Van Nistelrooy charged with serious foul play

TwoShedsJackson

Good to see that the FA are taking action against Van Nistelrooy after his disgraceful 'challenge' in the match yesterday. Hopefully a ban will be forthcoming, as a monetary fine is essentially meaningless.

Oh and Wenger is being charged with shooting his mouth off during his post-match tirade too

cournioni

If van Nistelrooy gets banned, so should Bergkamp for his blatant elbow on Alan Smith. Right in front of the referee too.

And how come Edu gets away with his tackle on Scholes? He raked his studs down Scholes' leg in the second half along with other very late tackles.

What a load of bollocks.

thejollyrodger

Van Nistelrooy seems to be a cynical player. Euro 2004 he was at it, the Champions league this year he was at it. Most games he is not playing in the spirit of the game.

Maybe thats why the English FA are bringing it up. A fine would be meaningless.
I would give him a 2 or 3 match ban for that tackle yesterday and for his antics in Prague.

cournioni

And Bergkamp isn't? He's made several cynical challenges since he came to the premiership. That elbow was no exception.

super_furry

They should also charge Riley for impersonating a referee.

The Muppet

LOL I wonder will they have sufficent evidence this time.

A ban for Ruud will give Smith a run in the team iI,ll be happy enough with that,

LegacyUser

Ye I am not sweating either. A three match ban isn't as disasterous as it would have been two seasons ago when it was just Ruud in the squad as a striker.

*Forlan does not and never did count.

cournioni

All the same though lads. Van Nistelrooy's challenge was no more or no less cynical than Bergkamps elbow. I think if they're gonna ban one they should ban the two.

The Muppet

PORNAPSTER wrote:

All the same though lads. Van Nistelrooy's challenge was no more or no less cynical than Bergkamps elbow. I think if they're gonna ban one they should ban the two.

True but from experience Utd have no reason to expect equal treatment from the FA. If the FA decide to make yet another example of a United player and so help the Gunners win the title again this year it may not be as effective as Utd. have a ready made replacement.

thejollyrodger

Ban the two of them !

Memnoch

PORNAPSTER wrote:

All the same though lads. Van Nistelrooy's challenge was no more or no less cynical than Bergkamps elbow. I think if they're gonna ban one they should ban the two.

oh get over it already. TBH i watched the match and didn't see the incident you mentioned unless it was in the first 5 minutes or something since i missed that.

Van Nistelroy is a dirty cheat, and its about time he got some punishment for it.

also what bergkamp does or doesn't do should have no bearing on what Van Nistelroy does doesn't do and vice versa.

if you want to defend Van, defend him without bringing someone else into it that wasn't even involved in that incident.

The Muppet

Memnoch wrote:

oh get over it already. TBH i watched the match and didn't see the incident you mentioned unless it was in the first 5 minutes or something since i missed that.

Van Nistelroy is a dirty cheat, and its about time he got some punishment for it.

also what bergkamp does or doesn't do should have no bearing on what Van Nistelroy does doesn't do and vice versa.

if you want to defend Van, defend him without bringing someone else into it that wasn't even involved in that incident.

Yet another impartial post from the nuetral Memnoch. It actually happened in injury time, maybe you were having your nap by then.

Draupnir

The bergkamp smith thing wouldnt bother me, Id say Smith will square the deal next chance he gets.

The Edu tackle on Scholes was certainly as bad as Ruuds on Cole if you ask me. All in all, fines all round I think.

Very nice to beat them and end the run though.

Memnoch

The Muppet wrote:

Yet another impartial post from the nuetral Memnoch. It actually happened in injury time, maybe you were having your nap by then.

what is it with united supporters? you guys can't deal with any criticism or what? This is my problem with "fans" if someone criticises their "club" or "player" they can't seem to deal with it objectively and have to resort to attacking the person making the comment.

I didn't see the "elbow incident," but if Bergkamp did elbow someone intentionally in the face, off course its utterly disgraceful and merits punishment. Maybe its because sky sports didn't show a replay of it or whatever or because Rooney scored in injury time, or maybe it was because I had like 50 Man u fans at the pub jumping in front of me as they celebrated their victory.

Regardless, the fact remains that Van plays very dirty. Every game that I have watched him play in, he is always trying to intentionally foul people in a way that seems extremely malicious and has nothing to do with "stopping a goal" or something like that. I mean its one thing to intentionally foul someone who is through on goal, because you dont' ahve a "choice" and take your booking/sending off for it. Its quite another to do it with the kind of maliciousness that Van displays. Its the same with him every game.

I supported holland in 2004 but I was still disgusted by Nistelroy's behaviour on the pitch, which is a shame really because he is actually a skillfull player and doesn't need to resort to this kind of stuff. And i remember him scoring a great flick goal that I thought deserved goal of the tourney.

As for bergkamp, I haven't really watched that many matches of him playing recently. Because as I said i'm a neutral fan so I watch football when I can

And weather you like it or not, I AM a neutral soccer fan. When I watch a game, I want the team that I FEEL played better on the day to win, and if it seems to me that a team looses unjustly then I will say so. And I think I already said, that I didn't think either team played much better than the other on the night, I think a draw would have probably been a fair result.

The Muppet

Sorry I didn't attack anyone . I was just making an observastion. Do you have problems dealing with criticism ?

cournioni

Memnoch wrote:

oh get over it already. TBH i watched the match and didn't see the incident you mentioned unless it was in the first 5 minutes or something since i missed that.

Van Nistelroy is a dirty cheat, and its about time he got some punishment for it.

also what bergkamp does or doesn't do should have no bearing on what Van Nistelroy does doesn't do and vice versa.

if you want to defend Van, defend him without bringing someone else into it that wasn't even involved in that incident.

No I won't get over it. It is every bit as bad as the van Nistelrooy incident. It was not in the first five minutes it was more like the last five. On Alan Smith, and as clear as day.

Van Nistelrooy is no more a dirty cheat that you are a neutral spectator... :rolleyes:

No it shouldn't have any bearing on what Ruud does and doesn't do. But double standards come into play if he does get banned and Bergkamp doesn't. Mr. Dean has a big say in the FA which is why Bergkamp will get off Scott free.

I will defend van Nistelrooy for the simple fact that he looked at nothing other than the ball, and then wasn't even facing Cole when he made the challenge.

All I have to say is fúck the FA and fúck David Dean.

Memnoch

The Muppet wrote:

Sorry I didn't attack anyone . I was just making an observastion. Do you have problems dealing with criticism ?

you made a comment that was directed at me rather than the refute my arguements, thats called "attacking".

Attack the post not the poster mkay?

Memnoch

Van Nistelrooy is no more a dirty cheat that you are a neutral spectator... :rolleyes:

yes lets conveniently ignore how Van Nistelroy does something dodgy like this pretty much every time he plays. YOU say he was looking away, it certainly didn't seem that way to me. off course he is going to turn his face away after he sticks his leg up.

also its funny how you decide that i'm not "neutral" because of my opinions on one match, that don't agree with yours, considering you are actually definately not neutral, since you ARE a Man U supporter. Simply because I critised Ruud/Rooney.

Maybe you can find a post by me somewhere else showing my blatent "love" for Arsenal to prove how i'm not neutral, as you seem to imply.

Really, I don't care weather you believe i'm neutral or not, but the very fact that you try to attack me in this way is laughable, and shows your obvious bias.

in any case, i'm through with this post since you can't seem to argue the merits and have to resort to attacking me personally. I hope Ruud van cheateRoy gets a nice ban

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I will defend van Nistelrooy for the simple fact that he looked at nothing other than the ball, and then wasn't even facing Cole when he made the challenge.

Did you not just contradict yourself here? He was only looking at the ball yet had his back turned?

You keep on going on about "oh he wasnt even facing Cole". Can a player not have any intent if he is not facing someone? Whether he was facing him or not, he knew exactly where he was because they were only inches apart.

cournioni

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Did you not just contradict yourself here? He was only looking at the ball yet had his back turned?

You keep on going on about "oh he wasnt even facing Cole". Can a player not have any intent if he is not facing someone? Whether he was facing him or not, he knew exactly where he was because they were only inches apart.

No I didn't. He looked at the ball, then he turned his back as he made the challenge. At no stage did he look at Cole. So how can it be intentional if he never looked at him? And I'd say the linesman, who was right beside the incident would have seen if Ruud was intent on injuring Cole.

The Muppet

I made an observation on your admission that you did not know when the Bergkamp incident occured. If you want to take my comments as a personal attack thats your perogative.

I have no problem with nuetral comment in fact I commented on a post from a truly neutral post in the match thread. I just find it difficult to consider you as neutral when your comments and observations are so blatently one sided.

BKtje

He was only looking at the ball yet had his back turned?
[/quote[
Who said he had his back turned? It looked worse than it was actually and i believe that it should be looked into but personally i think if he'd meant to harm Cole he could of easily done a lot more there.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

No I didn't. He looked at the ball, then he turned his back as he made the challenge. At no stage did he look at Cole. So how can it be intentional if he never looked at him? And I'd say the linesman, who was right beside the incident would have seen if Ruud was intent on injuring Cole.

Im going out on a limb here, but Id say if ANYONE was going to play the ball, they wouldnt go in knee high at it.

cournioni

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Im going out on a limb here, but Id say if ANYONE was going to play the ball, they wouldnt go in knee high at it.

He was looking to put his foot on the ball. In order to do that you must come down at the ball vertically. If you play soccer you should know this.

SteM

What a surprise...

David Dein is the Vice Chairman of Arsenal and The FA, a United player gets charged but Bergkamp gets away scott free. What are the chances that Wenger won't be pulled up about his comments after the match?

As someone else said earlier, this would have been a much bigger problem for United in previous seasons. At least there's cover there in Saha, Smith and Rooney.

Ruud van cheateRoy

:rolleyes:

cournioni

Who said he had his back turned? It looked worse than it was actually and i believe that it should be looked into but personally i think if he'd meant to harm Cole he could of easily done a lot more there.

I said it...

He looked at the ball, then he turned his back as he made the challenge. At no stage did he look at Cole.

Muzz

PORNAPSTER wrote:

And Bergkamp isn't? He's made several cynical challenges since he came to the premiership. That elbow was no exception.

Time you watched football for what it is instead of what you think you see!!! And use your own words you silly little boy...using cynical...i bet you couldnt even spell that word until you see the guy in the previous post write it down for you...Get a life. For too many years manchester utd team and supporters have got away with soo much but now when something is done about it, it suddenly isnt right. I am not an arsenal fan but one thing for sure i cannot stand manchester utd because of their fanbase...just simply implorable to be a man u fan or to even call yourself one...nothing but a grannies team!

Muzz

The Muppet wrote:

True but from experience Utd have no reason to expect equal treatment from the FA. If the FA decide to make yet another example of a United player and so help the Gunners win the title again this year it may not be as effective as Utd. have a ready made replacement.

your name says it all....

cournioni

Muzz wrote:

Time you watched football for what it is instead of what you think you see!!!

And use your own words you silly little boy...using cynical...i bet you couldnt even spell that word until you see the guy in the previous post write it down for you...Get a life.

For too many years manchester utd fans and supporters have got away with soo much but now when something is done about it, it suddenly isnt right.

I am not an arsenal fan but one thing for sure i cannot stand manchester utd because of their fanbase...just simply implorable to be a man u fan or to even call yourself one...nothing but a grannies team!

It has been proven that Bergkamp stamps, kicks, elbows whenever he doesn't get his way. He's been sent off on many occasions because of this.

LOL. Who in all fairness can not spell cynical? And no you are incorrect, I could spell "cynical" long before someone posted it. I could spell it long before I had access to the internet actually.

What exactly have we "got away with" over the last number of years? I seem to remember Ferdinand getting what was it 8/9 months over missing a drugs test. Adrian Mutu is looking at a minimum of 6 for his blatant breach of the rules by taking drugs. Fair point?

Thanks for the personal insults by the way. It's a good way to see out (what should be) your last minutes on this forum.

talla

Muzz, banned for a week for personal insults. Behave gentlemen

Also red-not-blue and honeymonster are also banned for a week as they were his sponsors, sorry but they are the rules.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

He was looking to put his foot on the ball. In order to do that you must come down at the ball vertically. If you play soccer you should know this.

Looking to put his foot on the ball??? He was so close to Cole he could probably smell him. They were in the corner of the pitch scrapping for the ball, hardly a position to put your foot on it (take a look around and make your pass, yeah right).

And less of your "if you play soccer you should know this". If you play soccer you should have a football, take it out, put it beside you and put your foot on it. And then tell me if you have raised you sole over your knee.

cournioni

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Looking to put his foot on the ball??? He was so close to Cole he could probably smell him. They were in the corner of the pitch scrapping for the ball, hardly a position to put your foot on it (take a look around and make your pass, yeah right).

And less of your "if you play soccer you should know this". If you play soccer you should have a football, take it out, put it beside you and put your foot on it. And then tell me if you have raised you sole over your knee.

No they were running straight on in attempt to get the ball. Therefore they were a good bit away from one another when they went in for the ball. He went to put his foot on the ball and caught Cole.

I know, but he was stretching to get the ball. When you stretch to stand on the ball you must raise your foot to that level in order to get your foot on the ball. Ashley Cole was also stretching for the ball which means that his knee was not as high up as it would be if he was standing straight.

mayordenis

im not replying to anyones posts just the thread in general i am very happy to see this i tought that the challenge was an absolute disgrace, he didnt look at the ball just the player. as stated before he is a dirty cheat and never just gets on and plays the game.

RE*AC*TOR

mayordenis wrote:

im not replying to anyones posts just the thread in general i am very happy to see this i tought that the challenge was an absolute disgrace, he didnt look at the ball just the player. as stated before he is a dirty cheat and never just gets on and plays the game.

I think that's a fair reflection.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

No they were running straight on in attempt to get the ball. Therefore they were a good bit away from one another when they went in for the ball. He went to put his foot on the ball and caught Cole.

They were a good bit away from one another? Well to be honest I wouldnt call the 36 inches of RvNs leg "a good bit away". And I trust you have been speaking to Ruud, as you seem to "know" it was his intent to put his foot on the ball. What was he going to do after putting his foot on the ball have a look up and spray it across the pitch?

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I know, but he was stretching to get the ball. When you stretch to stand on the ball you must raise your foot to that level in order to get your foot on the ball. Ashley Cole was also stretching for the ball which means that his knee was not as high up as it would be if he was standing straight.

Ashley Cole wasnt streching, and he caught his standing foot. Watch the incident again.

cournioni

Jivin Turkey wrote:

They were a good bit away from one another? Well to be honest I wouldnt call the 36 inches of RvNs leg "a good bit away". And I trust you have been speaking to Ruud, as you seem to "know" it was his intent to put his foot on the ball. What was he going to do after putting his foot on the ball have a look up and spray it across the pitch?


Ashley Cole wasnt streching, and he caught his standing foot. Watch the incident again.

Its the same with the people (including yourself) who think he's guilty of a "premeditated, cynical foul" etc. They seem to "know" that he was intentionally fouling Cole. How do you know?

Also he might have been putting his foot on the ball to drag it back, to make a crossing opportunity for himself.

I'll have a look at it again. But I've seen it quite a few times already and the main thing is that he had his eyes on the ball, and not on Cole. I'm not quite sure what leg he caught though. I'll have a look at that.

gandalf

Sorry Porn but I disagree with you quite strongly here. I have watched the replays as well as Horseface was clearly watching where Ashley Cole was and went in with intent! Cole is lucky he wasn't seriously injured. I didn't see the Bergkamp incident so I can't comment on it but if he did go in with intent I am sure he would have been brought up as well.

As for the Rooney peno I conceed that from the Refs angle it looked like it was, but its still obvious that Rooney cheated and dived.

eirebhoy

Memnoch wrote:

Regardless, the fact remains that Van plays very dirty. Every game that I have watched him play in, he is always trying to intentionally foul people in a way that seems extremely malicious and has nothing to do with "stopping a goal" or something like that. I mean its one thing to intentionally foul someone who is through on goal, because you dont' ahve a "choice" and take your booking/sending off for it. Its quite another to do it with the kind of maliciousness that Van displays. Its the same with him every game.

I am neither a United or Arsenal fan but that is a complete lie. He used to have the odd dive but so do the majority of foreign players until they get used to the English game, I haven't seen him dive in a while. I rarely, if ever, seen him intentionally foul someone, to say he does it every time he plays is ridiculous.

As for yesterday's foul, I think it was intentional.

A Dub in Glasgo

gandalf wrote:

Sorry Porn but I disagree with you quite strongly here. I have watched the replays as well as Horseface was clearly watching where Ashley Cole was and went in with intent! Cole is lucky he wasn't seriously injured. I didn't see the Bergkamp incident so I can't comment on it but if he did go in with intent I am sure he would have been brought up as well.

You sound like Wenger It was a nasty one from RVN

gandalf wrote:

As for the Rooney peno I conceed that from the Refs angle it looked like it was, but its still obvious that Rooney cheated and dived.

How can you concede that the view the ref had (and those watching on TV) made it look like a penalty and then state it is obvious that Rooney cheated and dived. If it was obvious, the ref would not have gave it, the Sky commentators would not have shouted penalty and the vast majority of the watching public would not have shouted penalty.

Forget camera angles, forget hindsight and focus on the live moment... you thought Rooney cheated and dived at the time?

Guy:Incognito

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Its the same with the people (including yourself) who think he's guilty of a "premeditated, cynical foul" etc. They seem to "know" that he was intentionally fouling Cole. How do you know?


.

Look at the ffotage and watch his eyes and the way his head is facing, hes not looking anywhere near the ball. Plus his foot was way too high.

Oh and while im here can someone plese come up witrh a better defence for what Van Nistlerooy did than "Berkamps tackle was just as bad", can everyone start acting like adults and realise that players on your team are capable of filthy tackles that are inexcusable. At the end of the day it was a dirty and uncalled for tackle. Its like saying that it was ok for Rooney to dive for the penalty cos Pires dives aswell.

jesus_thats_gre

This sounds like loadsa fun

Guy:Incognito

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

You sound like Wenger It was a nasty one from RVN


How can you concede that the view the ref had (and those watching on TV) made it look like a penalty and then state it is obvious that Rooney cheated and dived. If it was obvious, the ref would not have gave it, the Sky commentators would not have shouted penalty and the vast majority of the watching public would not have shouted penalty.

Forget camera angles, forget hindsight and focus on the live moment... you thought Rooney cheated and dived at the time?

Ill be honest and say that at the time i said he dived and i was proved right from the replays. Even if cambell had made contact it was not enough to bring him down. It was a flick and nothing more, definately not enough to bring a player down, and even less likely someone as strong as rooney. He rides much stronger tackles outside the box in every other game.

A Dub in Glasgo

Stekelly wrote:

Look at the ffotage and watch his eyes and the way his head is facing, hes not looking anywhere near the ball. Plus his foot was way too high.

Oh and while im here can someone plese come up witrh a better defence for what Van Nistlerooy did than "Berkamps tackle was just as bad", can everyone start acting like adults and realise that players on your team are capable of filthy tackles that are inexcusable. At the end of the day it was a dirty and uncalled for tackle. Its like saying that it was ok for Rooney to dive for the penalty cos Pires dives aswell.

It was a nasty tackle that probably deserved at least a booking. The 'dive' should not be what the game is about and he fooled the referee and the vast majority of the watching public. IMO, anyone who says they did not think it was a penalty at the time is not being wholly truthful

People are pointing towards other dives because when a member of your team does it, it appears to be acceptable but if a member of the opposition does it, the player should be hunted out of the game and labelled a cheat. People are naturally pointing out the hypocrisy in the holier than thou stance most people take when a member of the opposition does it.

Christ, I remember Michael Owen done it for England and he was labelled a 'professional' by all and sundry :eek:

Edit just seen your post above stekelly

Guy:Incognito

The Fa seem so keen to charge everyone with offences after the games. They should be willing to charge people with diving aswell. IMO it should carry a madatory 2 or 3 game ban if video evidence is conclusive.

Jivin Turkey

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Its the same with the people (including yourself) who think he's guilty of a "premeditated, cynical foul" etc. They seem to "know" that he was intentionally fouling Cole. How do you know?

No thats total garbage again. Indicate to me please where I have said he is guilty of a "premeditated cynical foul" on this thread.

Even if there was no intent, it was a very rash challenge and he or anyone else can have no complaints to see it brought up.

cournioni

I agree that it was a very rash challenge, but there were other rash challenges in the match just as bad as that one. No one can deny that it was a very bad tackle. But the question is, intent... only Ruud knows that at this point in time so I'm afraid people will have to wait and see what he says before making a correct judgement on him.

As far as me trying to justify one tackle by bringing up another tackle somewhere else in the game. I'm not trying to justify any bad tackle, I'm simply showing you that there was more than one seriously bad tackle/incident in the game that are not being mentioned. I just don't like to see United players being singled out when there are tackles just as bad in the game being ignored.

cournioni

Stekelly wrote:

The Fa seem so keen to charge everyone with offences after the games. They should be willing to charge people with diving aswell. IMO it should carry a madatory 2 or 3 game ban if video evidence is conclusive.

So they should ban Rooney and Toure for diving?

No doubt Toure would get away with it because of David Dean's position in the FA... :rolleyes:

cournioni

gandalf wrote:

Sorry Porn but I disagree with you quite strongly here. I have watched the replays as well as Horseface was clearly watching where Ashley Cole was and went in with intent! Cole is lucky he wasn't seriously injured. I didn't see the Bergkamp incident so I can't comment on it but if he did go in with intent I am sure he would have been brought up as well.

Well we clearly both have different perceptions of the incident then. How can you say that he intentionally went for Cole? No one knows other than Ruud himself. From what I see he is looking at the ball all of the time before going in for the challenge when he turned his back to Cole.

I agree that it was a very bad tackle, but as I said there were other tackles in the game that were just as bad in the game that aren't being discussed on here for example Edu's "studs up" challenge on Scholes' leg that raked his leg and was high enough to pull down his sock. Now that is another bad tackle worth talking about...

The Bergkamp elbow caught Smith right on the cheek, and to Smith's credit he didn't go down and look to get Bergkamp sent off. The referee was looking straight at it and he did nothing but call the two players over and tell them to calm down. If he was going by the letter of the law Bergkamp would have got a straight red.

I won't be too bothered if RvN gets suspended for his tackle. However I am annoyed that all of this is overshadowing a good win by United and a fully deserved one at that. It is taking all the joy out of the victory.

Villain

As a neutral and someone who plays soccer every sunday, that kind of challenge sickens me, RVN shoul have got red on the spot for that, he made no attempt to play the ball. The linesman should have directed the Ref to send him off at the time. I have to say it really makes me sick to hear UTD fans trying to defend RVN, look at the replay and look at how high his foot go's. A 3 match ban for RVN is 100% deserved and the linesman should demoted for a few months, and as for Riley well he ruined the game and bottled it.

Villain

Well at least RVN spoke truthfully about the Penalty:

"At first sight I thought it was a penalty," said van Nistelrooy. "I can understand why the referee gave it because of the angle he was looking from. But afterwards, when I saw it on television, I had doubts."

On and former Ref Jeff Winter is having his say also:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/10/26/story172838.html

UTD fans still reckon there little star is innocent??

PHB

I'm a united fan, He went to hurt the guy, so be it.
Physical game, retaliation, etc, all happen in football matches.
Wouldn't suprise me if he was trying to get him back for Coles tough treatment on Ronaldo, ya know like a big brother.
Welcome to football, its not always pansies at dawn.

Either way, if you want to tar Van Nist with the brush of a dirty player, tar Henry(who tried to kick Heinze(I think) in the face blatently, but he missed it cause hes ****) or Berjkamp who elbowed.

Rose tinted glasses exist, but so do anti rose.

ANyway, 2-0