Luiz Adriano Ban Highlights UEFA's Farcical Management

Once again we are introduced to the bumbling organisation that run their consistently inconsistent rule over European Football. The decision to enforce a one match ban on Luiz Adriano shows UEFA's reactive decision making when this could have been very easily filtered out with a proactive approach to rule making. We have seen this lack of foresight from UEFA too many times, with goal line technology being the elephant in the UEFA board room since other sports revolutionised the use of technology in sport. UEFA€™s decision to enforce fair play and give it a measurable punishment will once again leave them open to attack when inconsistent punishments for relatable offences are given out or not as the case may be. You will read about Luiz Adriano€™s goal being a breach of UEFA€™s €˜Principles of Conduct,€™ which are quoted as the reason for the ban. With UEFA publishing: €œLuiz Adriano had been charged with violation of the principles of conduct (Article 5, UEFA Disciplinary Regulations) during last week's UEFA Champions League Group E match against FC Nordsjælland in Copenhagen.€ The principles in question are a framework, tied to UEFA€™s Statutory Objectives, that are designed to promote the spirit of fair play in football. As fair play was undoubtedly not adhered to by Luiz Adriano he has now been slapped with a one match ban. While no real football fan would disagree the goal did not sit right when watching the match, the retrospective action taken on this occasion seems equally unjust. Luiz Adriano has been banned from a Champions League match for scoring a goal that met all regulations that are applicable to his sport. He has broken no written rules and has only tarnished his own and his employer€™s name. The game has not been brought into disrepute and UEFA have made the decision that scoring a goal like this is punishable because it is unsporting. This decision now leads to the need for a list of action punishable as unsporting behavior from UEFA. A list like this would answer questions like: is diving now an act that is punishable retrospectively, or does the fact that UEFA have not acted on countless similarly unsporting like acts, that affected the outcome of matches, mean that it condones diving in today€™s game? UEFA decided to act on this incident, most likely because of the heightened media interest, and as such have set a precedent. They fail to realise that increased funding in football fair play is not as powerful as the 'do anything to win' mentality being shown at the top level. Adriano€™s goal helped pocket his club ‚3 million for securing a place in the knock outs plus the ‚800,000 for the win on the night. Relying on outdated €˜unwritten rules€™ is a romantic idea that indicates how behind the times UEFA are: their indecision is handcuffing match officials as their decisions are constantly under scrutiny. Giving referees a referral system, like goal line technology, protects them from the fallout over bad decisions. Referees in other sports are looked after and aren€™t expected to control players, make split second decisions and get everything right on their own. While UEFA has brought in numerous, sometimes inexplicable, extra officials the buck still stops with the man in the middle. With goal line seemingly imminent UEFA has finally shown its ability to step up and join sports like rugby in officiating. The Luiz Adriano decision though shows the clear differences between the rule book that rugby players adhere to compared to that of football. UEFA have punished a player with no tangible rule having been broken. UEFA regularly point to slowing the game down as the main reason for not introducing technology or new rules. The flow of the game is the buzz word they use to defend their lack of foresight. When you take into account that fact that Morten Nordstrand interrupted the flow of the game by feigning the injury that lead to the drop ball you see the issue with not having black and white rules. Players too often use the lack of decision making from the regulators of the game to their own tactical advantage. Football has got to the point that fans and commentators can regularly be heard applauding €˜going down easy€™ to stop the game as a tactic. These same fans then slam a player like Adriano for being unfair when he at least had the decency to apologise for his actions, something you rarely see from a player who has dived. All this could have been nipped in the bud by a regulatory body that was, excuse the pun, on the ball early on. Had UEFA acted when players began diving by putting in review processes to punish retrospectively we would not have players kicking the ball out when everyone in the stadium knows the player rolling around isn€™t injured. The fact that UEFA have slapped a one match ban on a player who acted €˜unfairly€™when he latched on to a pass back that only happened because an opposition player went down easy, shows the contradictory €˜laws€™ that rule our game. What do you think of UEFA's handling of the matter? Share your thoughts below.

Contributor
Contributor

Chris Boyle's Twitter claims "technology has rendered me illiterate" yet here he is. Take from that what you will.