http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21114023 Wonder how this will be dealt with...And before any bites, it's not just the fact it's SAF it's also a case of whether the FA can finally show any consistency...
Well spotted, it's definitely part of the conspiracy. As are the following articles that, frustratingly, are not open to comment http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21111817 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21106227 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21113210 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21109285 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21108495 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21102157 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21120242 Fergie and his conspiracy!
Yes mate, noticed that myself. It's just the blatant inconsistency of the FA that gets me now! I used to get wound up by Fergie but, wouldn't we all do it if we could get away with it? It doesn't even seem as though the FA have raised an eyebrow on this one!
To sum up what I am thinking about your post in two words '**** off' no one is saying there's a conspiracy what were saying is, the FA are inconsistent. It just so happens its normally SAF who is the one to highlight this!
he wont be charged, it was also not a penalty either. So double Of course if Rooney is going to wander into the defender while the ball goes the other way, making sure he made it inside the area before falling into the defenders leg I think the ref didn't give it as you can see from the behind replay rooney never had any intention of trying to get past thew defender so the contact was irrelevant at that point, good call Owen did that v Brazil, but he got the peno that time
we know he doesn't always, like when he goes over the top and attacks a referee personally like Wiley, he does get away with a lot tho
WOW, I'm sure they decided to not open comments on those either because of the heated debate that Cisse's transfer to Qatari will undoubtedly bring. Also, I'm sure there will be thousands of people criticising the Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa's medical at Newcastle. Sepp Blatter is bang out of order for seeking tough action on racism too! Idiot
They closed the comments when Rio got done for E3(2), but not for Suarez or Terry, so don't forget to add that your apologist smokescrean. The Beeb isn't the problem though - it's the FA/United/print media and Sky/ESPN axis that's the stitch up. Ferguson won't be done for doing the same as Allardyce, but it was amusing that he remebered the lino missed the Drogba offside three years ago, but selectively forgets the Macheda handball goal in the same game: and of course the media will assist him generously in that amnesia (and note that there was no ****ing witchtrial of Macheda then either, as there wasn't for Henry or Vidic when he punched the ball off Van Persie's head when he played for Arsenal). On a related issue, notice that over the weekend both Samuel and that drinking crony of Ferguson, Lawton, have both compared Armstrong's Oprah confession with Luis' Argentinian interview. Not a ****ing word of apology or correction for saying that he kissed the wrist he handled with simply to wind up the mansield fans, which is what they, Champion and host of other freaks in the media KNOWINGLY asserted to stir things up. And that was the main issue of Suarez's interview - that's he's the box office bogeyman for lazy, gutter trash hacks.
Problem with this is it's not consistency, it's having a rule that is like a sieve. Managers are allowed to criticise officials Managers are allowed to criticise decisions Managers are allowed to criticise performances Managers are not allowed to imply bias or a lack of professionalism Allardyce claimed the ref only gave a penalty to Utd cos it was Utd at home SAF claimed Spurs got most of the decisions and the linesman had a poor game. To most observers those comments would seem out of order, but under the FA rules only one of them directly implies bias, although SAF's is close enough that the FA may decide to jump in given the publicity. It's a similar situation to SAF and Mancini's comments about refereeing fitness. SAF claimed Wiley was not fit enough and was charged and banned Mancini claimed the referee ate too much for Christmas and got nothing Again, most neutral people would see those statements as casting similar aspersions over the ref, but only one of them is seen to question professionalism, the other one was seen as comments about a single performance. It's generally a poor rule, cos experienced managers are aware of exactly what they will and won't be charged for, and so find it very easy to bad mouth a ref and know they can stay on one side of the line.
Thanks for your comments Idiot but the fact remains that you had a little cry about the Fergie article being the exception to the rule on the Beeb website when the reality was very different. NOF
Hate to burst that well tended and highly reinforced bubble dong but: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16186556 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19989136 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19723020 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16375325 No comments on any. The Beeb almost never has comments on a factual news article reporting what has happened, or what another body has decided. The comments only occur when it's a columnist writing their own personal opinion. But then given your inability to differentiate the opinion of one man from that of the entire media, that may be a distinction that is lost...
Donga - I have visions of you with a voodoo doll of Evra & a dart board bearing the face of Ferguson mate. I bet you dream of ripping off Howard Webbs mask in some Scooby Doo'esque expose of the 'truth'
FFS Also fair to mention that SAF probably has an instinctive knowledge of exactly where that line is now. Like the proverbial Suarez who has run the wrong way through the maze and gotten too many shocks, he knows what words lead to pain...
