Winter: FA Weak Over Rooney and Cole Incidents

[The Silver Surfer]

With Ben Thatcher City banned Thatcher for six matches, two of which would be suspended, and fined six weeks' wages for the challenge.

This punishment is separate from the sanctions made by the FA, who suspended Thatcher for eight matches, with a further fifteen game suspended ban for two years.

I want to know why the FA took responsibility then and not now and why united won't either.
Instead we have phelan and ferguson washing their hands.

"we can't dispute the referees decision"

"There is nothing in it".

Its a complete joke.

 

[itsnevereasy]

In a sane and non-corrupt world, this latest Rooney assault should have had one of two perfectly acceptable outcomes:

a) A 3 or 4 match ban

b) Disciplinary action against Clattenburg.

Either he didn't see it - then it's (a). Or he did, in which case he made a blatantly incorrect refereeing decision and it's (b). There can be no (c). Either he saw it, or he didn't. If he saw it, it should have been a straight red, end of discussion. So the FA should be punishing Clattenburg for incompetence or possible cheating. Or he didn't see it? So a ban then.

There's nowhere to hide with this incident. It's the fact that the FA do neither (a) or (b) which is so totally unacceptable. I had really hoped we'd see better from the FA since David Bernstein took over.

(c) Or the FA / The fake haired one are on a payroll of a certain football club?

 

[CBlue]

The Shrek incident only highlights the necessity for video appeal during the game. Some, on here, believe the game should stand as it is, so that these incidents can go unchecked as that is the 'beauty of the game' and people can 'talk about it in pubs' blah blah blah! Video tech would not stop this either!

Again, vid tech would stop refs 'cuddling' players as it would be clear the 'cuddlees' are the perpetrators of serious crime on the pitch.

The two appeal system would work a treat, in cases like this, and still allow a ref to do his job. As we all saw, the game was stopped anyway for Clattentwunt to give a free kick and cuddle out.

Time to bring the game into the modern day.

Absolute bollocks!!

He had VR at the end of the game, Saturday evening, all day Sunday & Monday morning. He has seen the outrage from every fan who cares about the game & STILL couldn't make the right decision. What makes you think that a 30 second look at an incident during the game will change his mind? If anything, this is an argument against VR in the game.
The game was stopped in this incident - what would happen if it hadn't? How would you stop the game & what would happen to all incidents between this incident & a review of VR. Imagine if this was City & we had just scored. A corrupt, cheating twat (or a Clattenburg) could review any VR & find a reason for the goal not to stand. If a ref is corrupt then he is corrupt. Giving him more opportunity to corrupt the game isn't the way forward.

 

[Bigga]

The Shrek incident only highlights the necessity for video appeal during the game. Some, on here, believe the game should stand as it is, so that these incidents can go unchecked as that is the 'beauty of the game' and people can 'talk about it in pubs' blah blah blah! Video tech would not stop this either!

Again, vid tech would stop refs 'cuddling' players as it would be clear the 'cuddlees' are the perpetrators of serious crime on the pitch.

The two appeal system would work a treat, in cases like this, and still allow a ref to do his job. As we all saw, the game was stopped anyway for Clattentwunt to give a free kick and cuddle out.

Time to bring the game into the modern day.

Absolute bollocks!!

He had VR at the end of the game, Saturday evening, all day Sunday & Monday morning. He has seen the outrage from every fan who cares about the game & STILL couldn't make the right decision. What makes you think that a 30 second look at an incident during the game will change his mind? If anything, this is an argument against VR in the game.
The game was stopped in this incident - what would happen if it hadn't? How would you stop the game & what would happen to all incidents between this incident & a review of VR. Imagine if this was City & we had just scored. A corrupt, cheating twat (or a Clattenburg) could review any VR & find a reason for the goal not to stand. If a ref is corrupt then he is corrupt. Giving him more opportunity to corrupt the game isn't the way forward.

Hahaha!!

It was like wafting the smell of baking apple pie down the corridor to the starving neighbour! Too easy!

Nobody is talking about Clattenburg reviewing his decision over the weekend as he'd have had time to think of what to say. Reviewing it there and then, from the angle TV saw would have surely forced the correct decision from him. The Fourth Official could also be called in to discuss the position to take over such a thing, advice if you will. He should not be taking such grave matters into consideration alone.

It doesn't matter who scored what if an offence had taken place in the lead up to a goal. A serious offence is a serious offence if an opponent had been taken out in the lead up, City or no City.

Your constant opposition to VT is becoming more and more aloof.

 

[CBlue]

Absolute bollocks!!

He had VR at the end of the game, Saturday evening, all day Sunday & Monday morning. He has seen the outrage from every fan who cares about the game & STILL couldn't make the right decision. What makes you think that a 30 second look at an incident during the game will change his mind? If anything, this is an argument against VR in the game.
The game was stopped in this incident - what would happen if it hadn't? How would you stop the game & what would happen to all incidents between this incident & a review of VR. Imagine if this was City & we had just scored. A corrupt, cheating twat (or a Clattenburg) could review any VR & find a reason for the goal not to stand. If a ref is corrupt then he is corrupt. Giving him more opportunity to corrupt the game isn't the way forward.

Hahaha!!

It was like wafting the smell of baking apple pie down the corridor to the starving neighbour! Too easy!

Nobody is talking about Clattenburg reviewing his decision over the weekend as he'd have had time to think of what to say. Reviewing it there and then, from the angle TV saw would have surely forced the correct decision from him. The Fourth Official could also be called in to discuss the position to take over such a thing, advice if you will. He should not be taking such grave matters into consideration alone.

It doesn't matter who scored what if an offence had taken place in the lead up to a goal. A serious offence is a serious offence if an opponent had been taken out in the lead up, City or no City.

Your constant opposition to VT is becoming more and more aloof.

WTF are you on about? "he'd have had time to think of what to say" - there is nothing, nothing that can be said to justify this. That's what the outrage is about. It's a game of opinions, but there are times when every honest persons opinions are the same. This is one of those situations. VR supports every one of these peoples honest opinion - unfortunately, there is only one opinion that counts. VR will never change that, nor will a fourth official. Ask yourself why it is that Clattenburg hasn't taken the correct, easy option & said he didn't see it. He's bent as fuck.

Once again, you have no idea on the repercussions of what you are arguing for. If City had scored, the referee can review the VR & find an excuse to disallow the goal. He doesn't have that capability now. If he is a Clattenburg then it gives him even more influence on the game & a greater ability to cheat.

Your ability to fully think through the issues is frightening but not surprising - you have previous.

 

[Bigga]

Hahaha!!

It was like wafting the smell of baking apple pie down the corridor to the starving neighbour! Too easy!

Nobody is talking about Clattenburg reviewing his decision over the weekend as he'd have had time to think of what to say. Reviewing it there and then, from the angle TV saw would have surely forced the correct decision from him. The Fourth Official could also be called in to discuss the position to take over such a thing, advice if you will. He should not be taking such grave matters into consideration alone.

It doesn't matter who scored what if an offence had taken place in the lead up to a goal. A serious offence is a serious offence if an opponent had been taken out in the lead up, City or no City.

Your constant opposition to VT is becoming more and more aloof.

WTF are you on about? "he'd have had time to think of what to say" - there is nothing, nothing that can be said to justify this. That's what the outrage is about. It's a game of opinions, but there are times when every honest persons opinions are the same. This is one of those situations. VR supports every one of these peoples honest opinion - unfortunately, there is only one opinion that counts. VR will never change that, nor will a fourth official. Ask yourself why it is that Clattenburg hasn't taken the correct, easy option & said he didn't see it. He's bent as fuck.

Once again, you have no idea on the repercussions of what you are arguing for. If City had scored, the referee can review the VR & find an excuse to disallow the goal. He doesn't have that capability now. If he is a Clattenburg then it gives him even more influence on the game & a greater ability to cheat.

Your ability to fully think through the issues is frightening but not surprising - you have previous.

But YOU miss the point! I can't remember an incident where an assault has lead to a goal, so your senario remains just that and I've answered it. A Fourth Official always adds to a decision made if they are involved, so I have no idea what you're implying! Often a FO might just have seen/ heard something away from play and the ref has been advised of the situation. Why do you think manager are sent away from the touchline, at times?

And, yes, believe it or not, Clattenburg believed in real time Shrek 'clipped' the lad. What that means, I have no idea. But what it DOES essentially mean is that he could stay with that excuse to the panel as he'd 'seen' the incident from where he was and dealt with it according to what he deemed from his POV.

VT would show a different angle and the ensuing force delivered from the assault forcing the ref into another decision.

I do NOT see what is so difficult in understanding the credible impact that VT would make on the game.

Amazing that this is not clear to you.

 

[CBlue]

WTF are you on about? "he'd have had time to think of what to say" - there is nothing, nothing that can be said to justify this. That's what the outrage is about. It's a game of opinions, but there are times when every honest persons opinions are the same. This is one of those situations. VR supports every one of these peoples honest opinion - unfortunately, there is only one opinion that counts. VR will never change that, nor will a fourth official. Ask yourself why it is that Clattenburg hasn't taken the correct, easy option & said he didn't see it. He's bent as fuck.

Once again, you have no idea on the repercussions of what you are arguing for. If City had scored, the referee can review the VR & find an excuse to disallow the goal. He doesn't have that capability now. If he is a Clattenburg then it gives him even more influence on the game & a greater ability to cheat.

Your ability to fully think through the issues is frightening but not surprising - you have previous.

But YOU miss the point! I can't remember an incident where an assault has lead to a goal, so your senario remains just that and I've answered it. A Fourth Official always adds to a decision made if they are involved, so I have no idea what you're implying! Often a FO might just have seen/ heard something away from play and the ref has been advised of the situation. Why do you think manager are sent away from the touchline, at times?

WTF are you talking about now? Are you advocating that we only use VR when an assault has lead to a goal? If not, then you have to have the chance to review VR at any point in time - a Clattenburg ref will take this opportunity to screw you over if that is his mandate. You are introducing more ways to cheat, not less. The FO can only advise a ref, the ref can dismiss this advice as he sees fit. I've told you this before, the referee is the sole arbiter on the field. The rest of the "team" are merely assistants - they can be overruled - the referee can't.

And, yes, believe it or not, Clattenburg believed in real time Shrek 'clipped' the lad. What that means, I have no idea. But what it DOES essentially mean is that he could stay with that excuse to the panel as he'd 'seen' the incident from where he was and dealt with it according to what he deemed from his POV.

VT would show a different angle and the ensuing force delivered from the assault forcing the ref into another decision.

WTF are you on about again? What panel? There is no panel & there would be an even lesser need for a panel to exist with VR. A panel will only investigate if the ref didn't see it. By looking at the VR during the game then he can now say he did & took the appropriate action. Therefore, no panel is required. The Clattenburg now has more power to cheat. Have you caught up yet? We're not talking about ref's making incorrect decisions - they're bad, but excusable - we're talking about corruption. Take off the blinkers - football in England is corrupt. There are players & officials taking money.

I do NOT see what is so difficult in understanding the credible impact that VT would make on the game.

Amazing that this is not clear to you.

There is no credibility with VR - it will only add to the problems. I'm actually not amazed that you have never considered the darker side of what you wish for. As I said before, you have previous for it - take off those rose coloured glasses.

 

[Bigga]

WTF are you talking about now? Are you advocating that we only use VR when an assault has lead to a goal? If not, then you have to have the chance to review VR at any point in time - a Clattenburg ref will take this opportunity to screw you over if that is his mandate. You are introducing more ways to cheat, not less. The FO can only advise a ref, the ref can dismiss this advice as he sees fit. I've told you this before, the referee is the sole arbiter on the field. The rest of the "team" are merely assistants - they can be overruled - the referee can't.

And, yes, believe it or not, Clattenburg believed in real time Shrek 'clipped' the lad. What that means, I have no idea. But what it DOES essentially mean is that he could stay with that excuse to the panel as he'd 'seen' the incident from where he was and dealt with it according to what he deemed from his POV.

VT would show a different angle and the ensuing force delivered from the assault forcing the ref into another decision.

WTF are you on about again? What panel? There is no panel & there would be an even lesser need for a panel to exist with VR. A panel will only investigate if the ref didn't see it. By looking at the VR during the game then he can now say he did & took the appropriate action. Therefore, no panel is required. The Clattenburg now has more power to cheat. Have you caught up yet? We're not talking about ref's making incorrect decisions - they're bad, but excusable - we're talking about corruption. Take off the blinkers - football in England is corrupt. There are players & officials taking money.

I do NOT see what is so difficult in understanding the credible impact that VT would make on the game.

Amazing that this is not clear to you.

There is no credibility with VR - it will only add to the problems. I'm actually not amazed that you have never considered the darker side of what you wish for. As I said before, you have previous for it - take off those rose coloured glasses.

Wow! I didn't realise you could be so doggedly stupid!!

It was YOU that used the analogy of a goal and 'incident'!! Can you not keep up with yourself?? I don't know how to make this clear to you... BUT MC has already stated to the PANEL at the FA that he'd dealt with the matter from from his POINT OF VIEW. He DOESN'T have the benefit of another angle. This is not cheating as much as you'd think, but merely truth, therefore the FA PANEL can do nothing!! Are you with me, yet??

If MC has another view brought to light from another source and conference with the FO, his options begin to widen as to the severity of incident. Capiche??

Nobody, except you, has even mentioned a ref not seeing anything, on this occasion. In real time MC may genuinely have thought Shrek scraped the lad and not smashed him one.

Who knows!!

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Now the scumbag who ought not to be playing scores - there really is no fookin justice - none whatsoever - makes me sick to the core

 

[deano ou812]

Now the scumbag who ought not to be playing scores - there really is no fookin justice - none whatsoever - makes me sick to the core

well i would take a manchester cup final with us leading till the very death 6mins added time, and a penalty for the rags,up steps cnutty boy wooney who does a john terry and slips and misses with us blues both cheering and laughing while wooney lying crying a broken man this would be karma for me..