Come to think of it, didn't SAF swear on TV when getting interviewed after a game? I think it was more 9pm time though where he responded to pressure of the job or something and said "that's bollocks" right in front of camera but in response to the reporter?
He was told off a little by the reporter with please watch your swearing this is a family show or usual rubbish but never got a ban for it. Again, it was a different scenario and manner to what Rooney did but obviously a lot more clearer than some of the examples people are giving, like the crowds chants or Reina lip readings etc.
Another way players have sent out messages to the viewers back home is wearing shirts underneath with messages like 100 goals or some other message. How many of you think they would get a ban if they put feck off on their tshirts and flashed it after a goal? I reckon they would, no matter what club they played for. Although obviously if one of our players did it the ban might be a game or two more due to media pressure.
I see that you are still setting alight those men made of straw.
Nobody believes that what Rooney did was perfectly acceptable and that he should have been congratulated for it. The point which you have continually failed to engage with is that the unprecedented action taken against Rooney calls for an explanation beyond that which you (or anyone else) have offered, particularly as other examples, only some of which are not as blatant as Rooney's, are far more common, but no less offensive (if the offence is seeing or hearing someone swearing).
Your explanation is that shouting in to the camera is so thoroughly distinct from every other example that it is not possible to compare it with anything else, but as I explained in a post that you obviously didn't see,
that's not true. That example happened during the day in the FA's own competition and, if anything, is even more blatant than what Rooney has been both harshly criticized and subsequently punished for.
So, the contention that no other example compares to that of Rooney is just false, but that was never the main concern that I had with your argument, anyway. It doesn't matter if two examples are exactly alike or not. In any disciplinary system no two examples are ever likely to be exactly the same. What matters is that a behavior (in this case, swearing) is punishable only if the person engaging in that behavior is deemed to be in some sense responsible for their actions.
What you are effectively arguing is that Rooney is uniquely responsible for being heard to swear on camera, but the example of players swearing during interview entirely refutes that notion. While Rooney's behavior was obviously blatant and ordinarily (with a consistent disciplinary process) deserving of punishment, that says nothing about whether other players who are caught swearing in different circumstances are also responsible -- either wholly or partially -- for their actions, or whether it offends anyone who hears it.
If they're not responsible according to the FA, then why should Rooney be forced to accept responsibility for his actions? That his actions were arguably more serious does not mean that other examples are not in fact examples at all, otherwise we would only ever punish the most blatant and heinous crimes in society. The FA obviously doesn't accept this argument with any other disciplinary matter -- for example, a mis-timed challenge and a blatant attempt to injure are both punishable -- so why should anyone accept it in this instance?
Finally, if it can be said that prior knowledge confers responsibility, how many examples of players being heard to swear while celebrating would there need to be for them to eventually be deemed ultimately responsible for those actions? That doesn't mean that they deserve the same punishment as Rooney, of course, but it also doesn't mean that they are entirely without responsibility, either.
What many of us are asking for is a consistent and non-discriminatory approach to discipline. If certain language is a concern, then the FA should look at all of the various and potential examples and decide where the ultimate responsibility lies in each case. I absolutely agree that swearing directly in to a camera is worse than most other examples (apart from doing so during an interview), but where you and I part ways is that you appear to believe that it is the only example (including during an interview) for which the player has any meaningful responsibility. That is, in my opinion, an untenable position to hold.
