Eh? It opens himself up to all kinds of possibilities. What happens if they'd won a penalty in that game? Or a free kick in a decent location?
The problem is, You cannot prove his integrity was/would be compromised, if he found himself in those scenarios. To do so, is Nothing but conjecture
Fans of the game aren't invited to tactical briefings, know explicit team information, team instructions etc. Barton will have been privy to considerable amounts of information and there's every chance he used this to his advantage. Whether or not it came off is irrelevant. He still brought the integrity of the game into disrepute.
What information would he be privy to, that nobody else would, that could actually Give him the advantage when betting?
The formation, the tactics, The starting XI, the free-kick/penalty takers are all fairly predictable, aswell as interchangeable, come match day. Does it make that much difference from someone reading a statistical form guide? I don't doubt he'd have far greater knowledge of the inner workings of a club, but what could be realistically use to his advantage, when betting?
And still I'll say that biting, spitting and assault are all far worse offences, that bring the game into disrepute, however they haven't carried such heavy punishments.
I've no idea how the FA decide on these punishments, but I'd imagine there's no pre-determined guidelines because of how the seriousness of the infringement is a sliding scale. Most of Barton's bets were largely harmless, but he still broke the rules. Some of Barton's bets involved his own team, which is obviously worse. A few of Barton's bets involved games where he was playing, which is considerably worse. It went on for ten years. There are a large number of moving cogs there.
Agree with all of that entirely, and despite the difficulty of implementing a correct & proper disciplinary procedure, it still needs looking into.
That's just comparing apples with oranges though, and the FA are bound by convention on certain circumstances. What has to be considered is that Barton will have known the rules - he admits himself he did - and continued to bet on games involving his team for the best part of 10 years.
I agree, but in fairness there's not much else to compare it to?
I've got every sympathy for him as a problem gambler and the FA comes out just as bad, if not worse, than him in this case given their cosy links with gaming firms, but I just can't see how he can have any complaints about the punishment he's been given.
It's the severity of the punishment though. Does it justifiably reflect his actions? Personally I don't think so. I'm not really sticking up for his actions (although I couldn't care less if the bookies were out a few quid) I'm more critical of the length of the ban, when other offences, which a vast majority of people would consider worse, have yielded a far lesser punishment.
This was well known. The players were educated on it.
If that was the case, why did Barton regularly speak about his betting on Twitter? And also, why didn't anyone close to him reign him in?
What makes you think the punishment is arbitrary?
A player has knowingly flouted the rules 1,260 times. The punishment is less than a punishment the FA handed out 2 years ago to a non-league manager. The punishment is less than the punishment handed out to those caught in the 1960s betting scandal (they received life time bans).
Because there doesn't seem to be any predetermined guideline for punishing these kind of offences. How else can it be described, other than arbitrary?
The ban for the Frome manager, was totally justified IMO, as his actions were inexcusable. Barton's weren't great, but no where near as bad as that. I simply don't believe Barton is deserving of an 18-month ban, which is effectively retirement.
