Yeah but all excuses aside, Barnes didn't play leaving Beardsley as the sole Big Four regular after Robson dropped out.Yeah Barnes did not feature loads in the World Cup because Robson changed his formation half way through and had to lose a winger playing 5-3-2 and Robbo did get an injury against the Dutch. Was a regular in the qualifiers though when England played 4-4-2 and for most of Robson's time as manager, so he was in more often that he was out.
The can't really force him to do anything. He could be picked in the team and do nothing but sit down on the pitch if he so wished.You guys do realise that it's actually not his choice to make....? FA can force him to play wether he wants it or not.
Actually, if he's picked to start, he has to, unless he has a good reason not not (injury etc..). But he can off course chose to play like shite....The can't really force him to do anything. He could be picked in the team and do nothing but sit down on the pitch if he so wished.
I disagree on that being the last unified England side. Euro 96 was a pretty unified England team, probably because they actually had a shot of winning the thing and it was in England, and that had plenty of big club players in it. Seamen, Adams, Neville, Shearer, Mcmanaman, Ince(even if he had been sold on) all regulars in that side and even more in the squad.Yeah but all excuses aside, Barnes didn't play leaving Beardsley as the sole Big Four regular after Robson dropped out.
Never mind the qualifiers, Robson also used Steve Bull, Steve Hodge, Neil Webb etc regularly.
I'm talking about the World Cup of 1990, that's the last time England was truly unified behind all the players.
Yeah good point actually, Euro 1996 was a very patriotic time in England but in terms of World Cups, then definitely Italia 90.I disagree on that being the last unified England side. Euro 96 was a pretty unified England team, probably because they actually had a shot of winning the thing and it was in England, and that had plenty of big club players in it. Seamen, Adams, Neville, Shearer, Mcmanaman, Ince(even if he had been sold on) all regulars in that side and even more in the squad.
That's what I said...Actually, if he's picked to start, he has to, unless he has a good reason not not (injury etc..). But he can off course chose to play like shite....
sorry, i misread :SThat's what I said...
thisI don't get the impression that Wayne particularly enjoys the whole England experience. And why would he - the dogs abuse he takes from the fans week in week out.
The FA will be around long after Capello. Unfortunately.Get a grip its the FA charging him, not Capello.
He can choose to retire from International football, it automatically puts him out of consideration for national team selection.You guys do realise that it's actually not his choice to make....? FA can force him to play wether he wants it or not.
I still think the 2 games was very, very harsh. But Wayne Rooney had this coming to him. He is not an innocent party in all this. What a year he has had. From lack of form starting at the WC, to his comments to the camera about England fans. To the media shit storm on his private life, to his transfer request to his unprovoked idiotic elbow at Wigan and now this.
Most people with half a brain would know it would be best to keep their head down and not bring anything upon themselves after all he is one of the biggest names at one of the biggest clubs in the world. He has regained his form big time and now this. Why cannot he not learn that like it or not every move he makes will be judged and dissected? Why can’t he take a leaf out of the books from the vast majority of his team mates?
And now there are calls on the site for him to quit the national side? Do Manchester Utd really need the media and public backlash that will come with that? It would be a fecking disaster.
Wayne Rooney has baggage and he needs to sort himself out. Perhaps the ban even though is harsh will actually teach him a lesson. The only sympathy I have is with us the supporters, his teammates, Fergie and the club for missing their star player for 2 games. I have none at all for Rooney.
Swearing DIRECTLY into the TV camera, a lot of people seem to be missing this.I prefer to have a player who speaks his mind Randall. Even if that gets himself in trouble from time to time, its Wayne Rooney, its what makes him a special footballer.
All the players swear on the pitch. All of them! So what are the FA doing exactly, whats the actual punishment? Swearing on tv? Or because he's Wayne Rooney?
Perhaps.I'd love to see England win something with Rooney scoring the goals to take us there - retire my arse!
go and ask Wayne if he wants to retire and he will tell you (and all the viewers at home) to get fecked
Agree with this. Seems that because this incident coincided with Rooney exploding into form a lot of United fans assume it's an essential part of Rooney's game and needs to be there for him to perform well, thereby justifying it.Swearing DIRECTLY into the TV camera, a lot of people seem to be missing this.
I'd say most people are aware of that, to be fair, what with it being televised and all.Swearing DIRECTLY into the TV camera, a lot of people seem to be missing this.
Or was it DIRECTLY at the cameraman who was hiding behind his camera?Swearing DIRECTLY into the TV camera, a lot of people seem to be missing this.
Since the general reaction on here has been 'swearing happens all the time/part of the game' I think it's entirely worthwhile pointing out that this wasn't the typical stuff amongst players that requires lipreading skills to understand.I'd say most people are aware of that, to be fair, what with it being televised and all.
You really are a massive cock sometimes. feck off.I'd say most people are aware of that, to be fair, what with it being televised and all.
Wind your neck in, child.You really are a massive cock sometimes. feck off.
Did you even read the post I'd responded too?
Note, he is not being penalised for "abusive language in the direction of a camera". I'm fairly sure that rule doesn't exist. Hence, people are making the perfectly valid point that any footballer cursing on the pitch is guilty of the exact same "crime". A crime for which they have not been punished, including a number of blatant incidents in the same fecking weekend (Reina's tirade at the ref being a good example).The FA has charged Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney for the use of offensive, insulting and / or abusive language.
Aye, it's their own rule in their own words.Note, he is not being penalised for "foul and abusive language in the direction of a camera". I'm fairly sure that rule doesn't exist. Hence, people are making the perfectly valid point that any footballer cursing on the pitch is guilty of the exact same "crime". A crime for which they have not been punished, including a number of blatant incidents in the same fecking weekend.
Wind your neck in, child.
Of course everyone fecking knows he swore into a camera. Why state the bleeding obvious? Christ.
He is being charged with using "abusive language", according the FA themselves:
Note, he is not being penalised for "abusive language in the direction of a camera". I'm fairly sure that rule doesn't exist. Hence, people are making the perfectly valid point that any footballer cursing on the pitch is guilty of the exact same "crime". A crime for which they have not been punished, including a number of blatant incidents in the same fecking weekend (Reina's tirade at the ref being a good example).
Why should it matter if the bad language is picked up by one of the many pitch-side microphones or by a camera?
Unless protecting the sensibilities of deaf people is more important to the FA than people with normal hearing?
It would appear that is exactly what they are doing.DTguardian daniel taylor
Key point for FA: Rooney wasn't merely swearing (as happens), he AIMED his swearing at camera and, indirectly, the TV audience
It seems that Daniel Taylor is as fond of stating the obvious as some on here.It would appear that is exactly what they are doing.
I was assuming that he is basing that on information he's been given rather than it being his opinion.It seems that Daniel Taylor is as fond of stating the obvious as some on here. Who care what he thinks though? The point he is making is irrelevant.
Because they clearly have a responsibility to react in some way to an incident like this - broadcast live to a global audience of millions. Any governing body would have to react in some way.Wind your neck in, child.
Of course everyone fecking knows he swore into a camera. Why state the bleeding obvious? Christ.
He is being charged with using "abusive language", according the FA themselves:
Note, he is not being penalised for "abusive language in the direction of a camera". I'm fairly sure that rule doesn't exist. Hence, people are making the perfectly valid point that any footballer cursing on the pitch is guilty of the exact same "crime". A crime for which they have not been punished, including a number of blatant incidents in the same fecking weekend (Reina's tirade at the ref being a good example).
Why should it matter if the bad language is picked up by one of the many pitch-side microphones or by a camera?
Don't get me wrong. It's obvious that the fact he swore down a camera is a factor in the FA throwing the book at them. If only, because it's a big factor in the media getting all in a lather.I was assuming that he is basing that on information he's been given rather than it being his opinion.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
They're going to have to now, or be exposed as grossly unfair hypocrites.Because they clearly have a responsibility to react in some way to an incident like this - broadcast live to a global audience of millions. Any governing body would have to react in some way.
Instead of patronising elvis, you should patronise those who needed to have 'the obvious pointed out' to them.
Clearly it would be idiotic if the FA invoked this rule every time anyone swore on a pitch, but as a governing body it's right they choose to invoke it when someone needlessly goes beyond what's commonly accepted as acceptable.
The obvious only needs to be stated if so many people are missing it.It seems that Daniel Taylor is as fond of stating the obvious as some on here.
The point he is making is irrelevant though. At least it should be, if the FA were to apply the laws of the game in a consistent manner. Which seems to be beyond them, once the good old British media get themselves whipped up into a storm of righteous indignation.
Why say 'caught'?They're going to have to now, or be exposed as grossly unfair hypocrites.
I look forward to the next bit of effing and jeffing caught on a pitch-side mic. They've built a rod for their own back now. Incredibly unfair that United suffer as a result of their knee-jerk response to this incident but the least we can expect is that future transgressors are treated in the exact same way.
