FA discipline for players who step out of line: Stamp deliberately on an opponent in an attempt to put him out of the game, and perhaps maim him for life: Three-match ban. Retaliate physically against aforesaid thug and receive a red-card for your sins (whether you injure him or not): Three-match ban.

Now those punishments are not strictly correct, because the FA can technically impose any punishment they feel is apt. But in general terms, both actions would be regarded as violent conduct with similar penalties. If that is justice, then I'm a Chelsea supporter!

Manchester City defender Michael Ball, as I wrote last weekend, should have been banned for a full season for his attack on Cristiano Ronaldo - if not longer. Instead, he faces that pathetic three-match punishment which presumably means that in the eyes of the FA, his offence is not deemed particularly serious.

Could it just be that someone had a quiet word in Ball's ear before the game suggesting that he neutralise the threat of Ronaldo at the earliest possibility?


Of course, Ball was a 'good boy' because he admitted he was out of order and even apologised to Ronaldo. Whether the apology was for stepping out of line or for not inflicting more serious damage, I’m not sure. "I deeply regret what I did and have accepted the FA's charge without hesitation,’’ he said. ’’I have also sent a personal apology to Cristiano.’’

But does an apology, however sincere, (and I can’t see how he could be sincere when he clearly meant to hurt Ronaldo) make the offence any less serious?

Now I know Ronaldo isn’t everyone’s most popular player, and there are people out there who felt little or no sympathy for him. I would just ask them to consider for a moment how they would have felt about Ball had his attack been on their favourite player.

For his part, the villain of the piece made no attempt to explain his brainstorm at the very start of the derby match at Eastlands. Since Ball is clearly is not blessed with a surfeit of grey matter, I also suspect strongly that his attempt to win forgiveness after the event  was prompted by legal or club advisors.

‘"My action should not be seen on a football pitch and I know we have a responsibility at Premier League level to set a good example to the whole football community,’’ he trumpeted. "I am proud of my disciplinary record and have never been sent off in my professional career."

Why, then, did he abandon that responsibility within two minutes of kick-off against Manchester United? He also omitted to say that the only reason he has never been sent off is that referee Rob Styles missed his assault on the Portuguese pretty boy.

What makes it even worse is that Manchester City seem to have effectively sanctioned Ball’s behaviour by rewarding him with a full contract. And manager Stuart Pearce has scarcely been scathing in his condemnation of the incident.

"He probably got a little caught up in the derby atmosphere,’" said Psycho. ’"But he was honest and genuine enough to step forward and say 'I was out of order'."

What else did Pearce expect Ball to say, for heaven’s sake? "I don’t regret a thing - I meant to put him in hospital and I’m sorry I failed."

What we didn’t get was an explanation from Ball of exactly what was going through his mind at the time of the offence. We can guess - he obviously didn’t want to be made a fool of by the most dangerous player in English football.

Certainly Pearce made no mention of internally disciplining Ball for his outrageous behaviour. "We hope to move on from that, as we've always done,'' he said. '' We let the authorities deal with any problems, whether on the pitch or with the Football Association. We've done the same again."

In the light of City's apparent lack of action, some people are now asking a more ominous question. Since the incident occurred so early in the game - before Ronaldo had a chance to embarrass Ball football-wise - is it possible that City boot-boy was merely obeying orders? Could it just be that someone had a quiet word in his ear before the game suggesting that he neutralise the threat of Ronaldo at the earliest opportunity?

Pearce’s comparative silence does nothing to divorce him from what happened. And he clearly doesn’t regard Ball as a bad influence in the Joey Barton mould. "Michael has been fantastic since he has been with us," the City boss told the Manchester Evening News. "He has earned himself a new contract which we are hoping he will sign this week."

I just hope it's not a hit man's contract.

Were the FA too lenient with Ball? Post a comment below or write an article.