i dont know about that.....my pals would rip the piss out for goin down quicker then a ten bob hooker
Rooney gets 3 games!!
- Thread starter StrovolosTiger
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
i dont know about that.....my pals would rip the piss out for goin down quicker then a ten bob hooker
big chance...rooney was the only name set in stone in the forward line,also for the likes of welbeck,sturridge an oxlade chamberlain
Massive hopes for sturridge. I'm hoping him, welbeck, Carroll and bent all have pretty useful seasons, would give us good options for the summer.
I've just watched the incident a few times, it WAS a red card and it certainly looked intentional to me. I'm English, yes Rooney is a top player but sod him, give Sturridge & Defoe a shout.
Who's to say he wouldn't do it again in the QFs if he's having a bad match.. frustration gets to him..
drop him.
Who's to say he wouldn't do it again in the QFs if he's having a bad match.. frustration gets to him..
drop him.
Rooney lashing out was stupid, but it was nowhere near as bad at Guthrie, ***an didn't even have the ball.
Here, a straight red for violent conduct is an automatic three match ban, but under UEFA rules it's a one match ban, with a panel deciding on a case by case basis if it warrants being extended. They decided that this warranted a maximum three match ban, as it constituted 'assault', which is way over the top in my opinion.
I can't find any record of this happening previously, I can't find any three match international ban from UEFA for any other player. Ribery, De Rossi and Bellamy all got them in the Champions League, but for far worse incidents(Zidane got a five match ban for his head-butt, but that was a World Cup Final and the ban was from FIFA).
He'll definitely still go.
Guthrie and Rooney was exactly the same surely? Both beaten to the ball, lost their temper and lashed out. Only difference is that ***an was injured and the punishment shouldn't solely be determined by the injury.
NAH! That's not right, Rooney's was part of an existing tussle where there was no question of planned intent. Guthrie ran from miles off to kick out at ***an, he knew exactly what he was doing and had time to plan his actions.
Again I just don't think we can distinguish, a kick out at a player is a kick out at a player in my opinion. It's petulant, pathetic, dirty, or whatever else and deserves punishment. Rooney knew what he was doing the same way Guthrie did.
The point is the word INTENT.
Like it or not referee's and disciplinary bodies should and do estimate intent when judging punishment.
It's like the difference between first degree and second degree murder. If there is thought to be an element of considered planning, there will be a harsher punishment to something that occurs "in the heat of the moment". I believe the Rooney incident was the latter but he received the maximum punishment.
Like it or not referee's and disciplinary bodies should and do estimate intent when judging punishment.
It's like the difference between first degree and second degree murder. If there is thought to be an element of considered planning, there will be a harsher punishment to something that occurs "in the heat of the moment". I believe the Rooney incident was the latter but he received the maximum punishment.
Not even close in my opinion, Guthrie's was a completely off the ball incident with the intention of hurting the player, Rooney's was just a bit of a frustrated lash as the ball was getting away from him. There was a case of assault in that game, but it wasn't Rooney's, it was the elbow to the face of Wellbeck, which the ref missed completely, where's his three match ban?
Got to disagree with you fellas, it was violent conduct, the player took the ball from him then Rooney kicked him from behind after the ball had gone. Violent conduct, no doubt about it, and a cowards effort at that. Fair enough it wasnt a leg breaking tackle, however had Ronaldo do that to say Scott Parker we would all be calling for a red and a ban.
Moving on, personally I hope England now go 4-2-3-1 with Parker and Barry holding, Downing, Gerrard and Young as attacking 3, with either Carroll or Bent up top.
Moving on, personally I hope England now go 4-2-3-1 with Parker and Barry holding, Downing, Gerrard and Young as attacking 3, with either Carroll or Bent up top.
It's not crucial in that position. Barry does the job brilliantly for a top side. Parker's very mobile. It's not like we have a load of choice though.
Er, no. Gerrard playing off a striker like Rooney has been.
Normal circumstances I agree you'd turn round and twat the bastard back, especially if you're with your mates. But if your options are do nothing and have them get away with it, or play it up for the benefit of the coppers so the guy gets done for it you might as well take the second and make a joke of it yourself with your mates afterwards. Why should they get away with it just because they weren't very good at it?
The whole diving thing though I tend to have a different view to other people, it splits into two categories simulation and exaggeration. Clearly if there's no foul it's simulation and cheating. If there's a foul though, if the foul reduces the chances of being able to score by making the angle worse, slowing you down and giving other defenders chance to get back, or just knocking you out of your stride while you're preparing to shoot then I don't care if players exaggerate it to draw attention to it, it's not cheating, it's drawing attention to the cheating that has already occurred and has hampered the the player's efforts to score. Off the ball incidents, like Rooney's by the time he got there, it's a case of violent conduct so I'm not even fussed about the chances of scoring being reduced.