FA-Using United...

[WireRed]

As a distraction from the current government enquiry into their governance of the game IMO. Being probed and having your organisation doubted can't be good for their image, so they've come up with a nice little plan to take the focus off that and make themselves look useful in the process...chuck the book at the biggest club in the land and use the publicity to aid your own cause. Very big of them

The sooner the government declare them unfit for purpose the better, maybe then we can have the structural changes needed within the FA to prevent nonsense charges like we've seen against SAF and Wayne recently, not to mention the staggering incosistencies in which each case is reviewed.

No wonder nobody voted for them and their bid for 2018, I wouldn't vote for a bunch of puppets controlled by the media, and who are a disgrace to their nation either.

Rant over!

 

[Team Brian GB]

RAWK material, Rooney deliberate swore live on UK television to the camera before 8pm which is against broadcasting laws hence the FA are bringing it forward.

 

[Lynk]

I doubt it would've been this big of a deal if it was Chris Brunt for West Brom.

 

[peterstorey]

The FA have already had a phone call from the politicians otherwise they'd have turned a blind eye to it.

 

[WireRed]

RAWK material, Rooney deliberate swore live on UK television to the camera before 8pm which is against broadcasting laws hence the FA are bringing it forward.

Why was Richards not banned then when he did? Van Der Sar when he did? Fergie when he did? Every player that's ever clearly swore on a football field? If this was a consistent ruling, fine. But it's not, it's a knee-jerk respone to a media witch hunt and another chance to deflect attention away from their own shortcomings which are currently being layed out in an enquiry.

 

[Team Brian GB]

I doubt it would've been this big of a deal if it was Chris Brunt for West Brom.

It would have been as it will be done on the grounds of breaking Ofcom rules which has its mandate from Parliament to uphold decency on the airwaves.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

It would have been as it will be done on the grounds of breaking Ofcom rules which has its mandate from Parliament to uphold decency on the airwaves.

That's the broadcaster's responsibility isn't it? Ofcom isn't charging Rooney.

 

[WireRed]

I doubt it would've been this big of a deal if it was Chris Brunt for West Brom.

Exactly, because Chris Brunt of little old Albion isn't going to replace negative headlines about the FA like Rooney/SAF/United can. Anyone other than Rooney/high profile United player would never have even generated enough media hysteria to even grab the FA's attention in the first place.

 

[alastair]

I thought they should have fined him and warned him about future conduct. The ban seems harsh, but the conspiracy theories mooted on the Caf are a bit pathetic.

 

[FreakyJim]

Team Brian GB and peterstorey seeing where FA is coming from.
I am socked and surprised.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Why was Richards not banned then when he did? Van Der Sar when he did? Fergie when he did? Every player that's ever clearly swore on a football field? If this was a consistent ruling, fine. But it's not, it's a knee-jerk respone to a media witch hunt and another chance to deflect attention away from their own shortcomings which are currently being layed out in an enquiry.

Because it wasn't purposeful to a television audience, when it is done direct to camera, for the purpose of talking to the television audience then it becomes an issue for the regulators.

 

[Lynk]

It would have been as it will be done on the grounds of breaking Ofcom rules which has its mandate from Parliament to uphold decency on the airwaves.

Would it have gotten the attention that Rooney has received though? Some of the media outlets have been laughable at the way they've approached this. If it wasn't such a big name as Rooney would it have even got any coverage at all?

 

[Team Brian GB]

That's the broadcaster's responsibility isn't it? Ofcom isn't charging Rooney.

In a case such as this it would be both, Sky would say that it was out of their control and even though they would carry any sanction it would be because of Rooney hence the FA steps in.

 

[RedLars]

It would have been as it will be done on the grounds of breaking Ofcom rules which has its mandate from Parliament to uphold decency on the airwaves.

Sky had a 3 second delay on the broadcast. If anyone is responsible, they, as the producers of the broadcast, are.

Not to mention it was shown more than once over there, as far as I know, so surely you can see how your argument is silly regardless?

 

[WireRed]

It would have been as it will be done on the grounds of breaking Ofcom rules which has its mandate from Parliament to uphold decency on the airwaves.

feck off, what utter PC bollocks. In that environment, there is bound to be some colourful language being bandied about, it's a grown mans game FFS. And if Ofcom legislation is oh so sacred, why is a Sky camera allowed onto a football pitch amongst emotional blokes, playing for the rewards they work and remain professional for week in, week out? The broacaster is just as much to blame for this saga, it was bordering on intrusion.

 

[Redlambs]

Whilst no doubt this is only being talked about this much because it's Rooney, let us not drop down to the conspiracy theory level of certain other sites.

Peter is right, the Fa have acted under pressure like they normally do, but Rooney is an utter fool for giving people that ammo.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Would've it have gotten the attention that Rooney has gotten though? Some of the media outlets have been laughable at the way they've approached this. If it wasn't such a big name as Rooney would it have even got any coverage at all?

Well it would have been different if it were a West Brom player as their game wasn't being broadcast nationwide live. If it were tape delayed then it would be up to the broadcaster to dub it out.

Rooney doesn't have anything to do with it, do you really think many of the right wing papers wouldn't be going nuts if this was any premier league, championship, league one etc. player?

 

[Phil]

Team Brian's views on the whole subject:

 

[alastair]

feck off, what utter PC bollocks. In that environment, there is bound to be some colourful language being bandied about, it's a grown mans game FFS. And if Ofcom legislation is oh so sacred, why is a Sky camera allowed onto a football pitch amongst emotional blokes, playing for the rewards they work and remain professional for week in, week out? The broacaster is just as much to blame for this saga, it was bordering on intrusion.

What? You can't be serious.

 

[RedLars]

Just to clarify, I don't think there's a conspiracy against Manchester United. I think the FA are just a bunch of thick people who act based on media pressure. It just so happens that because we are Manchester United, and the media shines their light on us because that sells the most papers, we will be the ones to pay the price of the FA's incompetence more often than not.

 

[WireRed]

Because it wasn't purposeful to a television audience, when it is done direct to camera, for the purpose of talking to the television audience then it becomes an issue for the regulators.

How do you know it was intended for the audience? Technically, he can claim he was targeting a flea on the camara, absolute bollocks but I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

SAF's words were said with knowledge the audience aswell, because it was deliberate and during an interview. That was much more severe than this load of drivel.

I'm sorry, but the FA need to be hung out to dry by this investigation. They are unfit for purpose.

 

[Team Brian GB]

feck off, what utter PC bollocks. In that environment, there is bound to be some colourful language being bandied about, it's a grown mans game FFS. And if Ofcom legislation is oh so sacred, why is a Sky camera allowed onto a football pitch amongst emotional blokes, playing for the rewards they work and remain professional for week in, week out? The broacaster is just as much to blame for this saga, it was bordering on intrusion.

It is not PC, Eastenders has to abide by it, BBC news at Six has to abide by it, every programme on every terrestrial and satellite channel not pin protected have to abide by the exact same rules, and they do. The emotions of players has nothing to do with it, everybody has emotions of some sort, all footballers have emotions in highly charged games yet it is only Rooney who walks up to a camera and swears at it. As I say I am not particularly moved by this either way but the regulators have a job to do and they should be allowed to get on with it.

 

[WireRed]

What? You can't be serious.

He had a camara shoved in his face but crucially in an area where camaramen and spectators are NOT permitted to enter. That is intrusion in my book.

 

[Mick1991]

They are influenced by the media but it's not just United who bear the brunt of it.

 

[RedLars]

They are influenced by the media but it's not just United who bear the brunt of it.

If you're referring to my post, I think you'll find that we actually agree. But, at least from my subjective point of view, as a United fan, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else who's been more affected by this in a negative way.

 

[Team Brian GB]

How do you know it was intended for the audience? Technically, he can claim he was targeting a flea on the camara, absolute bollocks but I don't see any evidence to the contrary.

The QCs who argue FA disciplinary cases won't see it that way and neither do the courts. Walking up to a camera and talking into it you have to watch what you say, there is no human right that protects free speech in this country regarding indecent or vulgar language so he has nobody to blame but himself.

 

[WireRed]

It is not PC, Eastenders has to abide by it, BBC news at Six has to abide by it, every programme on every terrestrial and satellite channel not pin protected have to abide by the exact same rules, and they do. The emotions of players has nothing to do with it, everybody has emotions of some sort, all footballers have emotions in highly charged games yet it is only Rooney who walks up to a camera and swears at it. As I say I am not particularly moved by this either way but the regulators have a job to do and they should be allowed to get on with it.

You do know football is unscripted don't you. Thrusting a camara in an adrenaline-fuelled footballers face presents a risk of something untoward being said or done.

FWIW, did it not strike you that Wayne looked more annoyed at the camaraman than anything else? Perhaps he didn't appreciate having a lense shoved in his face in a place where the guy wasn't permitted to be during the game?

 

[Feed Me]

Isn't Ofcom the broadcasting regulator? Rooney's not a broadcaster. Team Brian trying to be clever and not really succeeding. Sky know full well that on a football pitch, there is a good chance of industrial language. What are they doing sending the camera man in so close? You wouldn't send a 6 o'clock news reporter onto a nudist beach.

 

[Pexbo]

It's not against the law to swear, Rooney should sue Sky
for showing a clip of him swearing before the watershed and in turn getting him in trouble.

 

[Team Brian GB]

You do know football is unscripted don't you. Thrusting a camara in an adrenaline-fuelled footballers face presents a risk of something untoward being said or done.

FWIW, did it not strike you that Wayne looked more annoyed at the camaraman than anything else? Perhaps he didn't appreciate having a lense shoved in his face in a place where the guy wasn't permitted to be during the game?

Just because football is unscripted doesn't make it free of broadcasting law, in all of the football matches, rugby matches, boxing fights, fiery debates in Parliament etc. I have viewed on television I can recall no occasion where an individual has deliberately walked up to a camera to swear at those watching. The emotionally charged argument would have some merit to it if there was a regular occurrance but it isn't, it is just Rooney. In any other sport he would get reprimanded much more heavily than he likely will.

 

[Feed Me]

Surely the responsibility lies with the broadcaster?

They've got a three second delay, so didn't need to broadcast it.

More saliently, the cameraman has absolutely no business getting that close. That should be looked at.

 

[Team Brian GB]

It's not against the law to swear, Rooney should sue Sky
for showing a clip of him swearing before the watershed and in turn getting him in trouble.

Your right to swear is not legally protected, if somebody wants to sanction you for swearing they are perfectly entitled to do so. There is an opt-out clause in the human rights act to prevent free speech covering you say such things.

 

[WireRed]

It's not the FA's place to judge on Ofcom regulations anyway, if Ofcom put in a complaint and seek sanctions, then fine. But they haven't, and if you think that's where the FA are coming from in charging him, you are naive in the extreme.

 

[Silva]

Debates in parliament are pretty much scripted, everyone already knows what everyone will say. There is swearing in Rugby, there is also Swearing in Boxing.

 

[Tumbling-Dice]

The QCs who argue FA disciplinary cases won't see it that way and neither do the courts. Walking up to a camera and talking into it you have to watch what you say, there is no human right that protects free speech in this country regarding indecent or vulgar language so he has nobody to blame but himself.

He didn't walk up to the camera you absolute fecking Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.

He had the camera shoved in his face.

Seriously, are you that fecking stupid ??

 

[Team Brian GB]

It's not the FA's place to judge on Ofcom regulations anyway, if Ofcom put in a complaint and seek sanctions, then fine. But they haven't, and if you think that's where the FA are coming from in charging him, you are naive in the extreme.

Yes actually it is because a footballer during a game brought English football into disrepute, this is exactly what they're supposed to do.

 

[RK]

Just because football is unscripted doesn't make it free of broadcasting law, in all of the football matches, rugby matches, boxing fights, fiery debates in Parliament etc. I have viewed on television I can recall no occasion where an individual has deliberately walked up to a camera to swear at those watching. The emotionally charged argument would have some merit to it if there was a regular occurrance but it isn't, it is just Rooney. In any other sport he would get reprimanded much more heavily than he likely will.

feck off. The cameraman was pretty much on the pitch.

 

[Team Brian GB]

He didn't walk up to the camera you absolute fecking Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime.

Seriously, are you that fecking stupid ??

Okay, he ran to the camera, eitherway he talked into it.

 

[Gillespie]

I have no sympathy for Rooney

Time and time again he fails to control his temper

He's got previous for swearing at refs, lashing out at opponents, punching corner flags when he gets sent off and spiteful tackles

Isn't it about time he learnt not to behave like a lout?

 

[WireRed]

Just because football is unscripted doesn't make it free of broadcasting law, in all of the football matches, rugby matches, boxing fights, fiery debates in Parliament etc. I have viewed on television I can recall no occasion where an individual has deliberately walked up to a camera to swear at those watching. The emotionally charged argument would have some merit to it if there was a regular occurrance but it isn't, it is just Rooney. In any other sport he would get reprimanded much more heavily than he likely will.

The broadcasting aspect is for the broadcaster to consider. Doing what their camaraman did poses a risk as I've just explained. They felt that risk was worth taking so they and their viewers should not get their knickers in a twist about something that they knew full well could happen.

Besides, I've not heard Ofcom, viewers or anyone other than the media pipe up about this. This is a media-driven witch hunt which the FA were delighted to pounce on to deflect from their own shortcomings.