lol - off course if a player swears at the ref or to the crowd or the camera is the same thing because the rule is one and the same - no foul and abusive language.If someone drops their car keys in the street, bends down to pick them up and says "f*ck off" with a policeman near by they wouldn't get in trouble but if you looked at a copper close up and told him to F off you get arrested.
What is chanted by fans or said amongst players/refs to each other is not the same case as Rooney ranting abuse at the camera, get over it and accept it, follow your own advice.
I'm praying someone gets a chant of "feck-feck-fecketifeck-cnut" going from the stands. For 90 minutes.
I too am living in hope that this ban nonsense is just cooked up by Journo's and thus spread all over the net.By whom? FA website doesn't say anything about a ban. Just that he is being charged and has until 5pm tomorrow to reply.
Not in a million years would they.The FA will make United play behind closed doors.
Wayne Rooney insulted South Africa referee | News - KickOff MagazineRooney tells ref to "feck You" in pre world cup game vs some South African team. Did FA take any action? #mufc #whatfeckingwhat
Was thinking the same thing.I'm praying someone gets a chant of "feck-feck-fecketifeck-cnut" going from the stands. For 90 minutes.
Few are suggesting that there is a conspiracy. What some are suggesting is that the FA disciplinary process appears to be arbitrary, and the evidence clearly points to that being the case.Your the one claiming there's a conspiracy, it's fecking cringeworthy!
The point being would another FA suspend their star player for a similar action.It would be grossly unfair if some of our players got favourable treatment because they play for the national team.
I see where you are coming from.By whom? FA website doesn't say anything about a ban. Just that he is being charged and has until 5pm tomorrow to reply.
Yes, I think it would, with an extra game ban the result.Bollox. It's certainly looking that way.
Does the "frivolous appeal" Catch 22 apply here?
Aye but I've read elsewhere that the specific charge carries a range of sanctions from a fine to a ban. It's all very confusing.I see where you are coming from.
It hasn't been confirmed but is being reported as such based on the fact that that specific charge carries a two-match ban.
We could send the FA, as I said, 300 videos a week of players caught on camera swearing. I hope we do to make a point.When will the FA ban John O'Shea for saying "that's a fecking foul" who was heard on tv?
If they treated him differently based on his status in the national team it would be outrageous, the same goes for any Federation. That should never happen anywhere.The point being would another FA suspend their star player for a similar action.
It is. Guardian claims it can still vary between a fine and a ban. The FA certainly haven't said anything about a ban in their announcement (they never do). Could the likes of BBC be wrong? I can't believe foul language would be a minimum of a two-game ban.Aye but I've read elsewhere that the specific charge carries a range of sanctions from a fine to a ban. It's all very confusing.
we can only live in hope since the punishment haven't been given out yet....I see where you are coming from.
It hasn't been confirmed but is being reported as such based on the fact that that specific charge carries a two-match ban.
Few are suggesting that there is a conspiracy. What some are suggesting is that the FA disciplinary process appears to be arbitrary, and the evidence clearly points to that being the case.
That inconsistency is, I would argue, the real reason why player and manager behavior is a problem, because there is total confusion about what is allowed and what is not. Written rules do not modify behavior, but a fair and consistent application of them often does.
It should be unsurprising that players and managers would attempt to push at the boundaries of what is acceptable in pursuit of their own interests, but it would be trivially easy to stop most of the games supposed ills if the FA was consistent and fair in dealing with incidents that they deem unnacceptable. And most supporters would also accept that, as well, if they actually had any confidence in the process.
An FA spokesman even said the other day that '[c]onsideration is given to any comments reported to us...', which appears to suggest that they rely, at least in part, on the media to report incidents that are worthy of attention. That is further supported by the fact that many media outlets admit that they have been in touch with the FA after major incidents, and those incidents are, anecdotally, at least, usually the ones that end up with action being taken. It also just so happens that strong action correlates rather well with how much attention an incident is given by the media, which lead Graham Bean to suggest that '[t]he FA reacts to media pressure...'.
If that is the case, it should be obvious just how open to abuse that system is. The media doesn't cover all clubs equally, and they have a vested interest in the most newsworthy clubs.
If what I have outlined here is even remotely true, it is not an example of a conspiracy, but of a corrupted and unfair discplinary process which appears to have the opposite effect to its stated goal.
From the ref respect thread, but I think Joga's points may be relevant here:
Was that from the Guardian?Aye but I've read elsewhere that the specific charge carries a range of sanctions from a fine to a ban. It's all very confusing.
I hate that man with a passion, what a fecking idiot he is.This is Brian Woolnough's fault.
The point being would another FA ban their star player for this. It's not as complicated as you are making it appear.If they treated him differently based on his status in the national team it would be outrageous, the same goes for any Federation. That should never happen anywhere.