They broke the rules, but the punishment was overly harsh.
And it was against Celtic - any team should be rewarded for beating them.
They broke the rules, but the punishment was overly harsh.
The punishment didn't really fit the crime though, that's why people feel aggrieved. They hammered Celtic and the player only came on for the final 5 minutes.
Forget the sides involved. What's quite disgraceful is UEFA's inability to understand how punishments should fit crimes or breaches of rules. They dish out ridiculously low punishments for things like racism and ridiculously high punishments for minor offences that have done little to cause offence or upset the balance of play.
Look at the way in which Suarez's initial punishment has been treated. We can talk about the differences between FIFA and UEFA, but UEFA have a duty to set an example. This guy has bitten a third opponent. He will bite a fourth. Why? Because he sees organisations allowing him to get away with crimes. UEFA should have taken a stance on this and seen the punishment through.
It's as if UEFA and FIFA have a random punishment generator. Each time an offence occurs they press the button and see what punishment pops up.
Was it Sheff Utd who got relegated instead of West Ham when Tevez was ineligible and that was a bit more than 10 minutes following an administrative error.
they didn't actually get kicked out though did they. they won 4-1 in the first leg, fielded an illegible player in the second and Celtic were given a 3-0 walkover result - putting them through on away goals. a 3-0 walkover is standard for offences like this.
It was 6-1 when he came on, he didn't have any impact on the result over 180 minutes and it was a genuine error. Turning 6-1 into 4-4 is not justice, not even close. May be different if he played 90 or 180 minutes, but this particular ruling should be objected to by all right thinking football fans. Appalling decision.