By James Whittaker
There will be few sympathetic voices speaking up for Kris Frick this week after he walked out on Bermuda in the midst of their failed Digicel Cup campaign. There’s no greater offence to the spirit of the game than deserting your team-mates. But a five-year ban from international football — roughly half his playing career — and two years from local football seems like a disproportionate and draconian response from the BFA.
Players walk out on their country every day. You could pick a select XI in cricket and football from the number of players who refuse to represent Bermuda for a variety of reasons.
Frick did it more publically and in the middle of a tour, leaving his team short on numbers at a crucial stage in a competition when they were already struggling badly. It’s impossible to defend his actions.
But, at the end of the day, he is a teenager who made a bad decision. Angelo Simmons took similar action when he wasn’t picked for the Under-23s during the Island Games last year and he did not miss a game for Boulevard the next season. It’s a different matter, says Larry Mussenden, when you’re playing for the senior national team.
But where is the sense of proportion? How are these disciplinary decisions made? The process seems to be completely arbitrary. Whenever it’s time to prove a point or the executive is in a particularly rough mood, an extraordinary ban is handed out.
Suspensions like that may make the BFA look tough but in reality they only serve to alienate another player from the administration and harden attitudes on either side. Teenagers are prone to make strong-headed, some would say immature decisions but they are also capable of changing.
There has to be a better way to resolve this kind of situation than handing out a ban that will effectively end the player’s international career.
Consider these high profile football punishments.
Eric Cantona, Manchester United — eight month ban from football for leaping into the crowd during a Premiership game and kung-fu kicking a fan.
Rio Ferdinand, Manchester United — eight month ban for failing to take a mandatory drug test and therefore de facto failing the test.
Paulo di Canio, then Sheffield Wednesday — 11-game ban for pushing a referee to the ground during a Premiership Game.
Roy Keane, Republic of Ireland — No ban for walking out on his country during the World Cup.
No-one’s comparing Frick to Roy Keane, but you get the point.
Why should an essentially amateur football nation hamper itself and deplete it’s small resources further by handing out punishments that are far more severe than in the professional game.
Wouldn’t a public apology, some serious discussions with the player and a six-month suspension suffice?
Then, at least, it would be up to the coaches to decide whether he had reformed enough (at any time in the next five years) to be selected again.
There will be few sympathetic voices speaking up for Kris Frick this week after he walked out on Bermuda in the midst of their failed Digicel Cup campaign. There’s no greater offence to the spirit of the game than deserting your team-mates. But a five-year ban from international football — roughly half his playing career — and two years from local football seems like a disproportionate and draconian response from the BFA.
Players walk out on their country every day. You could pick a select XI in cricket and football from the number of players who refuse to represent Bermuda for a variety of reasons.
Frick did it more publically and in the middle of a tour, leaving his team short on numbers at a crucial stage in a competition when they were already struggling badly. It’s impossible to defend his actions.
But, at the end of the day, he is a teenager who made a bad decision. Angelo Simmons took similar action when he wasn’t picked for the Under-23s during the Island Games last year and he did not miss a game for Boulevard the next season. It’s a different matter, says Larry Mussenden, when you’re playing for the senior national team.
But where is the sense of proportion? How are these disciplinary decisions made? The process seems to be completely arbitrary. Whenever it’s time to prove a point or the executive is in a particularly rough mood, an extraordinary ban is handed out.
Suspensions like that may make the BFA look tough but in reality they only serve to alienate another player from the administration and harden attitudes on either side. Teenagers are prone to make strong-headed, some would say immature decisions but they are also capable of changing.
There has to be a better way to resolve this kind of situation than handing out a ban that will effectively end the player’s international career.
Consider these high profile football punishments.
Eric Cantona, Manchester United — eight month ban from football for leaping into the crowd during a Premiership game and kung-fu kicking a fan.
Rio Ferdinand, Manchester United — eight month ban for failing to take a mandatory drug test and therefore de facto failing the test.
Paulo di Canio, then Sheffield Wednesday — 11-game ban for pushing a referee to the ground during a Premiership Game.
Roy Keane, Republic of Ireland — No ban for walking out on his country during the World Cup.
No-one’s comparing Frick to Roy Keane, but you get the point.
Why should an essentially amateur football nation hamper itself and deplete it’s small resources further by handing out punishments that are far more severe than in the professional game.
Wouldn’t a public apology, some serious discussions with the player and a six-month suspension suffice?
Then, at least, it would be up to the coaches to decide whether he had reformed enough (at any time in the next five years) to be selected again.
I get the feeling that either we are not being told all the facts or that somebody is out for vengeance! Although I agree that Kris has to be held accountable for his actions, surely it would be better to help him to understand, and learn from , his mistake. Why is it also neccessary to give him a domestic ban? It doesn't make any sense at all! Does the BFA have a disciplinary framework that they work within when handing out suspensions?
Posted by: wildrover | September 08, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I agree that the BFA should take some responisbility. However Kris Fricks conduct in the National Program has not been as it should be. And to be honest he shouldnt have been selected based on his withdrawal from the U20 reportedly because he wasnt selected Captain.
Why the BFA handled the disciplinary matter with in the executive council and not the sitting Disciplinary Committee is a mystery and stinks of procedural irregularities.
As a coach irrispective of the length of the punishment he will find it hard to play for Bermuda again. even if the suspension was 1 month. He has lost the respect of his peers and coaches.
Posted by: Coach | September 08, 2008 at 03:49 PM
James you nailed it with your first sentence. It is hard to muster sympathies with someone who walked out on his teammates and coaches while representing his country, because he wasn't selected to start.
What the authors and commentators here have suggested is that the punishment enacted is at severe variance with similar infractions in the past. So if there's an issue with consistency, then that needs to be addressed.
Posted by: Tryangle | September 09, 2008 at 02:59 PM