Rooney Charged: Faces Two Match Ban for cursing | Appeal lost

i say we appeal it. given that pretty much everyone in the country thinks the 2 match ban is too much, it could hardly be dismissed as a frivolous appeal. citing the fact that he had just taken abuse for 90 minutes and scored a hattrick to win us the game from 2-0 down, and then had a camera thrust in his face.
He swore, and then apologised.

Everyone agrees it is ludicrous. The FA certainly wouldnt want to be seen as backing down on this however, so i cant see them reducing the ban - but to dismiss the appeal as frivolous would be equally crazy.

That's how the FA judicial mechanism works. They give out a punishment and then give you an extra match or two for appealing. It's completely opaque and ridiculous. There needs to be a more open and fair system than the panel gets together, comes up with a punishment in private, hears the appeal, and then discusses the appeal without any input from the accused. Most of the time, their statements seem to completely disregard the case presented from the defendant in a hearing or appeals. They already have their minds made up what they want to do.

It's a ridiculous system staffed by idiots.
 
It's a bit weird to accuse Samuel of being ABU because of an article where he criticises FA for charging Rooney! That particular paragraph was crazy, though. I get the feeling he had to put it in there to keep his job at that horrendous paper, you're probably not allowed to write a wholly sensible article there.
 
For further reference on the Rooney elbow incident by the way and further evidence of hypocrisy/ABUness



Absolutely no media storm about this
 
Mafff.jpg


If we were like RAWK

FA are fighting with all their forces to keep open the Premier League till the last game

It's a conspiracy, a new one after:

9/11
Elvis death
Bob Marley " "
Kurt Cobain " "
...
...
Manchester United 2011 Premier League
 
Sources at the FA have confirmed, however, that Ferguson was warned following his punishment for criticising referee Alan Wiley in October 2009 that “greater profile carries greater responsibility” – a clear reference to the Scot’s belief that United are victims of heavier punishment than others. And while it is rare for footballers to be charged with using offensive, insulting and/or abusive language, the Blackburn Rovers defender Gäel Givet was sent off by referee Mark Clattenburg following a verbal tirade against the official after a defeat at Fulham last month.
As long as greater profile does not = greater punishment.

If it does then the FA are going against everything that justice in this country stands for.
 
Complete lack of transparency from the FA, so how can anyone be surprised at the arbitrary nature of their decisions?

How does making it impossible for a manager to freely comment on the performance of referees help the game? Referees which are immune from criticism will simply continue to do a poor job.

While I agree in principle that Rooney's language should not be permitted, I think that the decision to hand down this ban looks more like a knee jerk reaction to the ABU media than a consistent policy.

As United fans we have to accept that our club will be targeted because of its profile and its success and just get on with it. It comes with the territory.
 
Alex Dunn can't help feeling the witch-hunt that scrutinises Wayne Rooney's every faux-pas to the nth degree ultimately helps no-one


The Insider - Alex Dunn - Follow me on Twitter @skysportsaldunn Posted 4th April 2011



American comic and agent provocateur par excellence Lenny Bruce once quipped 'life is a four letter word' and as Wayne Rooney travels to work today in his Aston Martin or Bentley or Lamborghini he might just be feeling the same if the Football Association rules that he has brought the game into disrepute and hit him with a suspension.

Back in 1964 Bruce was twice arrested at the end of his act at the Cafe Au Go Go in Greenwich Village, NYC, for charges relating to obscenity and for some, only a similar conclusion to what occurred in the East End this weekend will suffice.

Saturday's blue tirade into the mouth of a Sky Sports camera encapsulated Rooney'sseason to a tee. Here was a young man angry at the world, who even in a moment of euphoria felt the need to unleash a verbal volley that matched the one against Newcastlea few years back in terms of ferocity.

Banished to the stands of Upton Park as a punishment for showing a lack of what Otis Redding and Aretha Franklin called for back in the sixties, Sir Alex Ferguson clenched a fist and with a series of hand movements orchestrated his supporters to unleash a stirring rendition of 'we're Man United, we'll do what we want'. They do, according to their detractors.

Saturday's blue tirade into the mouth of a Sky Sports camera encapsulated Rooney's season to a tee. Here was a young man angry at the world, who even in a moment of euphoria felt the need to unleash a verbal volley that matched the one against Newcastle a few years back in terms of ferocity.

In front rooms, bars, country clubs and drawing rooms across the country the collective shrill of china hitting the floor drowned out an audible gasp of shock on hearing language one had presumed had been lowered into the grave alongside Bernard Manning. This would simply not do.

That Rooney set a bad example to scores of young football fans who, whether he likes it or not see him as a role model, is undisputed, ill-advised and unfortunate but the hyperbolic reaction of many has the reactionary tone of those mortally offended by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross' misplaced phone-call to Manuel. Let's not forget, of the 38,000 that complained about the aforementioned incident only two complaints had been received in the week after the show was aired.

Whether my woolly liberal sensibilities are clouding my judgement is for you to decide, I'm sure you will at the foot of this column, but to persecute a player for an utterance that was no more unedifying than he had to endure in the preceding 79 minutes seems to surmise that respect is a one-way street. It's not.

There is something almost perverse about the view that the handing over of £40 gives a punter carte blanche to abuse any given player or manager relentlessly over the course of a game.

The common perspective opined is that £200,000-a-week is ample compensation to be the subject of personal attacks, to have your family abused, to have your private life chanted about by 40,000 people who will be disgusted to the point of writing a letter to the FA, or Sky, to express their ire should Rooney or any of his ilk have the brass balls to demonstrate verbal dexterity themselves.

In what other walk of life do people feel entitlement to act like a four letter word because they've paid for the privilege? Hollywood stars can command £20million for a film, and shoot a couple each year, yet if you pitched up in Tinseltown to the set of a Tom Cruise flick and chanted about his wife's sexual predilections for 90 minutes you'd be arrested. Try persuading a judge that the fact you'd once paid £6 to see Top Gun at your local Odeon gives you such an entitlement and you'd be sectioned.

By no means were all inside Upton Park indulging in baiting Rooney about his nocturnal activities, along with a couple of charming ditties about Coleen, but whether I'd pocketed £200grand or not that week, it would take a better man than me not to react in a similar way upon the completion of a hat-trick.

It would be to take the argument too far the other way to suggest Rooney is a wholly innocent party in this latest furore given he's shot himself in the foot more times than Charlie Sheen over the past 12 months but to veer on the side of the flawed artist than that of the aghast puritan is ultimately for the good of the game.

Pre his no-show in South Africa the United striker was considered to be up there with Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi as the world's finest and in chasing what he's lost, whether through injury or a predisposition to self-destruct, he's became volcanic in his temperament; forever ready to erupt.

Rooney is at his best when he doesn't think, when he plays the game like a jazz player; free from the conventions of normal form and left to do what comes natural, or as one critic described Bruce performing his routine as 'nothing censored, nothing translated, nothing mediated, until he was pure mind'.

It's when Rooney thinks, conversely, that his game suffers and he can look clumsy, unsure of himself in possession. As such, when he hits form as he did so spellbindingly on Saturday, he plays with an abandon that conjures moments of finesse, his first two goals, that are too often undermined by the inappropriate, his verbal Tourettes. A Scouse beauty and the beast rolled into one.

That's no-one's problem but his own and Manchester United's but the manner in which we collectively bathe in glee every time the finest talent we've produced in this country since Paul Gascoigne, and let his tale be a cautionary one, puts a foot wrong or shoots from the lip is as nauseating as the fact he's so knuckleheaded to do it in the first place.

Those that don't abuse footballers at the match, or even on the sofa, those who genuinely believe that the next generation of footballers playing their first matches in parks or school yards this week have been unduly influenced by his behaviour, have every right to register their disgust but for the rest of us, we should do what Rooney should have done and keep quiet.

After all, even Bruce got a posthumous pardon and he made Rooney look like Mary Whitehouse
 
I'm tempted to start a petition...


Dear FA,

feck off.

Sincerely, The Undersigned
 
i say we appeal it. given that pretty much everyone in the country thinks the 2 match ban is too much, it could hardly be dismissed as a frivolous appeal. citing the fact that he had just taken abuse for 90 minutes and scored a hattrick to win us the game from 2-0 down, and then had a camera thrust in his face.
He swore, and then apologised.

Everyone agrees it is ludicrous. The FA certainly wouldnt want to be seen as backing down on this however, so i cant see them reducing the ban - but to dismiss the appeal as frivolous would be equally crazy.

Well, the FA also gets to decide if an appeal is frivolous, using their "frivolous appeal" blackbox. The ban will just get extended. Actually, they can pretty much do whatever they want.
 
it'll be a shame if he gets a ban. as i said before it's sky's responsibillity for what goes out on their air. they shouldn't have a mic on a camera that'll end up in a player's face. there are plenty microphones around the stadium to pick up the general sounds of the match. one on these cameras isn't needed. sky should be levied a stiff fine by whatever entity sets standards/controls broadcasting in the uk.
 
About time Roo! FA finally show some backbone after charging United striker

By Graham Poll Last updated at 1:27 AM on 5th April 2011

* Comments (0)
* Add to My Stories


THE OFFICIAL LINE

At last I can finally write that the Football Association has found the backbone required to run the national game and be called its custodians.

It has missed so many opportunities to make a stand for decency, but what follows now is really important.

Referees are asked for consistency and the standard-bearers of the game must also answer that call.

It was almost impossible not to charge Wayne Rooney for that foul-mouthed tirade and a two-match ban looks inevitable.

Now the FA must wrest control of referees from the spurious Professional Game Match Officials Limited and instruct them to apply the law and earn respect, not allow the Premier League to promote further 'management' of players' excesses.

Read more: FA show backbone after Wayne Rooney charge - Graham Poll | Mail Online


Poll you utter cock....
 
No wonder why Poll is known among United players "the cockney idiot". Go feck yourself three times, Poll! What fecking what?!
 
God I wish Keano was managing somewhere.

Can someone at the Irish Independent find him walking with Trig somewhere and get a word?
 
Poor Poll, does he understand the irony in congratulating the FA for showing consistency when this is an unprecedented charge? fecking idiot, how can someone who can't count to 2 expect to be taken seriously?
 
I'm tempted to start a petition...


Dear FA,

feck off.

Sincerely, The Undersigned

Sir Trevor Brooking will get offended, mate.

"In a touch of delicious irony, Sir Trevor Brooking, who in his guise as TV pundit on Saturday had urged the Hammers to 'show some fight', is now set to oversee the punishment administered to Rooney with his FA stooge hat on."

Now he is one who will be on the panel to decide on the punishment. kangaroo court?
 
Sir Trevor Brooking will get offended, mate.

"In a touch of delicious irony, Sir Trevor Brooking, who in his guise as TV pundit on Saturday had urged the Hammers to 'show some fight', is now set to oversee the punishment administered to Rooney with his FA stooge hat on."

Now he is one who will be on the panel to decide on the punishment. kangaroo court?

Interesting that.

If Scott Parker or Mark Noble had just scored the winner and shown the same reaction I wonder what Sir Trevor would have said...
 
whether or not Rooney does or doesn't deserve some kind of punishment you can't blame united fans for feeling hard done by when so many more serious infringments continually go unpunished. i dont like the conspiracy talk but you cant help but wonder whether some nomark at wigan would've been punished for the same thing. i suspect not

i remember the good ol days when england players got special treatment off the FA over their indescretions - I saw Alan Shearer on the tv yesterday giving a soundbite along the lines of 'he should know better' 'lots of kids watching' 'englands posterboy' 'respect campaign' blah blah blah

perhaps he should've booted an opponent in the face instead eh Alan? the FA has been known to turn a blind eye to that
 
i remember the good ol days when england players got special treatment off the FA over their indescretions - I saw Alan Shearer on the tv yesterday giving a soundbite along the lines of 'he should know better' 'lots of kids watching' 'englands posterboy' 'respect campaign' blah blah blah

perhaps he should've booted an opponent in the face instead eh Alan? the FA has been known to turn a blind eye to that

I agree Shearer taking out Lennon deserved a huge ban and he got away with it.

But what is Shearer meant to say when asked on national TV about the Rooney incident. He can hardly be seen condoning it? He criticised it but also said draw a line under it. He never called for him to be banned. Very few people did except for a couple of newspapers.

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.
 
Let's be honest, Rooney shouldn't have done it. Although when a camera is practically poked in your face in a moment of high emotion, I can almost understand why. However, he should have shown some restraint and as he has apologised the FA should give him a small fine and tell him not to do it again.

Why they are even considering suspending him for this smacks of an agenda. What do the FA really want to punish? Is it because he is a United player?
 
United should take Rooney charge on chin


Tue Apr 05 09:00AM

Manchester United should resist the urge to continue their war with the FA by just accepting the charge for Wayne Rooney's expletive-ridden camera rant - as soon as possible.

United's belligerence regarding disciplinary charges is no different to most Premier League clubs, although eyebrows were raised when they contested initial decisions to punish Rio Ferdinand's clear elbow on Hull's Craig Fagan and, more recently, Sir Alex Ferguson's tirade against referee Martin Atkinson.

This time the Red Devils have more principled grounds for complaint: while Roo's behaviour was a touch off-colour he did not - unlike Didier Drogba two seasons ago - question the fairness of the referee, and his tirade was not aimed at any officials or indeed anyone in particular.

Drogba used a similar number of F-words when he had a stop-and-chat with the cameras after a Champions League defeat to Barcelona and he was banned for three games by UEFA who, at times, are a law unto themselves that operate outside their own rulebook.

However, there is no domestic British precedent for such an incident, and - seeing as the content and context of Rooney's outburst of tourettes were a touch milder than Le Drog's - one assumes a warning on future conduct would suffice.

Aware of the ever-growing public disdain at the on and off-pitch conduct of England players, the FA appear keen to make an example of Rooney and there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

Rio Ferdinand rightly pointed out that players swear on pitch all the time: so long as the curses are not clearly directed at the referee or supporters, they are not punished.

But this is more down to an ‘ungentlemanly agreement' between authorities and players than any rule - at the discretion of the referee foul and abusive language, whoever it is directed at, can be punished with yellow or even red cards, as anyone who has played schools football will testify.

The fairness or otherwise of the FA's charge are irrelevant though - United must be pragmatic as they simply cannot risk losing Rooney for any longer than the subsequent one or two games.

Common logic says that, should they accept the charge, Rooney will be handed a ceremonial one-match ban ruling him out of the home clash with notoriously bad travellers Fulham: Dimitar Berbatov and Javier Hernandez, with over 30 league goals between them this season, should be sufficient for that.

Even if they mete out a two-match ban - which would rule him out of the FA Cup semi-final with neighbours Manchester City - just take it on the chin: the Premier League is the priority and, given that the FA would have by this point decided the incident was worthy of punishment in the first place, any appeal would be seen as spurious.

Further suspension with tough, title-defining matches against Newcastle, Everton and Arsenal coming up would be disastrous: the appeals process would drag out for a week or two and the clash against the Gunners would be a serious risk.

+++

Fair enough, I think.
 
I am so sick of this negative publicity surrounding all this just because of a unintentional shout to the camera, big fecking deal, feck OFF FA....
 
What a fecking joke. Look what Wayne did was wrong, we all know that, but what you want to see is equal punishment for all. This is not the first player to have done this and he wont be the last, but now they are going to have to punish every player. This first player to be banned for this offence in 2011? Hmmm.

A strongly worded letter and maybe even a small fine would have sufficed, I guess the FA just really wanted to punish him for the incident at Wigan which he got away with but that shouldnt be the way things work.
 
Rooney handed FA charge

Tue, 05 Apr 08:00:26 2011



Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney has been charged by the Football Association with "use of offensive, insulting and/or abusive language" following his foul-mouthed hat-trick celebration at West Ham on Saturday.

The England forward issued a formal apology for his outburst, which he claimed came "in the heat of the moment" after he completed a match-turning treble, and insisted "was not aimed at anyone in particular".

However, an FA statement read: "The FA has charged Manchester United's Wayne Rooney for the use of offensive, insulting and/or abusive language.

"This charge relates to an incident during his side's fixture with West Ham United at the Boleyn Ground on Saturday April 2, 2011.

"Rooney has until 6pm on April 5 to respond to the charge."

--------------------------
Nowhere does it state he has got a one match or two match ban. This one match/two match story has been spun by the media, who are rooting for a ban. They are trying to put it into the heads of the FA that a ban is appropriate.
 
I don't even see what was actually wrong with what he did.
Screaming what? fecking what into a camera in the heat of the moment? Oh come on... how on earth can this be the reason for all the fuss and how on earth can they ban him for that?

Stevie G, the gay fecker, kissing the camera was more of a reason to ban him than this.

The whole thing is laughable to an extent that I wonder whether English football has developed into a game for pussies alone.

feck you FA
 
Rooney handed FA charge

Tue, 05 Apr 08:00:26 2011



Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney has been charged by the Football Association with "use of offensive, insulting and/or abusive language" following his foul-mouthed hat-trick celebration at West Ham on Saturday.

The England forward issued a formal apology for his outburst, which he claimed came "in the heat of the moment" after he completed a match-turning treble, and insisted "was not aimed at anyone in particular".

However, an FA statement read: "The FA has charged Manchester United's Wayne Rooney for the use of offensive, insulting and/or abusive language.

"This charge relates to an incident during his side's fixture with West Ham United at the Boleyn Ground on Saturday April 2, 2011.

"Rooney has until 6pm on April 5 to respond to the charge."

--------------------------
Nowhere does it state he has got a one match or two match ban. This one match/two match story has been spun by the media, who are rooting for a ban. They are trying to put it into the heads of the FA that a ban is appropriate.

Nah, the FA have almost certainly been briefing the media, whether on the record or off.
 
Nowhere does it state he has got a one match or two match ban. This one match/two match story has been spun by the media, who are rooting for a ban. They are trying to put it into the heads of the FA that a ban is appropriate.


Correct, I said this several times yesterday.

The offence he has been charged with carries a two game ban or a fine but as you correctly point out the media have irresponsibly been reporting he has been given a two game ban, he hasn't.

No punishment has been meted out as yet, it's an assumption, nothing more.

The Guardian for example reported the fact that it could be a ban or a fine.
 
fecking hell, you just scored a hattrick to bring your side up 3-2 after being down 0-2, and you're not allowed to show some emotion? Let the robots play the game then!
 
Correct, I said this several times yesterday.

The offence he has been charged with carries a two game ban or a fine but as you correctly point out the media have irresponsibly been reporting he has been given a two game ban, he hasn't.

No punishment has been meted out as yet, it's an assumption, nothing more.

The Guardian for example reported the fact that it could be a ban or a fine.

True.

My guess is a one match ban and fine...but if that happens you can imagine the media furore if he's free to play against City? That he's been let off lightly, the FA haven't got any balls, favouritism for Utd etc
 
In the light of the racial allegations at West Ham, it makes you wonder that when the big circus comes to town, the ground fills and every neanderthal within 10 sq miles turns up, which has always been the case when we play there - are these the same morons whom, as Tom Clare's post of the Independent's Sam Wallace points out, constantly abused Rooney throughout the match whilst a complete nobody like "Sir" Trevor Brooking who distinguished himself by not doing any thing notable for West Ham or England, sat and failed to notice anything untoward? Perhaps it's all wrong to abuse players' families - and of course it is, but you wonder why Rooney reacted the way he did. Doubt they'll be looking into that though.

Problem for Rooney is his history - he's not gonna get the benefit of the doubt and is in line for yet another "unprecedented United punishment"
 
If the club don't appeal this I will be pissed off. We should be standing up to these cnuts. So what if he gets an extra ban, feck it...you can't just lie down and take it. I hope the club show some bollocks. The fact he could possibly miss one of the biggest games in our history is a fecking disgrace <does best Drogba voice>
 
If the club don't appeal this I will be pissed off. We should be standing up to these cnuts. So what if he gets an extra ban, feck it...you can't just lie down and take it. I hope the club show some bollocks. The fact he could possibly miss one of the biggest games in our history is a fecking disgrace <does best Drogba voice>

Cup Semi against City is far from our biggest game in our history.

I think we should take the ban now. We can cope without him at home to Fulham and I would prefer him gone in the Cup than any of our title run in games