Month: March 2011

The BBC’s Panorama had an excellent program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD).

The presenter, Alan Little, started by recounting his career as a war correspondent, which he found exciting. Later, he discovered that he had all the symptoms of PSTD, lived with its nightmares, allowed it to wear off, and then went back to his career, even back to covering wars.

Mr. Little then tells of people, encouraged by lawyers, who claimed financial compensation for stress suffered: a teacher in a ‘stressful’ school situation; a sailor on a fishing trawler forced to abandon ship during a storm – the other members of the crew ridiculed his claim; a fireman who injured his knee when he took the full force of the water hose during a fire; etc.

Mr. Little wondered whether the above experiences could be put in the same category as those suffered by combatants and non-combatants in a war situation.

Trauma in itself is difficult to detect, and even more, to measure. When lawyers, not the most reputable of people, get involved in drawing up agreements on compensation sharing, claims become suspect.

Mr. Little interviewed a number of medical experts. Naturally, those working with the lawyers differed in opinion from those who felt that compensation claims accentuated, exaggerated and prolonged any feelings of ‘trauma’. When claims are contested, as they usually are, lawyers for the defence subject ‘victims’ to accusations of cheating, malingering, etc. Then, in order not to compromise their legal positions ‘victims’ are forced to ‘wallow’ in emotional or mental situations that are best put behind them.

Interestingly, some of the claimants even suggested that they had made a mistake in seeking compensation.

Some experts believe that PSTD could be the effect of accumulated negative experiences in the past that are triggered off by a ‘traumatic’ experience. Mr. Little asked a very pertinent question. He wanted to know if he caused somebody to have an accident, was he guilty for all the accumulated negative experiences in that person’s past?

I have often wondered when victims of abuse are awarded large compensation, if their trauma disappears once the money is deposited into their accounts.

For example, Catholic priests guilty of sexual abuse should be punished. But penal payback for penile transgressions is fairer than awarding large sums of money in compensation. This cash comes from donations that were made for some better cause and not for the personal use of the priest. This would also preclude the possibility of false accusations.

March 2009

---

© Percy Aaron

The referee’s blunder in awarding a penalty to Chelsea in their recent Premiership match against Liverpool and this week’s interview with ex-Premier League official, Graham Poll, emphasized the need for introducing TV replays to clean up the game.

With the increasing pace of football matches referees not only have to keep up with players 10-20 years younger than them, but must also be able to make split-second interpretations of the rules correctly. To add to their difficulties, they have to handle blatant cheating, on-the-field histrionics, abuse and intimidation by players, managers and supporters, and subtle pressure from clubs. Sometimes they are even criticized for ‘killing the game’ by interpreting the rules too strictly!

It is humanly impossible, under these conditions, not to make mistakes from time to time, i.e. assuming there are no ‘illegal’ reasons for these errors.

Why would anyone in the world want such a thankless job!

Most other sports use TV replays to assist officials. The principal argument against introducing it into football is that it will affect the flow of the game. This is absolute nonsense. Every time the ball goes out of play, the flow is interrupted. Every time there is an injury, the flow is interrupted. Every time players waste time, the flow is interrupted. In fact, each time the referee blows his whistle the continuity of the game is disturbed.

Given his opposition to such state-of-the-art practices, Michel Platini’s election to the top job at UEFA, European football’s governing body, is a set back to the introduction of electronic refereeing.

But TV replays must be used to control at least some aspects of the game, such as cheating and boorish behaviour.

Despite a few protestations to the contrary it is well-known how mercenary today’s footballers are. The best way to punish them then is to hit them financially. Thus in routine post-match analyses players who have cheated must be banned for a number of games, and fined heavily too. If the match result has gone the way of their team then the club or country must be fined too. The fines must be severe enough to hurt the guilty parties.

Referees and linesmen should also be wired up so that every exchange between them and the players is recorded. Players using abusive language on match officials should also be fined.

And sponsors, who are concerned about corporate image, should help clean up the game by insisting on sponsorship deductions for every red or yellow card received and for all behaviour not punished by the referee.

---

COMMENTS

Devinder

June 15, 2011 at 9:08 pm

I totally agree with you. It’s time TV replays are used. If rugby and tennis can use it why can’t football use it.

Devinder

---

© Percy Aaron