|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Sylwadau Cefnogwr ar benderfyniad yr FAW / Fan's view on the FAW's decision Saesneg / English Credais yn siŵr y byddai ail gyfle yn ddigon hyd yn oed i Gymdeithas Pêl Droed Cymru gael pethau’n iawn. Dyna ddangos mor anghywir y medrwch chi fod. Yn amlwg roedd gan y Gymdeithas fwy o gonsyrn am achub eu hwynebau na mewn gweinyddu tegwch a chyfiawnder. Wedi’r cyfarfod cyntaf, ceision nhw greu’r argraff fod ganddynt ddim dewis ond gweinyddu holl nerth y ddeddf – hynny ydy tan i ymweliad â gwefan FIFA ddangos fod yna reol yn bodoli a oedd yn well gan y Gymdeithas gadw o’r golwg gan nad oedd yn cydymffurfio â’u hagenda. Dyma ddywed y rheol: “Sanctions imposed on the basis of this article may be reduced or even disregarded if the player, team, club or association concerned proves that it was not or was only minimally at fault for the offences in question..” Dyna ni felly yn hollol eglur. A ydy hi’n bosib cael sefyllfa lle mae’r drosedd yn fwy “minimal” nag UN aelod o’r dorf yn gweiddi sylwadau hiliol? Mae hyn yn arbennig o wir lle mae’r clwb hefyd wedi gweithredu’n syth i ddelio gyda’r unigolyn hwnnw. Mae’n rhaid fod penderfyniad y Gymdeithas yn unigryw mewn pêl droed drwy’r byd i gyd gan nad ydy hi’n bosib credu fod unrhyw glwb arall wedi cael eu cosbi yn y fath fodd am drosedd yn ymwneud ag UN unigolyn. Yn West Ham yn ddiweddar, cafwyd yr hyn a ddisgrifiwyd fel, ymgyrch gwrth-Semitaidd a honno wedi’i threfnu gan fynd ymlaen am y rhan fwyaf o’r gêm. Ni chosbwyd hyn gan Gymdeithas Bêl Droed Lloegr a ddywedodd mai mater i’r heddlu oedd hynny. Mae eraill eisoes wedi pwyntio at y gwahaniaeth rhwng y gosb gan y Gymdeithas yng Nghymru a’r hyn a gafodd Real Madrid. Rhaid i’r Gymdeithas egluro’r penderfyniad. Gwelwyd y Gymdeithas yn cael ei thrin gyda dirmyg gan swyddogion a chefnogwyr ar ôl y penderfyniad gwreiddiol a hynny ar draws spectrwm eang o’r byd pêl droed. Mynegodd grwpiau gwrth hiliol eu hofnau y byddai hiliaeth difrifol yn mynd heb ei gosbi oherwydd penderfyniad y Gymdeithas. Byddai’n rhaid i chwaraewr neu swyddog sydd yn dioddef sarhad hiliol ystyried yn ofalus cyn gwneud cwyn oherwydd yr effaith posib ar y clwb, lle gallai arwain at gau clwb gan fod y gosb ariannol mor drwm. Y lleiaf ddylen ni gael ydy eglurhad gan y Gymdeithas am eu penderfyniad ac hefyd eglurhad i Borthmadog ar sut y gallent fod wedi gweithredu’n wahanol. Credaf y byddai pob clwb gwrth hiliol wedi gweithredu yn union fel y gwnaeth Porthmadog. Gobeithio yn wir na fydd y clybiau yn gadael i’r mater yma farw’n dawel. Gweithredu er bydd holl glybiau Cymru ydy rôl Y Gymdeithas i fod, a tybed nad oes gan ein cynrychiolwyr, sef cynghorwyr y Gymdeithas rywbeth i’w ddweud am yr anghyfiawnder hwn? Ni ddylent fod yn eistedd ar eu dwylo. Gweithred gwbl ddialgar ac anghyfrifol ydy hon. Mr Collins mae na eliffant ar eich stepan drws ac wnaiff o ddim diflannu. Gareth Williams English I thought that at the second attempt surely even the FAW could get it right. How wrong can you be? The FAW were obviously more concerned with putting in place a face saving operation rather than administering justice. The first time round, they tried to create the impression that, under FIFA anti-racism rules, they had no alternative other than administer the full force of the law -that is until a visit to the FIFA website showed that there was a rule that the FAW tried to keep tucked away out of sight because it, for some reason, did not fit their agenda. That rule stated: “Sanctions imposed on the basis of this article may be reduced or even disregarded if the player, team, club or association concerned proves that it was not or was only minimally at fault for the offences in question..” Now nothing could be clearer than that. Is it possible to have a situation which is more ‘minimal’ than ONE spectator making a racist remark? This is especially true when that one individual was promptly dealt with by the club. The FAW decision must be unique in world football, as I find it hard to believe that any club has been penalised in such a way for an offence concerning only one spectator. At West Ham recently what was described as an orchestrated campaign of anti-Semitic chants, which persisted for most of the game, went unpunished by the English FA who said it was a matter for the police. Others have already pointed to the gross discrepancy between this FAW decision and what has happened to Real Madrid. Surely the FAW need to be forced to explain their decision. The reaction to the original punishment saw the FAW being regarded with contempt by officials and supporters over a wide spectrum. Anti-racist groups are also very concerned at the fact that the FAW decision could lead to serious cases going unpunished. A player or official who is subjected to racist insults would now have to think very hard before bringing a complaint which they know could lead to the closing down of a club for financial reasons. The very least we should expect is an explanation, for their actions, by the FAW and they should tell Porthmadog how else they could have dealt with the matter. I believe that all decent anti-racist clubs would have dealt with this matter in exactly the same way as Porthmadog did. Let us hope now that clubs will not let this matter die. The FAW is supposed to operate for the good of football throughout Wales and, what about the FAW councillors, do they have something to say about this gross injustice? They should not be sitting on their hands. This is a vindictive and totally irresponsible action by the FAW. Mr Collins there’s an elephant on your doorstep and it won’t go away. Gareth Williams |
|
||
 |
|||