as with many taggers – is that he often finds it difficult to stop himself from stepping over the line which separates what is legal from what is not. The frequency with which Baker cross this line means he's no longer just a stopper. He is also a thug. So how much did Baker's rep have to do with his current 9-game suspension?

The AFL has tried to rid itself of behind-the-play violence for as long as I can remember. The first concrete steps came in the mid-eighties in two separate but related measures: the admission that the then-VFL couldn't keep its own house in order with Victoria Police charging Leigh Matthews for assault after he broke Neville Bruns' jaw in 1985; and subsequently the introduction of video review in 1987. As a result, behind the scenes violence has dramatically decreased and the AFL has become a much more family-friendly league.

Since that time, Australian football has evolved. Now no longer does a match involve 18 separate one-on-one contacts on the field but where given the importance of team performance, player roles have contracted to fulfilling their own individual tasks within a framework of the team as a whole. Midfielders are now either offensive, or defensive. Players who are charged with stopping an opponent are liable to do many things to irritate and niggle their prey. Times were that your team enforcer might be able to “deal with” these pests themselves, but as the AFL has put paid to that, they have legislated also to protect the ball-playing protagonist rather than the stopper.

But there are two separate issues here and Baker rides the crux of them. As a stopper, he and many others have frequently stepped outside the law to beat his man: holding, pinching, jumper-punching, subtle kneeing are all familiar sights to the AFL fan. The other side of the coin is that with his 2007 conviction for “king-hitting” Jeff Farmer, Baker has form for completely disregarding the laws of the game and acting in a manner which on the streets would earn him a criminal record. There are fair taggers, and foul. There are also fair players, and foul. Though his footy tactics are arguably no worse than his tagging compatriots, his prior tribunal history has stamped Baker a violent player and this undoubtedly played on the minds and notepads of the Match Review Panel in grading his offences.

The grading of the offences is a curious point however, and whether the contact was negligent, intentional, reckless, slightly overzealous, a little bit naughty or directly as a result of alien control is beyond the ability of a mere mortal to calculate without generating unwelcome conjecture. The AFL's grading systems was designed to remove subjectivity from the tribunal process; unfortunately all it has done is shove those opinions to one side of the process. The opinions are then still used.

Baker deserved to be sanctioned for the punches delivered – they were captured on video and guilt was indisputable. What was also indisputable was his 155 carryover points, adding two weeks to his time on the sidelines. He is a player who polarises opposition supporters and even those of St. Kilda – the epitome of a player no-one likes but is undeniably effective.

More interesting is the charge that Baker knowingly made forcible contact with the injured hand of his opponent Steve Johnson. It would be naive to suggest Baker didn't know it was injured: whether it is an actionable offence is more the discussion. Given the furore when St. Kilda captain Nick Riewoldt had his injured shoulder bumped off-the-ball by Brisbane's Mal Michael & Chris Scott, Baker would surely know the implications of such a petty and ungentlemanly act. Given that subjectivity still plays a role in the tribunal proceedings, it's unsurprising that the Match Review Panel essentially came up with a new charge with which to sanction Stevie B; it's also completely understandable that when presented with three cases and then an allegedly-separate fourth case, rationality finds differentiation difficult.

It may be that Steven Baker's past sins amounted to more than just 155 extra demerit points. But his conduct is to blame, not the MRP. Courts of law take into account recidivism – the AFL Tribunal should be no different.