Iain Hume let-off raises questions about the independence of non-FA decision makers

Last week I wrote about the Football Association's decision to do Sweet FA about Sheffield United defender Chris Morgan's elbow to the head of Barnsley striker Iain Hume.

The incident, which took place at Oakwell on November 8, left Hume with a fractured skull and a scar that will cause children to stare at him in the supermarket.

Chris Morgan was shown a yellow card for his role as aggressor in the incident, a punishment the FA declined to upgrade. Iain Hume, meanwhile, faces months away from football, or even the possibility of not returning to the game at all.

Let's not kid ourselves, had Morgan's elbow gone crashing into the face of a better-known player then this story would not have been permitted to die the lonely death that it has.

Still, there are some things worth fighting for, and this week I received an email from someone involved in football in the Yorkshire region, someone who had seen Morgan's assault on Iain Hume first hand, and who had been appalled enough by the Football Association's lack of action regarding the matter that he felt the need to complain directly to Soho House.

This he did, and the response he received has left him "flabbergasted".

At first, it's a bit difficult to understand why; the reply is polite and brief. But reading again, you notice this little nugget.

'What I must point out to you is that although the board of enquiry [that met to review the Morgan incident] comes under the heading and control of the FA, the personnel involved are completely independent of the FA to ensure the FA cannot be accused of bias or favouritism.'

Hang on, so the FA don't make these kinds of decisions themselves? A man has his skull fractured on the field of play, is hospitalised, initially for eight days (three nights in a high dependency unit) but also for a second spell the following week, is left horribly scarred, and the Football Association farm out the matter to an independent body in case someone thinks they're not being fair.

Well, I don't think they're being fair. To say the least.

Where to begin with this? Well, for one thing, who sits on this 'completely independent' body? The response says that it is 'former players and managers who in TV speak know more about football than people outside of the game'.

Oh, well that's okay then. Perhaps that explains why they thought the incident unworthy of further action, when everyone outside of the game believed Chris Morgan was lucky to escape a stretch inside Doncaster prison.

The more I think about this, the worse it gets. These former players, who did they used to play for? And these 'managers', do they hope to manage again? If they do, then who is to say that they are 'completely independent'?

The reply ends with the following words: 'the FA is simply the managers [sic] of the process.'

Let's be clear, this is not good enough. The Football Association themselves should be the judge and jury of this process, not some 'completely independent' yet anonymous body to whom the FA have farmed out this messy business. Justice not only needs to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done.

Here, we have nothing of the sort.

The person who contacted me with this story wishes to remain anonymous, but he has never before criticised the FA. He realises they have a difficult job to do and has always supported them in this job. Now, though, he is considering his future in football, such is the bad taste this whole experience has left in his mouth.

Barnsley are a medium sized football club in the bottom half of the Championship. Iain Hume is a relatively anonymous player who may or may not play again.

Just because what happened to the club and to their player is not the stuff of endless phone-in debates and newspaper discussion, it does not it is unimportant. It is important, and the FA's reaction to what happened at Oakwell is unsatisfactory on every level.