This complete tosser is at it again.
The stench of cynical cheating reeks more than idiotic passion
Sunday October 07 2007
While many of us, arguing that extremism in defence of liberty is no vice, would have instinctively sympathised with Didaâs attempts to bring a premature end to a long night of tribal celebration in Glasgow last Wednesday, objectively it is hard to make a case for anything but a long suspension for the Milan goalkeeper.
It is a clash of corporatism versus nationalism and it is tempting to echo Bill Shankly and say, âI hope you both loseâ. But Celtic deserve the lesser punishment for the failure of their stewards to prevent the pitch incursion.
Dida, if Uefa are serious about ridding the game of its major problems, should be thrown out of football.
Didaâs first reaction when he received a bitch-slap from the undoubtedly intensely irritating fan doing a jig across his goalmouth was to chase after the Celt. This was the right response. Any firm but fair action from Dida would have been applauded, not only for its honesty, but for denying the Celtic supporters the oxygen of self-pity which, for some of them, is more important than any victory.
Instead he chose to collapse, aware perhaps that the game could be abandoned and seemingly unconcerned about the result his actions would have on the 60,000 in the stands nursing many race grievances, the effects of several pints and the endorphins following the winning goal.
Diving undermines football and the feigning of serious injury so that play is stopped is the latest advance on this insidious form of cheating. Didaâs clear attempt to influence the outcome of the game was informed by his own personal history. In 2005, he was hit by a flare at the San Siro in the Milan derby and Champions League quarter-final. That night, with nearly 20 minutes to play in the second leg, the game was abandoned and Milan, who were cruising anyway, were awarded the match.
In more desperate circumstances, Dida thought heâd try it again. He was cheating and, if the referee had gone along with his plan, the game would have been called off and again we would have had no problem distinguishing between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.
It was dangerous and irresponsible and if UEFA are serious about changing the game, which I suspect they are not, then they will chase after Dida with more purpose than he pursued the fan.
Instead, they are likely to fine Celtic and allow Dida to get away with his actions. Given a choice, as was the case in Athens during last seasonâs final, Uefa will always come down hard on anybody displaying any emotion anywhere in a ground, especially supporters.
If it is fake, like Didaâs cheating or the whole corporate edifice that doesnât fit in easily into nights of real passion at football grounds like Parkhead, where the game still matters, then Uefa encourage it or ignore it.
So Celtic prepare for their punishment and while the response of the rest of the Milan delegation has almost certainly prevented any drastic action, there is still the danger that they may have to play a game behind closed doors. Letâs be clear, nobody wants that.
Of course it would rob Celtic of their famed support but more importantly it would leave 60,000 nationalists at a loose end on a big match night. Getting them to Parkhead at least gets them out of the pub. Keeping them there benefits no one.
There are precedents. Last season, during Rangersâ home tie against Maccabi Haifa, a pro-Palestine protestor chained himself to a goalpost, adding a new dimension to the melting pot for football nights in Glasgow. He was taken away to jeers and the waving of Israeli flags by the visiting supporters, but Rangers were only fined 5,700. Celtic should ask them for their legal notes.
Rangersâ result last Tuesday would have added to the frenzy at Parkhead, a tough environment for the 2,000 year-old men known as Milan to enter.
Rangersâ astonishing victory in Lyons might simply be put down to Lyons having recently endured two years working under Gerard Houllier. Another job done, Houllier could be found last week explaining why it was important, in light of the Avram Grant situation, that coaches have all the correct badges, as he does. Case closed.
But Celticâs anxieties will rumble on for a bit yet. Uefa may be influenced by local factors too. With Rangers top of their group and Celtic threatening to qualify again, there is a chance the pair could meet in the knock-out stages. It wouldnât be a night for protests about Palestine or for soft Brazilian goalkeepers. It wouldnât be a night for anyone with sense or sensibility at all.
For once, Uefa may see the bigger picture.
Dion,
Are you incapable of writing about Celtic Football Club or its supporters without resporting to nonsensical stereotypes to illustrate your position? And do you genuinely believe that your references to nationalism, tribalism and race have any relevance to the actions of the supporter who entered the pitch on Wednesday night or the histrionics of Dida which followed?
Your opinion piece is nothing more than an uneducated slur on 60,000 people who attend Celtic Park regularly. The presence or absence of nationalism at Celtic matches is entirely irrelevant to the incident that took place on Wednesday night but in your mind you see Celtic and nationalism as inseparable. For reasons I wonât pretend to understand you seem to have an irrational distaste of anything approaching nationalism and this manages to colour your sports articles at regular intervals.
A couple of inaccuracies that might be highlighted:
- The Celtic fan wasnât âdoing a jig.â Why feel the need to employ such a stereotypical term to describe the actions of a man running? Is that the limit of your vocabularly are did you feel it set the tone nicely for a piece about Celticâs fans?
- The suggestion that the âoxygen of self-pityâ is more important to many Celtic fans âthan any victoryâ is pure nonsense. Did you think about this sentence when you were writing it at all or was it just a nice opportunity to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher in an article about Celtic? I met many Celtic fans after the game the other night and I can promise you this: not one would have swapped that famous win for any amount of self-pity. Of course I suspect you know this already but it didnât suit your argument.
- How were the 60,000 in the stands ânursing race grievances?â Do you have even a hint of evidence to support that statement? Youâre suggesting I was somehow wallowing in the grief of being Irish? Likewise the Polish man sitting next to me - he was upset at being Polish was he? And the Scots were at the same, and the English, not to mention the Italians and whoever else makes up the 60,000. Again, Iâd question the relevance of this snippet to the article on one manâs decision to invade the pitch and Didaâs reaction to the confrontation. It says an awful lot about the prejudice of your beliefs that you canât discuss Celtic without resorting to petty jibes about a very real and dangerous culture of discrimination against Catholics which took place in parts of the UK.
- âIt was a clash of corpratism against nationalism.â Lovely soundbite but actually what does it mean? It wasnât a clash between either corporatism or nationalism. If youâre going to oversimplify the argument then at least try and maintain some level of accuracy in your piece.
- â[Playing a game behind closed doors] âŚwould rob Celtic of their famed support but more importantly it would leave 60,000 nationalists at a loose end on a big match night. Getting them to Parkhead at least gets them out of the pub. Keeping them there benefits no one.â Itâs hard to know where to begin with that moronic statement. Not everyone who supports Celtic is a nationalist. Iâd love for you to right a piece next week about the Harlem Globetrotters next week and refer to the 10,000 civil rights activists in attendance. Furthermore, not everyone who attends Celtic Park is in a pub if theyâre not at the stadium. Some of us have jobs, some have families, some donât drink. Donât let the truth get in the way of your opinion though, it must be vital for you to be controversial every week.
I donât expect a reply to this mail because frankly I canât see why youâd be bothered entering a debate on a topic where your views are so entrenched and where your column values provocation over reporting.
Regards anyway
Link below to that FAI/GAA article he wrote:
http://www.thefreekick.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=75&func=view&id=5321&catid=1#5321
