The Martin Samuel debate: should Liverpool and Everton share - and who should pay?
Under normal circumstances, when a player is seriously injured during a match, colleagues of the assailant mount a spirited defence. It was out of character, they say. No harm was intended. He is not that type of guy. It is hard to make that case for Chris Morgan, of Sheffield United.
Morgan left Iain Hume, of Barnsley, with massive head injuries and fighting for his life and the trouble is, he is exactly that type of guy. Not one who aspires to this outcome, but one who is prepared to risk it. Anybody who lands an elbow on the head of an opponent does and Morgan appeared to know exactly what he was doing when he struck Hume during the Coca-Cola Championship match at Oakwell on November 8.
He was not jumping for the ball, so there is no question of using his arms for propulsion or to attain height, and his glance sideways shows that he was very much aware of Hume’s position, so he cannot claim to have been ignorant of the potential consequence of his action. Indeed, his feet were planted on the floor, to secure balance. Some blows to the head result from a momentary lack of control; by contrast, it was rare to see a defender so settled in his stance.
As for character, Morgan has been sent off 12 times in 11 seasons and was the player who, on December 30, 2006, bravely punched Robin van Persie, of Arsenal, in the ribs on his blind side and, after video evidence was used, was banned for three matches. As this was a day when Arsenal lost to a battling side from the North, commentators preferred to concentrate on the flaws in Arsène Wenger’s team rather than some of the methods employed by Sheffield United. Indeed, the refusal of Arsenal’s players to shake hands at the end gained more publicity than Morgan’s behaviour. What softies, eh? Can’t even take an off-the-ball punch.
Morgan’s manager that day was Neil Warnock, now with Crystal Palace, who was one of the few to speak on his behalf after the Hume incident. As Warnock was once quoted admitting that he was not adverse to shouting to his players to break an opponent’s leg — “I must have said that a hundred times, you say things like that in the heat of the moment, you don’t mean it and my players take it with a pinch of salt” — he may wish to consider whether the example of his management played any small part in subsequent events. Don’t bet on it, though. Even so, what happens next will be fascinating because Hume is considering legal action and that is something they really do know about at Bramall Lane.
Leaving aside Hume’s personal case, if Barnsley are aware of the precedents set by the recent rulings of Lord Griffiths on behalf of Sheffield United in the Carlos Tévez affair, interesting times lay ahead. Barnsley would do well to make a note of the league position on the day Morgan elbowed Hume, for a start. One of the principles Griffiths established is that a club are not responsible for their final league position, so were Barnsley to drop below seventeenth in the Championship, they could put forward a claim stating that this was a direct result of Morgan’s action on behalf of Sheffield United.
Again, using Griffiths’s judgment for the FA tribunal, they could then attempt to play an imaginary campaign, with Hume in the team, working out how many points he would have been worth had he not been incapacitated by Morgan, before making a petition for loss of earnings.
Hume had four goals in 15 league games this season before his injury and was Barnsley’s joint leading goalscorer. The Sheffield United players suing West Ham United for compensation, including Morgan, may also provide an interesting precedent, too, if it is established that another club owed them a duty of care. That could then make Sheffield United, via Morgan, responsible for the individual misfortune of Barnsley players, even those who had not been left with an 18-inch scar from life-saving surgery.
The FA will decide this week whether Morgan’s actions require a further charge and Hume’s advisers will take advice before coming to a decision on legal proceedings. The early prognosis suggests that the striker will not play again this season, so Barnsley will have to be patient if they also want their day in court.
It would be nice to think that, from all sides, common sense will prevail; but as far as football and the law are concerned, common sense got the elbow long ago.
And another thing...
Bolton Wanderers felt harshly treated by Rob Styles, the referee, who ruled out a goal against Liverpool on Saturday on the ground that Kevin Nolan had fouled José Manuel Reina, the goalkeeper, but why? Nolan took up a position in front of Reina, which was fair enough, but continued to move, wriggle and stand his ground to block him when the ball was played into the area, never seeking to become involved in play. That is a foul, just as it would be if one player deliberately blocked off another who was running to get to a ball 30 yards away by standing and holding him. It is legal to shield the ball, but not to block a run.
Chris Kamara, the Sky pundit, told me there was no such rule. There is. It is Law 12, which states: “An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player, in the opinion of the referee, impedes the progress of an opponent.” That is what Nolan did. Were this, and similar acts, to be allowed, there would be no game left because all 11 players could target and obstruct the opposition individually, as happens in American football. Even in rugby, to block movement without the ball is not permitted.
Slowly does it, England
One question on Jack Wilshere, the 16-year-old Arsenal midfield player: if there was such a buzz around him that he even got a mention in this column last April — albeit with his name spelt wrongly — why did it take a match-winning performance against Wigan Athletic to alert the England Under-21 management to his potential? Fabio Capello, the England manager, talks of fast-tracking him to the Under-19 team, but that and more should have been done at the start of this season. As Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager, observed, Wilshere has the ability to be a member of the senior squad at the 2010 World Cup; but not at this rate.
Jobs for the boy
Sir Trevor Brooking’s criticism of coaching in the Football League and his dissatisfaction at the handling of funds around grassroots football in England drew an angry response from Lord Mawhinney, chairman of the Football League, who stopped just short of demanding his dismissal. “Trevor was a fantastic footballer, but none of us must assume that because we are very good in one job, we are very good in all jobs,” he said.
Wise words there. And Mawhinney would know, having previously been assistant professor of radiation research at Iowa University, a lecturer at Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in Manchester, MP for Peterborough, MP for North West Cambridgeshire, Junior Minister for Northern Ireland, Minister for Northern Ireland, Health Minister, Secretary of State for Transport, Chairman of the Conservative Party, Minister without Portfolio, Shadow Home Secretary and a member of the General Synod.
Even now, he manages to combine his Football League duties with being a member of the House of Lords, on the board of the FA, joint deputy chairman of the England World Cup bid board, chairman of Malone Consultancy Limited, a non-executive director of Evans Easyspace and honorary president of the Peterborough Association for the Blind, the Peterborough Male Voice Choir and North West Cambridgeshire Conservative Association, plus a trustee of the Professional Footballers’ Association Centenary Trust Fund and chairman of More Than Gold, a Christian charity with links to the 2012 Olympic Games.
Indeed, are we not lucky to have in our presence a man who knows so much about radiation, medicine, Northern Ireland, health, transport, politics, policing, national security, matters of citizenship, immigration, organised religion, football, global diplomacy, North West Cambridgeshire, property development, visual disability and male vocal harmonising? And from his statement we can assume that he was and is very good at all of these jobs; because he certainly will.
Second that emotion
Everybody needs to wind their neck in a little over the Respect campaign. Managers such as Joe Kinnear, of Newcastle United, would do well to remember that not all judgment calls are black and white and there are just as many people who agreed with Martin Atkinson’s verdict in the match against Fulham eight days ago. To declare war over what was basically a matter of interpretation did Kinnear no favours. Likewise, those sitting in haughty judgment of football managers should acknowledge that it is only human to desire fair play and when a decision is obviously erroneous, such as the sending-off of Emmerson Boyce, of Wigan Athletic, against Newcastle on Saturday, it is very natural for a manager to react with anger and frustration.
Removed from the emotion of a match situation, most managers are responsive to the Respect campaign and would appear to be trying their hardest to maintain it. Anyone who has had a serious vested interest in the outcome of a sporting contest, however, will know that it is not easy to keep emotions in check. A little understanding, from all sides, would help