The FA have decided to charge Phil Brown with "improper conduct" following a touchline incident towards the end of the first half against Wigan Athletic.
Brown himself told the local radio station afterwards that he kicked a water bottle in dismay at something that went wrong on the pitch and it went too close to the fourth official. Words were exchanged and for the second half Brown sat in the West Stand of the KC, immediately behind the chairman, leaving dug-out duties to Brian Horton.
However, he did this of his own volition. He was not ordered from the technical area by anyone from the officiating team. He decided to go there himself, presumably to prevent any further grief from the fourth official about it during the second half. It can't have been for any other reason, as Brown has never been one for the shouting-down-the-mouthpiece routine.
Now, with the rapidity of decision-making for which they are not renowned, the FA have chosen to charge the Tigers boss, a whole nine days after the event. He could face a touchline exile of the not self-imposed variety if found guilty. Yet if it wasn't severe enough an offence to punish at the time, then why is it deemed so now? It's not like the retrospective stuff meted out to players who commit offences the referee fails to notice, as on this occasion Brown's misdemeanour clearly was noticed. By the fourth official, indeed. So presumably he was in a position to relegate Brown to the stands - but chose not to do so.
Hull City's manager could end up away from the touchline and a few grand out of pocket because of an offence which was seen by those in authority and yet went unpunished at the time of its commission. So who has now decided that the offence was bad enough to be punished? The FA, after all, can only act on recommendations within the post-match report of the officials ... presumably therefore, as well as charging Brown, they'll demote the officials in question for doing the wrong thing at the time. But don't hold your breath.
.jpg)
