I saw Rooney as it was a broadcast game, Chelsea at Stoke wasn't hence I didn't. Whether he gets banned or not, who knows, I doubt the FA wouldn't have brought this forward unless they were very confident of it succeeding. Saying that they haven't got a sterling record on exercising judgement.
FA-Using United...
- Thread starter WireRed
- Start date
Are you talking about the Algeria game coming off? I didn't think he did in that case, if he did then that is a very good question.
I'm sure you could've watched the game on Sky Football First or whatever it's called.... fans eh.
Which you, me, and every man and his dog know the answer to deep down
Certainly so, though as I say it was a 'highlight' of the game that obviously was going to be raised so they needed to show it in order to talk about it. I found Shearer's view on it to not be too far from mine.
"Nice to see your own fans booing ya, thats what loyal support is, feck sake"
Thank you, MacMUFC.
I'm sorry, I was busy on Saturday and watched MOTD late in the evening instead.
If you would like to compare our respective attendance records at Chelsea and Man United respectively I'd be happy to do so.
To be pedantic it was dubbed out.
Seriously though, it is a good question. I do remember being angry at the time about it (not as much as Mockney however).
Talk is cheap to be fair. I suspect you;re a JCL Chelsea fan from well outside of London... so I wouldn't be waving around that cock of yours if I were you. You could've caught the game....but you didn't or say that you didn't.
They didn't NEED to show it at all.
Do you think they didn't edit it out on the re-run at 8am the next morning? ...which is more than likely watched by less kids than on the Saturday evening
They chose to show it because they wanted to make an issue out of it. Linekar even made a stupid mock attempt at it later in the program, and then they showed it AGAIN during the end credits. That's called having an agenda, which for a supposedly self respecting organisation like the BBC is beyond embarassing. Though no more so than some of their other cringeworthy agenda programming these days (I wont start on that or we'll be here all night).
I remember Dion Dublin shoutng "he's a fecking cheat" into the camera during a Birmingham vs Villa game a few years back. I don't recall the BBC feeling the need to poster it up like some kind of verbal christmas decoration for the next two nights running.
To be fair to Sky at least they're consistent in their cuntery. They didn't censor the Dublin or the Drogba incidents when they easily could have.
John terry is a cnut of the pitch and has been since a small child. I have no idea what Rooney is like.
Hth.
Hth.
The answer is that if he'd celebrated like he did on Saturday whilst wearing an England shirt, it'd somehow be ok and even "passionate" in the eyes of many of the same people condemming it. Plus there's the fact he'd have been banned from England games rather than United ones.
Of course, if the FA had any integrity, that'd be considered irrelevant. But if the FA had any integrity we'd never end up having discussions like this in the first place.
Swearing is not a very uncommon and heinous act.
A cameraman on the other hand has no place being the faces of footballers while a premier league game is on.
In the case of the Drogba one they just made it more audible then apologised
MOTD coverage was fine, it was the MOTD2 stuff which was laughable. Apart from the predictable old women nonsense in the studio from Murray and Dixon, some prick actually decided to dub the entire highlights of arguably the most pivotal PL game in the season so far with "Respect" by Aretha Franklin. Cringeworthy stuff.
Yeh but MOTD2 is supposed to be more 'laddish'. I know this is contrary to the Caf gospel, but I think it's a good show. Murray's a top bloke, does great on Fighting Talk too, and the guests are normally having a bit more of a joke about than on the Saturday version. If you don't like it, don't watch it. They pick on everyone to make a joke of.
It came across as more prudish rather than more laddish last night.
Don't watch MOTD?
Even if it was hosted by Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black I'd still watch MOTD.
It's the only reason I pay my license fee.
Only if you're the employer of said television station. If you say feck off behind the news lady outside the parliament there's nothing to be done.
Maybe he was talking about a guy name Fuc who was a king. That's not a swear. Like saying cock, meaning the male bird.
It's just so stupid. No such law here. Can say what you want. People just don't because of common decency and public image. Nothing get's bleeped in post production and no apologies needed.
wasn't it in 2006, FA banned Scholes for picking up a card in a pre season game and also Rooney for something like that?
Then the issue is by Sky not Wayne Rooney. They televised the game.
Was that not our own fault? Arsenal go into pre-season tournaments(Emirates Cup) with the yellow/red card issue sorted.
We didn't sort out the details, and so the FA were obligated to follow through with the suspension I believe.
So if some broadcaster bizarrely decided to show live footage at a nude beach in the afternoon, the beach-goers should be fined?
Well given how crap he is for England, it's a wonder he still keeps his place.
I hope he does retire
The FA obviously don't see it that way. Otherwise they'd have been just as keen to impose sanctions for the same offence last summer, when he did the exact same thing but in an England shirt. Surely that's more damaging to the FA's image than a PL fixture? But that doesn't matter when it's in your own interest to turn a blind eye and let him play and earn more prize money for you to pay off your overpriced concrete bowl of a stadium, and manager you want rid of but can't due to your own dropped bollock prior to said WC...Very consistent aren't they?
I'm not that bothered by MOTD2 as no one takes it seriously anyway. If they want to mock things, have agendas or even be biased on there, fine, as long as it's portrayed in the same way as a bunch of blokes arguing in a pub or something, and not vindictive.
MOTD is supposed to be an unbiassed view of the weekend's football highlights, not some agenda peddling platform for the types of people who should be working for News of the World. It was blatantly obvious Shearer and Hansen couldn't give less of a shit and had been told/forced to make an issue of it. I wonder why. If it WAS that outrageous then they obviously shouldn't have shown it. Or would it somehow have been perfectly ok if Rooney had done the same thing in the second half of an evening kick off? Target audiences and moral standards for football change depending on what the time is now do they?
I've never been one for this ABU nonsense...at times the media are very pro-United, at other times less so, but the BBC have become a pathetic joke over recent years. Starting with that ridiculous bungs program in which they attempted to publicly and very noisily slander several Premier League managers, despite not having even the tinyest shred of evidence with which to do so. They wouldn't even be allowed to broadcast Premier League highlights or cover games via radio if I was in charge of that sort of thing, as they're not fit for purpose. Get rid of Alan Green and the other blatant tabloid agenda Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime and then maybe I'd reconsider.
It's not even the issue I think needs addressing with this though. The BBC and others don't decide when and how to apply the FA's rules. Only the FA can do that, and the FA very clearly do have agendas from what I can see, but there's little point going into it. People prefer to believe they're impossibly incompetent instead, or bowing to outside media pressures. Neither of which are actually a viable excuse for the way they conduct themselves, and neither of which actually fully explain the way they conduct themselves anyway. Personally I think they're run by the kind of bent tossers who wouldn't be fit to run a bingo club. They make the worst parts of the media seem like a paragon of honest objectivity.
What fecking what
Watch Kuyt gettting a ban for suggesting refs aren't fair/
Kuyt unhappy with treatment | Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News
Kuyt unhappy with treatment | Sky Sports | Football | Premier League | News
Did Babel get fined for that Twatter pic?
For the record, I wasn't particularly offended by it but I can see whay some people are.
Swearing on a football pitch is one thing - swearing down a live TV camera being beamed into the homes of millions around the world is quite another.
Clearly policitcs is a relevant factor - but its hardly surprising that they've taken a stance in a week when the issue of "respect" has been laid out so clearly. They had little choice but to act after what has been said, or risk further criticism.
Regardless of the issues at hand Wayne Rooney is an idiot to have acted in that way and by doing so he's placed himself in a position where he was likely to be punished. That situation arises out of current context but it doesn't change the fact that he needs to be responsible for his own behavior on and off the pitch.
Its about time footballers in general realised that actions have consequences and that its not enough for the club to issue a half arsed apology on your behalf - especially when its blatantly been done to try and avoid a media shit storm.
Wayne Rooney is a great player - but he's paid a lot of money to play football. The club should fine him - as now, because of his actions he can't, during a vital period in the season.
The suggestion of an anti United agenda does appear to carry some weight, but the club, through the actions of players and the manager repeatedly fails to help itself.
That stupid campaign is about respecting the referee, did Rooney swear at the ref? or do cameraman deserve the same treatment as refs now? why not just have them award penalties?
I accept that, but its clearly in the same vain, especially given that one of teh major factors is for players to set a good example on the pitch.
Six weeks down the line, when this isn't so fresh in people's memories nothing may have happened but right now its a case of the FA banging the drum, a high profile player behaving badly and all eyes falling back on the FA to see whether they're serious about it - asking if they'll put their money where their mouth is.
All of this ignores the major point I was making in that when a grown man acts like that, especially in light of current media attention then he shouldn't be surprised when he gets punished.
I get that, but it's still poppycock on the grounds that they did NOT charge him for exactly the same offence in South Africa last summer, when the only difference was that he was wearing their shirt. If they are going to start getting all holier than thou, and nitpicking, at least be consistent and do it to everyone regardless of circumstances or potential ramifications for themselves.
It's hypocrisy of the highest order, just because they want to cover their own failings and create publicity for another one of their pointless, fly by night, schemes. The way they see it is this, what better way to deflect from the ongoing enquiry into their ability or lack of to govern the national game than banning a high-profile individual from the club with the highest profilein the country(SAF and Rooney)? And who better to make an example of to look like their latest brainstorm has any meaning than the most scrutinised player, playing for the most scrutinesed club in the land?
They are using us just as the title of the thread says, using us as a deterrant, using us as a decoy to destract from their own incompetence, using us to set an example. There is an agenda within the FA to use us as a tool to clean up the game and make themselves look all mighty and powerful in the process, well it just won't wash I'm afraid. It stinks to high heaven.
It is massively biased towards Arsenal / Liverpool and anti United though, Sam
Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney feels wrath of Football Association as it takes chance to flex its muscles - Telegraph
Didn't know the FA were having a Parliamentary meeting today about Football Governance. This ban was to deflect attention from this and to get Wayne for the elbow against Wigan.
Didn't know the FA were having a Parliamentary meeting today about Football Governance. This ban was to deflect attention from this and to get Wayne for the elbow against Wigan.
I agree with most of what you say. It is though extremely naive to expect anything else in my opinion. Politics is key - and the FA find themselves in a battle against players, clubs, managers and the Premier League while still trying to govern a game which seems to be lumbering from one crisis to the next.
The FA clearly needs to be modernised and undergo some sort of change up to the highest levels - the Capello farce makes that obvious to anyone looking at it. But in this instance they were arguably backed into a corner. If this had been Andy Carroll at Liverpool or Balotelli from City the result would have been the same so its arguable that the United factor is in this instance irrelevant.
As for Ferguson speaking out - he's gotten away with it for years, and he knows its against the rules yet persists in a one man battle which at the moment has him stuck in the stands. He won't speak in press conferences here because he knows he can get away with it but he's always there is Europe where he knows if he doesn't turn up he will get fined - not to mention the effect it would have on his reputation.
Clearly The FA will use high profile players as a detterent but surely thats the point? Plenty of people on here moan about diving and how it should be rooted out of the game and if that was the case then it all has to start somewhere with one player doing what hundreds other have done before but being punished.
As I've said above the question needs to be asked why a top player is so stupid as to go off the deep end in a week when a clamp down was likely to be made. Perhaps thats for another thread, but looking at his actions in context is it suprising he's been banned? - if thats not bringing the game into disprepute I don't know what is - although this side track allows fans and the club to ignore the issue of why he behaved like he did especially having had his fingers burned in the summer.
The FA obviously don't see it that way. Otherwise they'd have been just as keen to impose sanctions for the same offence last summer, when he did the exact same thing but in an England shirt. Surely that's more damaging to the FA's image than a PL fixture? But that doesn't matter when it's in your own interest to turn a blind eye and let him play and earn more prize money for you to pay off your overpriced concrete bowl of a stadium, and manager you want rid of but can't due to your own dropped bollock prior to said WC...Very consistent aren't they?
You are stretching a point if you think Rooney puts bums on FA seats.The FA will make money from matches at Wembley regardless.
This has nothing to do with FA and club politics and everything to do with the FA getting fed up of Rooney's petulant antics.
He behaves like the scummy chav he is
I highly doubt it. The media coverage would have been nowhere near as intense for starters. They'd have been given a formal warning at worst, just like Gerrard when he stuck two fingers up at the ref for the public to see clearly.
Fergie has been banned, punished, and made an example of more times than I care to remember. The commitee that imposed the current ban even said so. They even admitted that his profile demanded greater responsibility hence greater sanctions aswell. That is nonsense, and SAF's representative Graham Bean was bang on the money in what he said about the FA...That they use the profile of MUFC to enhance their own credibility, which most would agree has been in tatters for a while now. This whole Rooney situation has yet more evidence of it, hot on the heels of them using SAF and his profile in the same way. SAF has at times in the past been the architect of his own downfall, I agree with that, but what he's been banned for this time is comparatively little and crucially, less severe than what other managers at less prestigous club's have got away scot free with.
No, the point of retrospective punishments is to clamp down on misconduct. That's fine, but when you start taking into account the individuals and the profile they have/the profile their club has, that is not a fair trial. Each case should be examined at face value without any prejudice or agenda to punish one for who they are, instead of what they did. When we start going down the road the FA are going now, we might aswell make one set of rules and sanctions for the majority and another one for the elite. It's garbage, grossly unfair, and a scandal.
Yeah, he has brought the game in disrepute. But he did the exact same thing last summer when wearing an England jersey. Where on earth was the pedantic watchdog that is the FA then eh? The whole point of regulations is to implement them each time they aren't adhered to, the fact is that the FA didn't because it suited them not to, and now it suits them to take action. That is inconsistent, hypocritical, and quite frankly, a disgrace to the code of fair play. They cannot be so morally jumped up when they sold their morals down the river last summer for the sake of their national team and potential to earn more prize money to fund some of the many expensive cock-ups they've made over the years.
They are an organisation that is as bent as a roundabout and needs to be weaned from top to bottom by this government enquiry ASAP. The stench of hypocrisy and conflicting interests is overwhelming.