Hear me out regarding Keane.

gvnrav005@uct

Guest
I have seen a lot of quotes regarding the "double punishment" as some have labelled the FA's charge.I feel that this is a little closeminded.

1) When he committed the foul, Roy Keane would have appeared before a discipliniary panel. He received a 4(?) game ban for violent conduct on the pitch. I am assuming that he did not inform the FA that the tackle was intentional, if he had, then I am pretty sure that he would have got a far lengthier ban.

2) Roy Keane then publishes a book in which he makes it clear that the tackle was intentional. Now, this makes the situation different, does it not. Bad tackles happen, sure, and they are punished, but to intentionally try to take a player out at the knee? Come on, there is no way thatthe FA could just let it go. The charge was Intent, not the fact that he had made the tackle, but that he had intended to do it. I really don't think that it can be argued against.

3) The third charge, bringing the game into disrepute is slightly more open to dispute. Sure, everybody should be truthful, but don't you think that admitting what he did in what will be a widely read book is a little over the top? Let me ask you this, how many youngsters will have heard of the incident by now? How many of them think that Keane is a hero for his brilliant on the field performances. Is it so hard to believe that in a school match, some youngster is going to try and get back at some other kid for an earier squabble by trying t take him out? Would you be happy if your son tried to break another kids leg on a footy pitch, knowing that it was intentional? More interestingly, what would you feel if you child was the victim of this tackle? That is what the "game into disrepute" charge is about.

Taking all this into account, can you really argue that Roy Keane showed good judgement in any of the three incidents? Like it or not, players are role model's, and the game needs to ensure that future players are well aware of the repurcussions of incidents like these. Ironic that, although most people knew that Roy Keane's tackle on Haaland wasn't a coincendence, Keane turned to fire onto himself by admitting it while still playing. Roy Keane should realise that his actions may hold repurcussions for a lot of youngsters playing the game.
 
Good judgement: No
Double punishement: No
Triple punishement: Yes

If the original panel couldn't tell that the tackle was intentional then they must have been blind and stupid. Keane is being punished a second and third time for being stupid enough to tell the truth. I wish he'd kept his mouth shut (not for the first time) for the good of the club but it still doesn't make his punishment fair or equitable. Look at players who lied through their teeth about tackles and got away with it. Shearer's attack on Lennon for one. Trying to pull my foot back my arse <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

And Jack Charlton once came out and said that he had a little black book of players he was going to try to nobble before his career was over. Punishement - nil. But then he had just won the World Cup and he wasn't Manchester United Captain. It probably also helped that the press wheren't demonising him into some maniacal cartoon character with throbbing veins on his temples.
 
OK, look, I am sure that the original panel had it in the back of their minds that tht etackle might have been intentional, what witht he known history between the players. But I have sat on Discipliniary commitees at university residence, and a major task is not to see things that are not in evidence. You couldn't have punished him then for something ou thought he did. Do you think that the original ban was enough for the charge of the tackle and premeditation? I don't, I would think that a premeditated attack should be at least 8 games!
I do think that Keane should have just left well enough alone.

And as for the need for this thread, I wanted to have a discussion without bringing in any anti-other team/conspiracy statements into it. I've made my points above, and would love it if they were discussed, because I feel that in all the emotion over the judgement, certain facts are being ignored.
 
Originally posted by gvnrav005@uct:
<strong>I have seen a lot of quotes regarding the "double punishment" as some have labelled the FA's charge.I feel that this is a little closeminded.

1) When he committed the foul, Roy Keane would have appeared before a discipliniary panel. He received a 4(?) game ban for violent conduct on the pitch. I am assuming that he did not inform the FA that the tackle was intentional, if he had, then I am pretty sure that he would have got a far lengthier ban.

2) Roy Keane then publishes a book in which he makes it clear that the tackle was intentional. Now, this makes the situation different, does it not. Bad tackles happen, sure, and they are punished, but to intentionally try to take a player out at the knee? Come on, there is no way thatthe FA could just let it go. The charge was Intent, not the fact that he had made the tackle, but that he had intended to do it. I really don't think that it can be argued against.

3) The third charge, bringing the game into disrepute is slightly more open to dispute. Sure, everybody should be truthful, but don't you think that admitting what he did in what will be a widely read book is a little over the top? Let me ask you this, how many youngsters will have heard of the incident by now? How many of them think that Keane is a hero for his brilliant on the field performances. Is it so hard to believe that in a school match, some youngster is going to try and get back at some other kid for an earier squabble by trying t take him out? Would you be happy if your son tried to break another kids leg on a footy pitch, knowing that it was intentional? More interestingly, what would you feel if you child was the victim of this tackle? That is what the "game into disrepute" charge is about.

Taking all this into account, can you really argue that Roy Keane showed good judgement in any of the three incidents? Like it or not, players are role model's, and the game needs to ensure that future players are well aware of the repurcussions of incidents like these. Ironic that, although most people knew that Roy Keane's tackle on Haaland wasn't a coincendence, Keane turned to fire onto himself by admitting it while still playing. Roy Keane should realise that his actions may hold repurcussions for a lot of youngsters playing the game.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) I was under the impression that it was an automatic ban wasn't it? I can't remember at all, but I don't think it was brought up before a disciplinary panel.

2) How can you punish for intent once the initial punishment has been meted out? You can't do that in a court of law. In any case, in a work dispute, any complaint must be brought before an independent tribunal. The FA, in bringing the charge, shouldn't be sitting in judgement.

3) I'm not sure you, or the FA, give enough credence to the intelligence of kids. It's a common failing of adults ;)

No seriously, if you've sat on university disciplinary panels, you know that quite a lot of offences are committed because of peer pressure, alcohol or plain boredom. You rarely get someone committing an offence because he saw someone else doing it. Kids don't think like that.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by spinoza:
<strong>

1) I was under the impression that it was an automatic ban wasn't it? I can't remember at all, but I don't think it was brought up before a disciplinary panel.

2) How can you punish for intent once the initial punishment has been meted out? You can't do that in a court of law. In any case, in a work dispute, any complaint must be brought before an independent tribunal. The FA, in bringing the charge, shouldn't be sitting in judgement.

3) I'm not sure you, or the FA, give enough credence to the intelligence of kids. It's a common failing of adults ;)

No seriously, if you've sat on university disciplinary panels, you know that quite a lot of offences are committed because of peer pressure, alcohol or plain boredom. You rarely get someone committing an offence because he saw someone else doing it. Kids don't think like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Spinoza,are you a lawyer?Pure sophistry by you (or bollox,if you prefer)
Gvnrav makes an eloquent and reasonable analysis ,and by the sound of it he is a Man Utd fan,but unlike you he is capable of objectivity .You would defend Keane,it seems to me,regardless of the crime.In other words you apply different rules to Man Utd players than you would to others.And I expect your animosity is fiercest to those you fear most (like the Arsenal and Scousers) than other ,less threatening teams.
Click to expand...
 
Don't confuse your own morality with the facts, mate! Keane has already been done for this offence, automatic or not. They got round this by bringing a disrepute charge but the actions had already been dealt with. It's not double jeapordy, thats in criminal cases, it's 'Res Judicata' (already judged) that applies here. This would be the basis of any appeal. In a Res Judicata case it would definitely be an infringement of free speech. The club is correct to say it is disappointed.
 
Originally posted by fjred:
<strong>Don't confuse your own morality with the facts, mate! Keane has already been done for this offence, automatic or not. They got round this by bringing a disrepute charge but the actions had already been dealt with. It's not double jeapordy, thats in criminal cases, it's 'Res Judicata' (already judged) that applies here. This would be the basis of any appeal. In a Res Judicata case it would definitely be an infringement of free speech. The club is correct to say it is disappointed.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I agree with you and what a marvelous term for you to use to describe the case.

Anyhow, i still personally feel Keane got off easy, even for just bringing the game into disrepute.

His book has done nothing but generated cash for him and destroyed the morale of fans and players. IMO he deserved a much heavier penalty and he should have been banned for twice longer.

I am a hardcore United fan, but am eager to see the days after Keane. He's a great captain, but if he doesn't stop this when he comes back, it's the end for me and my faith in him.
Click to expand...
 
Do you believe that a 3 game fine is warranted for Keanes tackle (+ all the baggage that came with it, the intent etc) on Haaland? Watching the match was an eye opener, because for a few seconds afterwards, I was wondering whether I saw what I saw, it was atrocious, and with the rest of the story coming out it really does make the actions over-the-top. If the original ban was an automatic suspension, with no questioning of Keane, ten I agree even more that Keane has now received something closer to his suitable punishment. If he didn't want the punishment, he should not have written the book until he retired, that would have been better for his team, it's supporters if you ask me.

btw, I have one comment to make regarding your thoughts on kids and how they don't take after things thay see and hear. Have you seen pictures of children in N.Ireland throwing rocks at their neighbours just because he/she is a catholic. Have you seen pics of 9 ans 10 year old boys beating up a young black boy because they feel superior and therefore able to do it? Have you read anything into the psychology of children?
These kids didn't decide these things for themselves, attitudes are gained from sorroundings, what they hear, what the see. Even if the odds that some young hardman-wannabe is going to try and emulate Roy Keanes actions, is it worth the risk?
 
I tend to think that "double jeapordy" does not strictly apply to sports etc for a simple reason. In sport, people do things like tackle, go for the ball, make strong bodily contact with others.Now, even with the best intentions, there are times when a tackle is badly mistimed, the heat of the moment gets to players and they launch in late, they go in with two feet etc. lthough not intended to be harmful, these actions could possibly lead to injuries, so they are punished, first by the card system, then by possible fines and suspensions. But, doing the above action with intent to harm the player is another matter. If you intended to kick the player right in the knee, with a fair chance of injuring him in the process, then that is a different offence to the unintentional, but harmful, tackle.

I would say that even if Roy Keane went in two footed, from behind on Steven Gerrard, Patrick Viera etc, while tons of fans will claim that he's dirty etc. It would not be as abd an offence as him singling out Haaland, trying to take him out at the knee, then admitting that he knew exactly what he was doing.
 
The starting point of this thread is very well reasoned and thought out and it does indeed put a strong case forward on the side of the FA.

Unfortunately, however, any arguments in favour of the FA fail to see the bigger picture. In my opinion, the way football 'displines' players is haphasard and at times very hypocritical. It is an organisation whose codes of disciplines are awash in a sea of double standards.

The recent example of the Beckham and Henry elbowing incidents are particular cases in point. If you remember Bex avoided displinary action because the incident wasn't in the refree's report. Henry was at the receiving end of disciplinary action because the incident was in the referee's report and they could review video evidence. Everyone at the time argued that they could also view video evidence of the Beckham elbow. What happened? The FA chose not to.

This example perfectly illustrates the problems that exist within the FA codes of conduct. Disciplinary decisions tend to be arbitrary open to the subjective interpretation of the FA officials. In essence, there is no consistency.

And so we turn to the Keane-Haaland tackle and more evidence of duplicity of thinking on the part of the FA.

Keane's tackle was vicious and he was rightly punished with a red card. What was the FA's response at the time? The 'typcial' three match ban and a slap on the wrists. No outcry from the FA despite knowing the background to the tackle and largely no outcry from the media. The question has to be asked why?

The answer is simple. Football and its governing bodies CHOOSE to ignore bad behaviour when it suits them. The FA frequently turn the other cheek and allow violent conduct to happen on the pitch. Their rationale is because it is an enivitable part of the game.

This is the biggest double standard of all. The FA want to create an image of a 'gentlemans' sport while still maintaining the personality of a "mans game". So the rough and tumble, swinging fists and late tackles are enivitable.


Keane's mistake was to think that he could talk about this facet of the game and not encur the wrath of an organisation whose disciplinary code is so inept and inconsistent. It was naieve of Roy, Dunphy, Kennedy and the Manchester United lawyers to think that such an open and truthful account of life in the Premiership could be published without a backlash from the establishment. Keane's account of the Haaland incident simply upsets too many footballing hypocrites and, more worryingly, puts in context the type of things that really happen on the pitch.

Its a tough game. We've all seen bad tackles in the past and, while they can never be justified, they are an inevitable part of the game.

But what we haven't seen in the past is footballers openly talking honestly about this side of the game. Footballing rhetoric is more filled with cliches than any other area of human endevour. We've all laughed at players and managers who, when interviewed, desribe "game of two halves, a good solid pro, handbags etc." It's Ron Manager heaven. Keane, in his book and his general attitude to the game has deviated from such a formulaic mantra, that is his real crime - not doing things the way the average pro does.

The irony of it all is that the FA were reluctant to go the whole hog and ban Keane for any extended period of say three or six months. Why? Because they know that the reason Keane is being banned is because he exercised his human right of freedom of speech, any ban based on that premise could not be upheld in a court of law. So perhaps we have just seen the biggest double standard of all from the FA - contempt for what Keane has done and written but metered by fear of punishing the man too much.
 
No! Look, the FA is given permission to police its own accepted area of consensual authority, The operative word is'consensual'. The FA is still subject to the same laws as the rest of us. They can't operate outside common law. In Keane's case, as in anyone elses, 'Res Judicata' applies. Legally, end of story. What they are trying to do, no doubt to establish control they wish to impose, is to be a Law to themselves. This will not work in common Law. I've said before they are on the way out and this could be it. That's one of the reasons I hope Keane appeals! Get rid of these useless feckers!
 
Well, that is if you are sure that it is the same charge.

1st charge = dangerous tackle

2nd Charge = Intent to injure a fellow profesional

3rd charge = bringing the game into disrepute.

Now, instead of saying what we are all aware of ie. that to punish somebody for the same offence twice is wrong, might it not be that it is not the same charge but two different ones?
 
whats this a lawyers thread ( barrack room variety ) ...

the only thing that matters now with Keane is whether he will repay the club and fans who have stood by him by leading us to the Champions League , and maybe the Premership ....any thing less and he can do what he advised his Irish manager to do ..."rot in hell "
 
fjred
it's 'Res Judicata' (already judged)

Precisely! In any event if they did'nt take into account an intentional element in their initial ruling the FA must be monumental idiots. They made their judgement, the man was sentenced & now they have tried him again for what IMO is essentially the same crime. Was anyone really THAT shocked that Keano did it intentionally? The fact that he admitted it is another matter. One which some see as a flawed virtue.
 
Pardon my 'barrack room' lawyer bit but I do have legal training. Res Judicata is partly taken from 'Henderson v. Henderson' principle of 18dahdah! Simply, it says that it is the responsibility of either party to make sure with 'due diligence' that all the facts and allegations are presented at the time. If you've missed something out, tough! The FA did not take disrepute at the time, so tough! The actions have already been dealt with. You can't have a second bite of the cherry, particularly when it's your own fault.
 
The arguement for bringing the game into disrepute is only valid if it is claimed that Roy is the only player to exact revenge, or even set out to injure a player. Bollocks.
Over the years, there has been a list of players to whom revenge is 2nd nature. There have been teams who have used foul play as a means of gaining an advantage, and have looked to take players out of the game, by fair means or foul.(Leeds c1970s). Have any of these players, or teams been charged with bringing the game into disrepute? No.
So Roy's crime is saying that it happens & he has done it. Surprise, Surprise!
And as far as profitting from the incident. If he had left Haaland out of the book, would he have sold one less copy, I think not!
 
Whether or not it should have been a disrepute charge - and it sure looked like it at the time - the FA chose not to and the incident has been dealt with Q.E.D. You are not allowed legally to have another go just because you fecked up the first time. You can bring whatever different charges or claims you want to but they are based on the same incident and actions which have already been dealt with. Goodnight! If this was in court instead of the FA, I doubt it would survive a strike out application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.