It’s a strange state of affairs when football’s pre-match handshakes start attracting as much interest and attention as the games themselves.

Handshakes send out a positive message that bitter rivals can still have a healthy respect for each other- James Calvert

Last week, in the build-up to Queens Park Rangers’s clash with Chelsea, all eyes were focused on the traditional ‘sporting’ ritual that precedes every Premier League match.

The reason? Everyone wanted to know whether or not Anton Ferdinand would, in fact, shake John Terry’s hand.

Would he take the moral high ground, be the bigger man and let bygones be bygones? Or would he continue to bear a grudge, despite a court having found Terry innocent of racism charges?

As it happened, Ferdinand ignored Terry’s open palm and then took the snub to another level by refusing to shake Ashley Cole’s hand as well, presumably for the latter’s support for Terry.

To be fair to Ferdinand he was put in a bit of an awkward position regarding Terry. Refusing the handshake as he did made him seem a bit petty and determined to drag something on that has theoretically been settled.

But if he had been all smiles and handshakes with a man he had accused of blatant racism, then he would have faced claims that he hadn’t really been taking the situation all that seriously after all.

Terry still has an FA charge to answer on the racism claim and you get the impression Ferdinand has no intention of forgiving and forgetting, at least while there is a chance Terry could yet be punished for his alleged actions.

Hot on the heels of that handshaking saga, we have round two taking place today at Anfield. This one involves Patrice Evra and Luis Suarez, the two players who were involved in last season’s other big racism scandal.

Once again you can expect the television cameras to be zooming in on these two as the teams line up before kick-off. However, this time you can also expect the shake to take place, with their respective clubs saying they believe the two men will put their differences behind them.

Obviously, you would be forgiven for thinking this whole thing is little more than a storm in a teacup. And, to be honest, it is. I’m sure football history is littered with games in which two players who can’t stand each other have taken to the field.

The difference is, before this handshaking ritual was introduced a few years ago, it would never have been put in the spotlight in such dramatic fashion. They would just have quietly kicked lumps out of each other during the game.

As a result of the recent nonsense, some people have been calling for the whole ritual to be abandoned to ensure players aren’t put in these awkward situations in the future.

But I think that would be a daft and defeatist move.

It may not mean that much in the greater scheme of things but, generally speaking, the handshakes do send out a positive message to the younger members of the watching public that bitter rivals can still have a healthy respect for each other.

The pre-match handshake has been in place for years now at thousands of league games in England. And I can’t think of too many other times it has caused moments of controversy.

Why get rid of something that is intrinsically good just to avoid the odd moment of controversy? If you were going to do that, you would probably need to get rid of football in its entirety.

Nicely done Everton

One of the week’s most moving tributes to the Hillsborough victims came at a rather unlikely venue – Goodison Park.

Despite being Liverpool’s fiercest rivals, Everton showed they are more than capable of rising above local competitiveness when the occasion calls for it.

And, in the wake of the findings of the new Hillsborough report, their match with Newcastle most certainly called for it.

Seeing the two young mascots walking on to the pitch, one in a Liverpool shirt, one in an Everton shirt with the numbers 9 and 6 on their respective backs was truly moving.

As was the way the fans rose to acknowledge the minute’s applause while the names of the 96 flashed across the big screens.

One of those all too infrequent moments when football rises above petty rivalry and warms the heart.

Your say

“I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at your seeming acceptance of The Sun’s newspaper front page headline in the immediate aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster.

“Without getting maudlin or sentimental we lost a cousin in that disaster – along with a family acquaintance – yet even if thiswasn’t the case, I would still question your ‘understanding’ as why one may feel that The Sun was telling the ‘truth’.

“It is, of course, your prerogative to say it as you see it, but while professing not to ‘stick up’ for The Sun in any shape or form you give a very passable mitigating defence of its diabolical submissions by stating that our understanding may kick-in when one considers the sources that The Sun utilised before publishing the story.

“Really James? I never had you down for gullible or disingenuous (nor the editor or journalist of any newspaper), as history has taught us – and not just in the past decade or recent past – that the examples you gave as seemingly credible witnesses or purveyors of information are paragons of probity or meaningful insightfulness – these being an MP and a leading police officer.

“Did the concepts of vested interests or CYA (covering your ass) not exist back then?

“You forgot to mention that despite these ‘sources’ providing the ammunition for The Sun’s gun, the sources of the information were not mentioned nor thoroughly researched by all involved at The Sun in the rush to publish a sensationalised (although uncorroborated in an accountable or professional manner) version of events.

“Would you publish anything so far-reaching or massively impacting (as surely they were aware), even back then, simply on the say-so of such exalted, elevated people without thoroughly checking out their claims?

“Finally, you also forgot to mention the role of Sheffield local council in this catastrophe, who gave permission for the game to go ahead with the full knowledge that the stadium did not meet nor comply with the necessary safety standards – nor didit possess the appropriate certificationto enable this game to be played atHillsborough.” Pete Murray, e-mail.

sportscolumnist@timesofmalta.com
Twitter: @maltablade