Wigan V. Manchester United (Setanta Sports 1 - 3.00pm)

keano_afc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Funny how ABUs only ever remember the decisions that go for United, not the ones that go for the other clubs, or against United.

Ah the same old excuse. Was wondering when it was gonna be rolled out.

Mitch Connor

keano_afc wrote: »

Ah the same old excuse. Was wondering when it was gonna be rolled out.

Well you are the one that rolled out the 'United get all the decisions mantra' - which is absolute crap and I am sick of hearing it.

Leiva

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Funny how ABUs only ever remember the decisions that go for United, not the ones that go for the other clubs, or against United.

If your on about Gerrards elbow against Portsmouth ,then Yes,he should have been banned after the game concluded .

This sort of shiite needs to be taken out of the game .

To hide behind a flawed rule is wrong no matter what team you support

keano_afc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Well you are the one that rolled out the 'United get all the decisions mantra' - which is absolute crap and I am sick of hearing it.

When did I saw Utd get all the decisions? Look at my post. I said no fan of the franchise can deny how incredibly beneficial the big decisions have been for ye this season, at crucial times in games.

Mitch Connor

mixednuts wrote: »

If your on about Gerrards elbow against Portsmouth ,then Yes,he should have been banned after the game concluded .

This sort of shiite needs to be taken out of the game .

To hide behind a flawed rule is wrong no matter what team you support

I'm not hiding behind anything.

Rooney should have been sent off and banned, I have said so several times.

Rooney, however, should not have received a retrospective ban as to do so would have against the rules/procedures that are in place and that have been applied to other players (regardless of who they are or play for) already this season.

Everyone should be treated the same and in accordance with the same set of rules. That is all I expect.

Ush1

Wasn't the term ABU a bannable offence?:)

Xavi6

Whatever about Rooney, it's more concerning that Clattenburg says he saw the incident and dealt with it adequately! :eek:

Mitch Connor

keano_afc wrote: »

When did I saw Utd get all the decisions? Look at my post. I said no fan of the franchise can deny how incredibly beneficial the big decisions have been for ye this season, at crucial times in games.

We have had decisions go for us, and decisions go against us.

Birmingham away - 1 up with minutes to play. Birmingham cross the ball in.

1. Philips is offside.
2. Philips pushes into Rio (thus becoming active) fouling him.
3. Zigic fouls Rio by climbing all over him.
4. Zigic handballs it to Bowyer to score.

None of these are called and United drop 2 points when they shouldn't have.

And 'Franchise', really?

Essien

They have to take a look at the rule in question after the end of the season. If Clattenburg says his dealing with the issue was adequate then there is something wrong there, maybe he needs to be punished.

The bottom line here is there is a glaring lack of accountability in cases like this. The FA can't continue to dodge these incidents while claiming their hands are tied, it's far too convenient.

J. Marston

Look, we're Man United and we'll do we want, ok?.
The sooner all rival fans understand that, the better.

:pac:

karma_

Xavi6 wrote: »

Whatever about Rooney, it's more concerning that Clattenburg says he saw the incident and dealt with it adequately! :eek:

It's blatantly obvious he did not see it, even a cursory look at the footage will show he did not see it. Had he seen it it would have resulted in a red card for Rooney.

If there ever was an incident that highlighted just how poorly the FA deals with these kinds of incidents then this is it.

Mitch Connor

karma_ wrote: »

It's blatantly obvious he did not see it, even a cursory look at the footage will show he did not see it. Had he seen it it would have resulted in a red card for Rooney.

If there ever was an incident that highlighted just how poorly the FA deals with these kinds of incidents then this is it.

What he saw, is what Park Ji-Sung saw (check the last page or so in the United thread). Not the correct interpretation of events, imo, but the only explanation I can come up with.

beer enigma

But did he not give a free kick for it ? - he must have seen something.

I've just been looking at it on video & am stunned Rooney got away with it - the Ref obviously noted something in his book and as a result the FA cant act.

Either he saw the incident and acted appropriately, OR didn't see the full incident in which case surely the FA can bring the player to task ?

citytillidie

Xavi6 wrote: »

Whatever about Rooney, it's more concerning that Clattenburg says he saw the incident and dealt with it adequately! :eek:

Yea if punishment for en elbow is just a freekick, watch for more of the in the coming weeks.


Or it was just a case of Clattenburg covering his ass as if he said he did not see it then he would get a bollocking for giving a freekick for something he did not see

karma_

Mitch Connor wrote: »

What he saw, is what Park Ji-Sung saw (check the last page or so in the United thread). Not the correct interpretation of events, imo, but the only explanation I can come up with.

That the post where he says there was 'nothing in it..."?

Looking at the footage, Clattenburg definitely does not see anything happen. Like Xavi says, it's very disturbing he is saying he saw it and took appropriate action. In reality what's happened is he didn't see the incident, knew something happened but gave a free kick anyway. Now he can't report to the FA he awarded a free for nothing and has no choice to say he took appropriate action.

Mitch Connor

karma_ wrote: »

That the post where he says there was 'nothing in it..."?

Looking at the footage, Clattenburg definitely does not see anything happen. Like Xavi says, it's very disturbing he is saying he saw it and took appropriate action. In reality what's happened is he didn't see the incident, knew something happened but gave a free kick anyway. Now he can't report to the FA he awarded a free for nothing and has no choice to say he took appropriate action.

If he saw NOTHING of the incident, why did he give a free?

karma_

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If he saw NOTHING of the incident, why did he give a free?

Man, that's the whole point.

citytillidie

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If he saw NOTHING of the incident, why did he give a free?

The reaction of the crowd and seeing McCarthy holding his face might have told him something happened off the ball

Blatter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If he saw NOTHING of the incident, why did he give a free?

Yeah, and why did he give Rooney a talking to?

Mitch Connor

karma_ wrote: »

Man, that's the whole point.

So you are saying MC saw nothing at all and gave a free (and rooney a talking to)

I am saying MC saw the two players impact, and adjudged Rooney to be the one at fault for the clash and gave a free - not realising Rooney had aimed an elbow at McCarthy.

How is MC seeing nothing the whole point? I thought we were arguing he didn't see the incident properly or bottled the decision.

CR 7

Mitch Connor wrote: »

What he saw, is what Park Ji-Sung saw (check the last page or so in the United thread). Not the correct interpretation of events, imo, but the only explanation I can come up with.

Jaysus, don't be sending him my way too.:P

karma_ wrote: »

Man, that's the whole point.

In that case, if the ref gives a free to wigan because a player is holding his head, and the crowd react to it, he's being led / biased towards wigan.

Mitch Connor

pssssst.... Wigan.

Essien

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

In that case, if the ref gives a free to birmingham because a player is holding his head, and the crowd react to it, he's being led / biased towards birmingham.

Completely irrelevant, but true. In any case, MC is at fault here big time, for me it's one of the following.....

1) He saw Rooney deliberately elbow McCarthy and didn't even book him. This is just awful refereeing.

2) He saw both players coming together but somehow missed the elbow. Poor refereeing here for missing the elbow, but this also meant he lied to some degree in his report.

3) He saw McCarthy coming away from Rooney holding his head and this coupled with the crowds reaction lead him to giving the free for an incident he didn't see, but he knew something happened. Shocking bad refereeing AND lying.

karma_

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

Jaysus, don't be sending him my way too.:P



In that case, if the ref gives a free to wigan because a player is holding his head, and the crowd react to it, he's being led / biased towards wigan.

You embarrassed yourself enough in that post by claiming it was 'nothing..' No need for me to point that out to you again.

Paul Tergat

People seem to be being pretty stupid over this tbh. It really is simple

Rooney did something retarded. Not doubt about that. Should have been sent off and had a 3 game ban.

BUT, as the rules stand, the referee saw it and acted on it at the time means that nothing can be done further about it. Maybe this will lead to a change of the rules, which imo it should (see Keane's post in the UTD thread - a rule shouldnt be in place where only a negative can come about as a result of its enforcement).

Anyone claiming that something should have been done here is either not aware of the rules or more likely, due to the rules being pointed out several times across a couple of threads, just wanted something done to United and Rooney.

CR 7

Essien wrote: »

Completely irrelevant, but true. In any case, MC is at fault here big time, for me it's one of the following.....

1) He saw Rooney deliberately elbow McCarthy and didn't even book him. This is just awful refereeing.

2) He saw both players coming together but somehow missed the elbow. Poor refereeing here for missing the elbow, but this also meant he lied to some degree in his report.

3) He saw McCarthy coming away from Rooney holding his head and this coupled with the crowds reaction lead him to giving the free for an incident he didn't see, but he knew something happened. Shocking bad refereeing AND lying.

Yeah, the ref can't come out of this in a good light. I also think it's irrelevant but it was being used as a stick to beat United, somebody was saying that the ref didn't see it at all, but he was wrong not to send off rooney anyway, and somehow that showed bias towards United.

Essien

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

Yeah, the ref can't come out of this in a good light. I also think it's irrelevant but it was being used as a stick to beat United, somebody was saying that the ref didn't see it at all, but he was wrong not to send off rooney anyway, and somehow that showed bias towards United.

Well that's just silly, how can you send somebody off for something you didn't see or weren't made aware of by an official? The more I think about it the more I think MC made a balls of it.

Johner

OliverKayTimes Oliver Kay
Apparently Clattenburg "caught sight of 2 players coming together" and "believed 1 player impeded the other". FA satisfied by that?

Essien

Johner wrote: »

OliverKayTimes Oliver Kay
Apparently Clattenburg "caught sight of 2 players coming together" and "believed 1 player impeded the other". FA satisfied by that?

It's a joke if they are. MC mentions a coming together, not an elbow, somebody has to have seen it, be it the FA or MC.

JimsAlterEgo

by the letter of the law the ref dealt with it, SIMPLE EOS

dahat

Johner wrote: »

OliverKayTimes Oliver Kay
Apparently Clattenburg "caught sight of 2 players coming together" and "believed 1 player impeded the other". FA satisfied by that?

While not condoning what Rooney did,this is what the referee saw,would it be worse if he said he say something he didn't see?

The FA act upon referees reports,report says ref saw no elbow so that is that.....
This is being discussed across many threads and is getting boring now..same opinions from different posters across each thread it appears in.

For the record,United fan who believes Rooney should have got the line.

MR NINE

PHB wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that this is special treatment for Rooney or United is quite frankly deluded.

It's not special treatment for Rooney, but it highlights how horribly flawed the FAs system is regarding this sort of matter. Why they can't introduce retrospective punishment is beyond me. Even if Clattenburg did give a free, anyone can see it was a bannable offence, its time the FA realised everyone, even (especially) referees, makes mistakes.

What Rooney did was pretty horrific, I doubt there's any Utd fans defending his actions, if there is, I'm sure we can all agree they're idiots. However, Rooney isn't the only scumbag in football, every team has them, so for opposition fans to make a massive deal of this and vilify Utd would be futile, it'll be one of your players next week or the week after that or the week after that etc.

(On a side note, if it had been Joey Barton I think the FA would have taken action)

MaceFace

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

by the letter of the law the ref dealt with it, SIMPLE EOS

This annoys me, and it really irritates me that anyone can defend what happened.

Rooney was the chief bad guy in all of this.
MC was terrible as well (but nowhere near as bad)

Regardless of the thuggish behavior of Rooney, the thing that gets my goat most is the spineless FA to actually deal with the situation.
I stopped watching Formula 1 because of the way that sport has gone, and I have stopped watching so much football because of the lack of common sense and hiding behind rules so they don't have to stand up to the great Sir Alex in case he gets offended.

I don't even know if it is right to say that if it was the other way around
McCarthy would have seen red or else being punished after the game, because I have seen too many times the game is riddled with inconsistencies and not just on the pitch but also in the way it is run. Sometimes I wonder if the FA are deliberately not doing anything so as to encourage the outrage to allow the brand to remain strong.

It is all rotten
The players who deliberately try and elbow a fellow player in the head.
The ref who didn't see it but is too afraid to admit he made a mistake.
The FA for failing to take decisive action and impose a ban of the player.
The manager for saying there was nothing in it.
The fans for trying to defend in any way anything that happened in that incident.

d22ontour

daithijjj wrote: »

Incorrect.

Sure am...

Clattenburg told the FA on Monday that he felt he took the appropriate action, which means the governing body cannot launch disciplinary proceedings against the 25-year-old England forward.

The rules do not allow retrospective action against a player if the official sees the alleged offence.

daithijjj

d22ontour wrote: »

Sure am...

Clattenburg told the FA on Monday that he felt he took the appropriate action, which means the governing body cannot launch disciplinary proceedings against the 25-year-old England forward.

The rules do not allow retrospective action against a player if the official sees the alleged offence.

You were already given 2 examples of when they did step in so dont come back days later with this sh1te.

All this highlights is the grey area and general shambles of a governing body that handles this stuff, you can be guaranteed if mc carthy went down to the ground and rooney injured him (a break) they would have, a la pedro mendes.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

The whole discussion is turning terribly conspiracy theory-like.
If he had have done this, Y would have happened. What if he did that, rabble rabble rabble

daithijjj

baz2009 wrote: »

The whole discussion is turning terribly conspiracy theory-like.
If he had have done this, Y would have happened. What if he did that, rabble rabble rabble

Before i say this, you have to understand that im not going at this from an angle of anti rooney or united. My point is that the governing body is a joke shop. This rooney incident has just put that under the microscope. They are liars first and foremost, they say implicitly that they cannot intervene yet everyone who saw Ben Thatcher get carded, saw them intervene on that.

Whats at the crux of the point here, is that i feel every incident should be able to be taken intro retrospective action, if an incident warrants it. Whether rooney gets banned or not is not my agenda.

If it turns out, that the governing body asked clattenburg to reassess his decision and view all the angles and still hold the view that it was just a free kick, then there are a few things.

Clattenburg is incompetent, the man who has backed clattenburg is incompetent and the governing body need to tweak the rules. Thats what i think iregardless if it is rooney, gerrard, ashley cole or whoever.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

daithijjj wrote: »

Before i say this, you have to understand that im not going at this from an angle of anti rooney or united. My point is that the governing body is a joke shop. This rooney incident has just put that under the microscope. They are liars first and foremost, they say implicitly that they cannot intervene yet everyone who saw Ben Thatcher get carded, saw them intervene on that.

Whats at the crux of the point here, is that i feel every incident should be able to be taken intro retrospective action, if an incident warrants it. Whether rooney gets banned or not is not my agenda.

If it turns out, that the governing body asked clattenburg to reassess his decision and view all the angles and still hold the view that it was just a free kick, then there are a few things.

Clattenburg is incompetent, the man who has backed clattenburg is incompetent and the governing body need to tweak the rules. Thats what i think iregardless if it is rooney, gerrard, ashley cole or whoever.

I agree that it's an idiotic ruling and it should be changed in the summer. But the FA can't change it mid-season just because a high profile player acted the díck. Clattenberg can't look at all the angles in fairness, because that would also be retrospective banning, he made his decision already and he has to stick to it. If they went down that route then video technology should be brought in. I know the FA don't make the decision to bring in VT, but it'd be a bit daft to ask Clattenberg to review the incident from all the angles, which he has most likely seen already after the MotD witch-hunt.

But when people start posting things like "If it was the other way around McCarthy would be banned for X amount of games" the whole discussion becomes incredibly juvenile.

daithijjj

baz2009 wrote: »

I agree that it's an idiotic ruling and it should be changed in the summer. But the FA can't change it mid-season just because a high profile player acted the díck. Clattenberg can't look at all the angles in fairness, because that would also be retrospective banning, he made his decision already and he has to stick to it. If they went down that route then video technology should be brought in. I know the FA don't make the decision to bring in VT, but it'd be a bit daft to ask Clattenberg to review the incident from all the angles, which he has most likely seen already after the MotD witch-hunt.

But when people start posting things like "If it was the other way around McCarthy would be banned for X amount of games" the whole discussion becomes incredibly juvenile.

This is exactly my point and was brought up on talksport in the last hour. They spoke to a ref who they would not name and he has said that this is exactly what happened in the ben thatcher case. The ref gave a yellow, the governing body asked him to look at videos and he changed his mind. It seems the same thing was given to clattenburg and he actually has not changed his mind, in this instance the governing body are following the regulations. However, it does point to the fact that this is incompetent on so many levels, ignoring the fact its rooney on this occassion.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

daithijjj wrote: »

This is exactly my point and was brought up on talksport in the last hour. They spoke to a ref who they would not name and he has said that this is exactly what happened in the ben thatcher case. The ref gave a yellow, the governing body asked him to look at videos and he changed his mind. It seems the same thing was given to clattenburg and he actually has not changed his mind, in this instance the governing body are following the regulations. However, it does point to the fact that this is incompetent on so many levels, ignoring the fact its rooney on this occassion.

Thatcher's was a complete horror tackle in fairness and much worse than Rooney's elbow, but I'd imagine that had Mendes not had his leg broken then it wouldn't happened.

daithijjj

baz2009 wrote: »

Thatcher's was a complete horror tackle in fairness and much worse than Rooney's elbow, but I'd imagine that had Mendes not had his leg broken then it wouldn't happened.

It was an elbow baz, yes, it was horrendous but you have to ask the question here that if mc carthy had have been injured badly would it make a difference?. It shouldnt, you cant run it like that.

What they should do is have a retrospective panel (a 3rd eye) that eliminates responsibility from the ref. I honestly believe in this rooney case everyone loses face. The ref is incompetent, his boss has to back him no matter what (which is ridiculous) and the governing body have a big grey shaped hole in the process.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

daithijjj wrote: »

It was an elbow baz, yes, it was horrendous but you have to ask the question here that if mc carthy had have been injured badly would it make a difference?. It shouldnt, you cant run it like that.

What they should do is have a retrospective panel (a 3rd eye) that eliminates responsibility from the ref. I honestly believe in this rooney case everyone loses face. The ref is incompetent, his boss has to back him no matter what (which is ridiculous) and the governing body have a big grey shaped hole in the process.

I believe that if McCarhty went to ground Rooney was off. He should've been off anyway if it wasn't for McCarthy being a man about it.

I'm all for a retrospective panel or TMO or something to stop things like this. If Clattenberg had the option of a TMO or something similar then it would've been a lot easier to deal with as it was off the ball and Clattenberg would have been paying attention to where the ball was. He should have just admitted he missed it, though, it would have made things a lt easier for everyone involved.