Time for action in this winter of contempt

When that coin struck referee Andy D'Urso's head at Cardiff's Ninian Park last Sunday, it was seen as a symbol of a return to an era we though was long lost; a return tothat last resting place of anachronisms also inhabited by placard-wielding strikers.

Perhaps it is necessary for us sometimes to revisit such times to remind ourselves of the hellish years of the Seventies and Eighties, when the hooligan's boot, the racist's parroting of derision and the pitch trespass were familiar elements of football's bleak landscape. Lest we were in danger of becoming complacent, the week's events have caused us all to take stock.

The FA should respond vigorously and swiftly, and ultimately mete out punishment of deterrence to recent crowd disorder, in which the familiar suspects, including Cardiff, Millwall and Chelsea, have been implicated. Even the meat-pie hurler must be made to eat a humble version. As the Millwall chairman, Theo Paphitis, says: "If you allow meat pies today, who knows what they will be throwing tomorrow."

Society is to blame, we are inclined to suggest, to which the response might be: "OK, we'll nick him, too", in the words of a policeman in one Monty Python sketch satirising the fashionable tendency for social scientists to attribute flaws in individuals on their environment, although there is an element of truth that football merely reflects the prevailing order.

But could it not be more pertinently suggested that indiscipline within football itself is to blame for crowd misbehaviour? Is it more than mere coincidence, as we reflect on the scenes at Ninian Park, the New Den, Stamford Bridge, and even Villa Park, that spectators' conduct has declined in proportion to that on the field? The winter of contempt is upon us. Contempt for the laws of the game, officialdom; and whether by result or by an unpleasant incidence of timing, now we witness contempt for the forces of law and order.

Some commentators have been prone to their own excesses, of course, although their diatribes have been assisted immediately after the day, and subsequently, by the ludicrous Sam Hammam, whose outpourings make about as much sense as those of Professor Stanley Unwin.

The Jesuits say: "Send me the boy and I'll give you the man". That was presumably on what the Cardiff chairman's pseudo-evangelical offering was based when he referred to his personal minder, who was once blacklisted as a category C criminal: "Give me a nutter and I'll make him a saint" (or words to that effect).

But though the Ninian Park incidents and Hammam's reaction understandably have been the subject of most debate, the sickness within the game and among some of its supporters extends much further than Cardiff. Though there is no scientific link between hooligans on the pitch and those in the stands, the circumstantial evidence is compelling.

The onus must be on clubs, their chairmen, their managers, their players, because they set the mood. All are swift to declare their professionalism. How about another "P" word: penitence? It is almost de rigueur that any charge against any club or player will be greeted by protestations of innocence and the solemn demand, as the lawyers are hauled in, for "a personal hearing".

Too frequently, they are defending the indefensible. Don't prejudge, we're told. Well, sometimes we can. Whatever the instigation, Fulham and Everton players were embroiled in something akin to a scene from a western bar brawl at Craven Cottage recently. Fact. Thierry Henry clearly abused the referee Graham Poll in front of the TV cameras. Fact. So he was upset. Mitigation, maybe, but nothing more.

But all these and other FA charges are followed by reactions such as Arsène Wenger's. "We will defend him to the hilt, as always," he said of Henry being charged. It is typical of the "kick up enough of a rumpus and maybe we'll get off lightly" approach which does the game no favours. Similarly, the indulgence shown by clubs towards players who behave drunkenly and boorishly can only be condemned. Being dropped for being unprofessional would surely be a rather more effective means of a manager showing displeasure than fines. Until managers and chairmen accept that responsibility, they cannot assume the moral high ground, as many pretend to do.

It was perhaps unfortunate that the unreconstructed of the "bring back standing" campaign should have chosen this moment to ride into the maelstrom. If ever a group, however well intentioned, got its timing absolutely wrong, it was this 73-strong band of MPs. The Sports Minister, Richard Caborn, who remem-bers Hillsborough all too well, has already emphasised his objection to it becoming legislation.

The bill's supporters may intend for standing to be restricted to certain areas of the grounds, and with safety in mind, but by definition a large group of vociferous football supporters isn't safe, as those of us who have been compressed in poorly controlled large areas of terracing (Highbury, in the early Seventies) will testify. It is the last thing to which anyone should want to return. Neither should anyone want to return to the grim scenes so prevalent in bygone years. It is in the clubs' hands.