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

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.

This was my point yesterday as well Bryan. In all the outrage when this story broke I could find nothing on any official sites stating he would get a two match ban. I suspected which seems to be confirmed today that the fa have leaked their punishment to the press (as usual) to test the waters before making it official. Our only hope is the universal condemnation of a two game ban. Best way out of this is the fa declaring that it was always planned to be 'suspended'. Can't have the incompetant bastards losing face can we?
 
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

I disagree.

We shouldn't take this lying down as it's unprecedented, it's a point of principle.

If he gets an additional game ban (PL Away to Newcastle) so be it, we've already proved we can win games without him.
 
'Arry should really keep his fecking mouth shut too, I can't stand the way other managers wade into these things when they have nothing to do with them.

'I dont remember Bobby Charlton doing that when he scored' - maybe because he didn't have a camera shoved in his face and the media waiting for every little thing to pull him up on 'Arry eh?

I mean you'd never do such a thing would you?

 
Home | Mail Online

The scene was the opulent, marbled concourse at Dubai International Airport, but at that moment we might have been in a dark back alley in a Liverpool ghetto.
One moment, Wayne Rooney was lazing indolently on a seat at the departure gate, his wife Coleen resting her neatly coiffed head on his meaty shoulder; the next they were advancing menacingly towards me.
With his Desperate Dan jaw, impossibly thick neck and veins bulging from his prematurely high forehead, Rooney might have been a boxer striding towards the ring.
Though it was only 6am, Coleen clattered along in glittery high heels, and was wearing thickly painted-on eyebrows. For a moment, they looked quite comical — but I knew better than to laugh.
You see, this was last October, at the height of Rooney’s battle for an exorbitant pay rise from Manchester United, and I had just written a distinctly unflattering article about their self-indulgent, chav-like behaviour while holidaying at a seven-star hotel.
Tellingly, perhaps, it was Coleen who led the impromptu rant that followed, demanding — in her fish-wife vernacular — to know ‘What gives youse the right to criticise us’, and challenging me to sample the ‘very ordinary’ lives they lead behind the doors of their Cheshire mansion.For good measure, she couldn’t resist mentioning the work they did for charity, and the amount of time she spent caring for her disabled 12-year-old sister, Rosie McLoughlin.
But when I attempted to defend my article, ‘the Big Man’, as Wayne is given to referring to himself in the Manchester United dressing-room, abruptly stepped in.
Maybe he’s bigger than he looks on TV, when he’s being marked by those giant centre-halves; or maybe I’m just shrinking. In any event, I found myself nose to pugilistic nose with the Croxteth bruiser — and what it felt like to be on the other end of one of his raging, foul-mouthed tirades.
Mind what you f***ing say to ’er,’ he began, jerking a thumb in his wife’s direction. Then he paused and reached for the choicest insult he could summon.
‘You’re just a f***ing old paedophile,’ he eventually spat, though as he and Coleen are in their mid-20s, I couldn’t quite work out why.
Last Saturday, millions of TV viewers recoiled in disgust as England’s finest ‘celebrated’ the completion of his match-winning hat-trick with a similar outburst of Neanderthal aggression.
Thrusting his face into the lens of Sky’s pitch-side camera, he let rip with a shocking four-letter rant that left millions of armchair soccer fans appalled.
They, at least, were able to reach for the off-button. In Dubai, there was no escape for me as the expletives flew and Rooney’s spittle flecked my cheeks.
For a time, I felt sure he was going to hit me, and said as much — warning him that an assault committed in the United Arab Emirates was likely to have more serious consequences than it would at Old Trafford.
But as the red mist subsided, Rooney returned to such senses as he possesses and grudgingly allowed me to explain why I felt justified in criticising a supposedly professional sportsman for lolling around in the world’s most expensive hotel for a week, eating junk food and slurping vodka-and-tonics, while trying to squeeze yet more millions out of his employer at a time when Britain languished in recession.
There followed, as they say, a full and frank exchange of views.
I am as much of a starry-eyed football fan as the next man, and though I had been verbally assailed, I couldn’t resist ending by saying that I had long admired his talent, and hoped, in the second half of his turbulent career, that he would do it full justice.
‘Thanks very much, mate,’ said the man who, just a few moments earlier, had seemed ready to tear my head off.
Then, satisfied that his honour — and that of his wife — had been duly restored, off down the concourse he sauntered.
Down the years, I have seen Rooney lose his temper, irrationally and alarmingly, many times.
He rounded on England fans for booing him and his under- performing colleagues during last summer’s World Cup, failing to understand that — as the people who fund his rock-star lifestyle — this is their inalienable right.
A New York photographer I know claims Rooney once emerged from his Manhattan hotel and challenged him to a street fight.
He routinely treads on and late-tackles opponents, with an expression that suggests he has enjoyed inflicting pain on them.
And not a week goes by without him screaming obscenities at referees and linesmen — in earshot of impressionable young supporters.
Football may be a working-class game in which emotions run high and ‘industrial language’ — to coin the pundits’ favourite euphemism — may well be an unavoidable by-product of these factors.
Certainly, that seems to be the case where Rooney’s manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, is concerned. All too often, his dug-out sounds like a pub in Glasgow’s East End at closing time.
Yet when Rooney is involved, the abuse always seems to be that bit more niggly and personal.
So why, with the world at his gifted feet, does he behave in such a fashion? It is a question I have pondered ever since our close encounter, and I have come to a conclusion.
It is not that Rooney was badly brought up — on the contrary, his family, by all accounts, did an admirable job of raising him in impoverished circumstances on a rough council estate in Liverpool’s Croxteth district. It is not that he is particularly insensitive. According to those who know him, beneath that scowling exterior, he is a bit of a softie.
Rooney is, though, deeply impressionable, immature and selfish. For that he must take the lion’s share of responsibility.
After all, he is, as Coleen told me when I suggested he was being badly advised, a grown man who is capable of making his own decisions. And he keeps making very poor ones, whether it’s sleeping with escort girls or shouting vile abuse at the cameras.
Yet we must also point an accusing finger at every fawning manager and coach, every obsequious, money-grubbing agent who has indulged him since he burst onto the scene as a teenage sensation.
Who cares whether his language offends mothers and small boys, and shapes their behaviour in park kickabouts, if his goals are winning you the league?
Who cares if he behaves as though he is suffering from Tourette’s syndrome when you are raking in a fat percentage of his £250,000-a-week salary?
What those who have watched him over the years point out is the stark contrast between the youthful exuberance and enthusiasm for the game Wayne Rooney showed when he first appeared as a teenager, and the bitter fury of the England superstar today.
It is often said by the Gary Linekers and Alan Hansens who shape public opinion on our national game, that Rooney’s aggression is an essential part of his game, and he would be a lesser player if it were curtailed.
Maybe they are right. But it is a price most decent, respectable fans would gladly pay to be spared the sickening outburst that violated their homes on Saturday evening.

What an article! Have the Mail got it in for Rooney? Nah, of course not, let's drag up something that happened in October:rolleyes:

Some of it did make me chuckle though!
 
'Arry should really keep his fecking mouth shut too, I can't stand the way other managers wade into these things when they have nothing to do with them.

'I dont remember Bobby Charlton doing that when he scored' - maybe because he didn't have a camera shoved in his face and the media waiting for every little thing to pull him up on 'Arry eh?

I mean you'd never do such a thing would you?



Ah yeh I forgot that, feck off Arry.

Tax dodging prick.
 
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.

To be fair, I don't see how it's not a two match ban if we don't contest it...

Schedule A (a) says:
The Charge may be accompanied by an offer of the standard punishment that
would apply to the offence had it been seen and reported by the Match
Official(s) during
the match.
In exceptional circumstances, where The Association is satisfied that the standard
punishment that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient, no standard punishment
offer will be made in the charge letter.​
So the only options I see are the standard punishment, or more than that in "exceptional circumstances".

And for some ridiculous reason, given that every player spends most of every match committing this offence, the standard punishment for using offensive language is to be:
suspended automatically from FTCM commencing forthwith, and until such time as his
Club’s First Team has completed its next two FTCM.​
(8(d))
 
To be fair, I don't see how it's not a two match ban if we don't contest it...

Schedule A (a) says:
The Charge may be accompanied by an offer of the standard punishment that
would apply to the offence had it been seen and reported by the Match
Official(s) during
the match.
In exceptional circumstances, where The Association is satisfied that the standard
punishment that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient, no standard punishment
offer will be made in the charge letter.​
So the only options I see are the standard punishment, or more than that in "exceptional circumstances".

And for some ridiculous reason, given that every player spends most of every match committing this offence, the standard punishment for using offensive language is to be:
suspended automatically from FTCM commencing forthwith, and until such time as his
Club’s First Team has completed its next two FTCM.​
(8(d))

Interesting, the Guardian were reporting a 2 game ban OR a fine.
 
Despite the anger within Old Trafford at the FA’s action against Rooney, the club have decided to accept that he will be banned, but plan to challenge the severity of the penalty in an attempt to turn the two-game ban into a one-game suspension.

Ferguson and United chief executive David Gill are to discuss the avenues open to Rooney on Tuesday morning.

Telegraph Sport understands that United will accept the FA charge but contest the severity of the punishment, despite the possibility of a disciplinary commission extending the ban to a third game because of it being perceived as a 'frivolous’ move. By accepting the charge, United will await the verdict of a disciplinary panel tomorrow , at which neither the club nor Rooney can be represented, that will deliver a final judgment.

If United are successful in reducing the suspension, Rooney is likely to miss just this weekend’s Premier League game at home to Fulham. The likelihood of that happening is slight, however, as the club would have to prove 'exceptional circumstances’.

The possibility of Rooney being banned for a further game if the appeal fails – the trip to Newcastle on April 19 – is a sacrifice that Ferguson is willing to take in an effort to have the player available to face City at Wembley three days earlier.

While United are determined to secure a reduction in Rooney’s suspension, Ferguson’s desire to have the England forward available for the Wembley clash with City on April 16, rather than the club’s anger with the FA, is the major factor in their plans to challenge the sanction.

Good.
 
I suppose the grey area is the question (brought on by the FA's inconsistency and weak-willed submission to media witch hunts) of what the hell they are actually doing here:

Are they saying that basically Rooney should have been sent off under rule 8(d), but the ref missed it, so it's a straight-forward video job?
If so their case is pretty weak - would the ref really have sent him of if he was stood right next to that camera with a perfect view (and hearing)? There's no way he would (unless it was Martin Atkinson).

If they are doing something different, surely he should have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute or similar (Rule E 3(1)), rather than use of offensive, insulting and / or abusive language?


I think the main conclusions we can draw form this are:

  • A1Dan knows next to nothing about the details of FA regulations
  • And yet, A1Dan is able to rip holes in the FA charge after spending 5 minutes looking through the rule book
  • In which case a team of experienced football lawyers should be able to get the whole thing laughed out of court
  • But of course they can't, because there is no transparent and accountable system of justice, and if you prove to the FA that they are incompetent, bent buffoons, they just get cross and hit you with further bans
 
I suppose the grey area is the question (brought on by the FA's inconsistency and weak-willed submission to media witch hunts) of what the hell they are actually doing here:

Are they saying that basically Rooney should have been sent off under rule 8(d), but the ref missed it, so it's a straight-forward video job?
If so their case is pretty weak - would the ref really have sent him of if he was stood right next to that camera with a perfect view (and hearing)? There's no way he would (unless it was Martin Atkinson).

If they are doing something different, surely he should have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute or similar (Rule E 3(1)), rather than use of offensive, insulting and / or abusive language?

Mason was asked by the FA to review it - and he admitted that had he seen the flashpoint originally, he would have shown the red card to the fiery star.

Did you see that?
 

Mason was asked by the FA to review it - and he admitted that had he seen the flashpoint originally, he would have shown the red card to the fiery star


If that had of happened would it of been a 1 games ban for the red ?
 
I seriously doubt the ref would have sent Rooney off (straight red card) for foul language into the camera. Otherwise, every football game would end with 15 players on the field or so
 
Neil Cuntis has already decided its a two match ban.

Reds to appeal
05/04/2011 09:30

Scroo you!
Sir Alex Ferguson will fight the FA over Wayne Rooney's two-game ban for his foul-mouthed rant to a TV camera. Rooney is said to be devastated by the punishment for his outburst after completing a hat-trick at West Ham on Saturday. The striker is crushed at the thought of missing the FA Cup semi-final against Manchester City. Manchester United boss Fergie and his board are angry at the punishment and are going to war with football's ruling body. They are ready to challenge the FA in a bid to have Rooney available for the Wembley clash with City a week on Saturday. But Fergie could risk losing him for a third game if they fail. The club are prepared to accept the charge but strongly challenge the severity of the punishment. They will make their submissions and a hearing will take place to consider them, with United not represented. United hope to get the ban reduced to one game - meaning Rooney would only miss this Saturday's Premier League clash at home to Fulham. But this course of action does risk a further one-match ban. The other two options are to accept the charge and the two-game suspension - or to deny it and face a hearing tomorrow. But that could also lead to an additional one-match rap for a frivolous appeal. United believe the punishment does not fit the crime and the FA are making an example of Rooney because of who he is.
Neil Custis, The Sun
 
Neil Cuntis has already decided its a two match ban.

Reds to appeal
05/04/2011 09:30

Scroo you!
Sir Alex Ferguson will fight the FA over Wayne Rooney's two-game ban for his foul-mouthed rant to a TV camera. Rooney is said to be devastated by the punishment for his outburst after completing a hat-trick at West Ham on Saturday. The striker is crushed at the thought of missing the FA Cup semi-final against Manchester City. Manchester United boss Fergie and his board are angry at the punishment and are going to war with football's ruling body. They are ready to challenge the FA in a bid to have Rooney available for the Wembley clash with City a week on Saturday. But Fergie could risk losing him for a third game if they fail. The club are prepared to accept the charge but strongly challenge the severity of the punishment. They will make their submissions and a hearing will take place to consider them, with United not represented. United hope to get the ban reduced to one game - meaning Rooney would only miss this Saturday's Premier League clash at home to Fulham. But this course of action does risk a further one-match ban. The other two options are to accept the charge and the two-game suspension - or to deny it and face a hearing tomorrow. But that could also lead to an additional one-match rap for a frivolous appeal. United believe the punishment does not fit the crime and the FA are making an example of Rooney because of who he is.
Neil Custis, The Sun

I am glad we are fighting this , its not about Rooney playing v City , because I know we can still win the game .
I think its more about the FA screwing us over.
I say that the ref would not of sent Rooney of if he had seen it ,he would of just booked him.
 
a shocking four-letter rant that left millions of armchair soccer fans appalled....the sickening outburst that violated their homes on Saturday evening.

Jesus fecking christ....
 
As I've already said, he's lying then.

But then are we not throwing up doubt's about the ref's honesty and integrity and his ability to ref a game.
Don't get me wrong I think he is lying to , but we all know that no ref has sent of a player for swearing to the camera (well I don't think one has).
The FA has to take his word for it , if they don't how can he ever ref another game again
 
a shocking four-letter rant that left millions of armchair soccer fans appalled....the sickening outburst that violated their homes on Saturday evening.

Jesus fecking christ....

Rooney had apologised for the outburst and it is understood that Sky did not receive a significant volume of viewer complaints. The FA, however, feels duty-bound to act, given that the referee, Lee Mason, was in no position to see and report the incident.

Either they don't own phones or couldn't get through.
 
Next time Wayne scores he should run to the camera again, pick up a mic and shout "I thoroughly enjoyed that goal!".
 
On Saturday afternoon my innocence was destroyed forever, rendered so obsolete that I can no longer even picture what Bambi looks like and any sense of hope, wonder or optimism I may have once had now just seems like a half-remembered nonsense from an abstract dream.

The worst thing about the whole situation is that this trauma came from a place I trust, somewhere I feel comfortable and free; the realm of football. What happened is this; a man scored a goal and then swore.

Like many I’m still finding it difficult to talk about but feel that I must document my thoughts before the government falls and the looting begins. It won’t be long before the internet explodes and it’s important that this is out there.

He was just…I mean…he’d just scored a hat trick, why was he so angry? It should have been a time for celebration, it was a great comeback. I remember back then – it seems so long ago now - I could appreciate things like that, you know, enjoy comebacks and goals and things that happened that I thought were good. That is until that hulking, pink beast glared down the camera lens, through his dead eyes into my then-hopeful soul and unleashed a torrent of profanity that I could sort of make out, forever robbing me of all joy.

I don’t even know what he said, and in a way that’s the most haunting thing of all. As ever it’s the children who’ll be hit hardest by this, their tiny ears will be better attuned to sounds and they will have felt the full brunt of the expletives, when otherwise they’d have gone through life with their minds unsullied. How wonderful their futures used to be.

“I want to apologise for any offence that may have been caused by my goal celebration, especially to any parents or children that were watching,” said the culprit, wounding me further, for I am not a parent, nor am I a child. I am a 28 year-old man, though that doesn’t mean that I was bereft of innocence. You become a man at 21, so I am a 7-year-old man. Was a 7-year-old man. Now I am but a husk. “It was not aimed at anyone in particular,” he continued, damning us all.

The perpetrator has previous with abusing cameras too, seemingly under the impression that they are sentient and out to get him. His staggering inability to learn from his mistakes has condemned us all and it follows that even now he must be bumping into glass windows and telling the man in the mirror to stop speaking at the same time as him.

Yes, after this catastrophe – nay, national tragedy – all seemed lost, but then I heard the news which made me realise that maybe I could begin to hope again. I once more thought about the callous brute responsible but instead of him shouting at the man in the mirror, this time he was talking to the man in the mirror, asking him to change his ways…

Fulham chairman Mohamed Al Fayed has made a gesture that can unite us all and once more shine a light into our lives, lives that have become dark as the debris from the cataclysm caused by the uttering of the unutterable has blotted out any light that may have illuminated our souls.

Al Fayed has done the most appropriate thing anyone could have done in such a time, which is to erect a statue of Michael Jackson outside Fulham’s Craven Cottage.

Clearly some people are still upset about recent events and as such have said that the statue of the King of Pop is bizarre. “Why is it bizarre?” Fayed has countered. “If some stupid fans don’t understand and appreciate such a gift they can go to hell…People will queue to come and visit it from all over the UK and it is something that I and everybody else should be proud of.”

While the strength of Al Fayed’s language stings my delicate ears he is right, and I am proud. People will queue to come and visit it from all over the UK. I will queue to come and visit it from all over the UK, then presumably I’ll have to queue again when I get there, such will be the demand for a glimpse of a statue of Michael Jackson outside Fulham’s Craven Cottage.

The statue is more than just a gesture or a moulded lump of whatever it’s made of – fibreglass by the looks of it – it’s a monument to greatness, a totem of belief and a reminder that there is hope, that there is a future in which we can all move forward as a society, that even in a world where incidents as horrifying as those that occurred on Saturday afternoon can happen; it really isn’t that bad.

The start pretty much sums up my feelings.
 
Or just scream out the word thundercnut as loud as possible.
 
Apparently Sky received very few calls complaining after the live broadcast.

I cant say I'm surprised, I was watching the game, and to be honest I missed it completely...

Its a non issue. And the FA bowing to media pressure of non events like this ruining the game.