Des Kelly's column: Have Arsenal got double standards or tunnel vision?

Byline: Des Kelly 

I'M a totally-devoted England fan. I've been following those heroes ever since they beat Turkey, which was, oh, nearly a week ago.

This team is my life! When they win, I drink beer and cavort in a reprehensible manner. I also do this when they lose. There is no point in wasting beer, I just cavort in a more subdued manner.

The last time I was a totally-devoted England fan was on September 1, 2001, which happened to coincide with the 5 v 1 thrashing of Germany.

Luckily, I was in Munich that night. I'm not taking full credit for the victory as many England players were also involved. But there was a moment midway through the first half when I realised that if I stood in a certain way, with my left foot in front of the right and the top button of my lucky shirt undone, England were almost certain to score.

Tactical

It was a brave tactical gamble which the Germans had no answer for. And I have never had a feeling of satisfaction like it, not until the momentous night in Istanbul.

Sorry, what was that? You say England didn't beat Turkey? Well, I've seen the replays myself and there is no question about it.

England won comfortably, thanks in the main to two decisive Emile Heskey strikes, which settled the contest before it degenerated into an unseemly defensive stalemate.

Yes, I'm talking about the bundle in the tunnel. This is where England's victory was sealed and the sight of "our boys" piling in filled the country's collective heart with pride and joy.

Admit it. You weren't appalled by the sight of our national team trading blows with their opponents. You either tried to stifle a sneaking chuckle of admiration, or you forgot all about any pretence of decency and behaved like our picture editor when he first saw the footage. He yelled: "Get in there!"

I mention all this not to celebrate violence or yobbery, but to point out a peculiar contradiction which has come to light this week.

Someone explain this conundrum to me:

England players fight foreigners = Heroes.

Arsenal and Manchester United players DON'T fight each other = Yobs.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

We're talking about two goalless draws, one where the national team traded blows inside the tunnel and were caught on camera doing so, yet barely received a word of condemnation.

And another where players leapt around in front of the other, trading nothing more offensive than unpleasant looks while waving their handbags, which sparks a week of national outrage.

It's an odd double standard.

But this could explain a somewhat peculiar move by Arsenal this week. On Wednesday, the Highbury board overruled their manager Arsene Wenger and pleaded guilty to all nine charges resulting from that now-infamously bad-tempered draw with United. The idea that the club who had previously whined about "trial by Sky TV" would suddenly do a handbrake turn and admit: "It's a fair cop, guv" was surprising, to say the least.

So we were left wondering why? Here's a couple of theories - and both hang on England.

The first is that Arsenal watched the national team's brawl in Turkey and instantly knew the FA's hands would be tied when they came to dole out punishment.

None of Wenger's men threw a punch at Old Trafford, so logic suggests that if any Arsenal player is banned for three games, the FA could have no complaint if England internationals received harsher punishment from UEFA for the Istanbul brawl.

In fact it was quite a cute move for Arsenal to hold their hands up and see if the FA would be daft enough to tie themselves in knots.

But there is another theory, one that was touched upon by Gary Neville in The Times earlier in the week.

The England and United defender, who moonlights as unofficial shop steward for UMP (the Union of Millionaire Playboys), questioned the whole impartiality of the FA.

Amidst the crazy Rio Ferdinand strike row, Neville pointed out that a number of key positions within the organisation are held by leading figures at Premiership clubs.

He said: "It cannot be right that senior councillors with allegiances to Blackburn Rovers, Liverpool, Arsenal, Aston Villa and other clubs are in a position to influence the fate of a Manchester United player. And that is not the moan of a United player. In no disciplinary matter should club representatives be advising an independent FA chief executive."

He went on to add he was "not accusing anyone of prejudice", but he was, of course. What's more, he was right to raise it.

For while he referred to a number of clubs, Neville's most likely target was Arsenal, Arsenal, Arsenal and Arsenal.Because it's the position of Gunners vice-chairman David Dein within the FA which really rankles United.

Dein is a wily politician, the master of the off-the-record briefing, the quiet word, the unattributable quip over the canapes.

You won't find him putting his head over the parapet too often, but he's quite content to feed ammunition to others.

But, irrespective of the culpability of Ferdinand, should Dein really be taking part in discussions which decide the punishment handed down to the player of a rival club? Would Arsenal be content to let a member of the United board help decide what happens to Martin Keown?

The suspicion now is Arsenal have pleaded guilty because they have had their cards marked. Dein has had another of his 'quiet words' while on FA duty and he knows exactly what lies ahead for his players.

A few fines, two short bans and a slap on the wrist. Then the FA can hope England get the same from UEFA.

It's diplomacy like this which made the country great.