Ah, the justice of sport. Or not.
So a Chelsea fan I know from a forum wrote to the FA to question why Saint $tevie of M(b)E was not being made inelligible for England selection after being charged with assault and affray. As many may recall, John Terry missed the 2002 World Cup because the FA would not consider him for England while he was involved in a legal case, even though he denied the charges and was proven innocent. Curiously, the FA's policy now appears to have changed. Here is their response:
The FA policy on England call-up criteria was changed a number of years ago.
The general policy we adopt now is that unless somebody is convicted of a serious offence, the issue of selection will not be considered.
If a case is proven against a player and they are convicted, each case will then be considered. We believe this to be a fairer, more sensible approach.
Obviously I'm not arguing against waiting for a conviction--innocent until proven guilty and all that--but I am very curious if the FA could actually provide any proof that this policy did in fact change "a number of years ago." I have a sneaking suspicion that if the player involved were, say, Joey Barton, or wearing a blue shirt, the old policy would still apply. Can't imagine where I got that idea...
In somewhat related news, I wasn't the only one to notice the hypocrisy of the FA/UEFA's failure to punish Rooney and Ronaldo for their latest offenses. What's this, a British journalist talking some sense? Say it isn't so!
Oh, 2008, how much have you sucked in terms of football? Let's hope 2009 brings some credibility back to the beautiful game and we finish with a team of champions actually worthy of the name.
Ugh, enough of that now. I want to wish all of you health and happiness in 2009. Here's to a fantastic New Year! *throws confetti*
The FA policy on England call-up criteria was changed a number of years ago.
The general policy we adopt now is that unless somebody is convicted of a serious offence, the issue of selection will not be considered.
If a case is proven against a player and they are convicted, each case will then be considered. We believe this to be a fairer, more sensible approach.
Obviously I'm not arguing against waiting for a conviction--innocent until proven guilty and all that--but I am very curious if the FA could actually provide any proof that this policy did in fact change "a number of years ago." I have a sneaking suspicion that if the player involved were, say, Joey Barton, or wearing a blue shirt, the old policy would still apply. Can't imagine where I got that idea...
In somewhat related news, I wasn't the only one to notice the hypocrisy of the FA/UEFA's failure to punish Rooney and Ronaldo for their latest offenses. What's this, a British journalist talking some sense? Say it isn't so!
Oh, 2008, how much have you sucked in terms of football? Let's hope 2009 brings some credibility back to the beautiful game and we finish with a team of champions actually worthy of the name.
Ugh, enough of that now. I want to wish all of you health and happiness in 2009. Here's to a fantastic New Year! *throws confetti*