How He Did It

Class, pure class. Kenny's right though. While Shrek gets a banned game reduction by the same Football Association that has imposed a three match ban on the wee man LFC can do nothing. Jay deserves better. So does the club JimmyTheRed

That is funny.

But on a serious note, are The F.A really going to ban Luis for 3 games for giving a load of abusive fans the finger after this?

Rooney intentionally hacks down an opposing player = 2 game ban.

Suarez gives a load of baying fans the finger = 3 game ban.

Spearing unintentionally collides with Dembele after clearing the ball = 3 game ban.

It really makes sense doesn't it .

If Liverpool fans ever wonder why some people accuse you of delusion just read the above comment back to yourself...

Spearings tackle was a potential leg breaker, Rooneys at worst was a soft kick and at best a trip, if you actually watch the incident you will see there is barely any power in Rooneys kick.

Of course the FA are going to appeal the ban because a 3 game ban was unreasonable for the incident. This was shown to be true by UEFA reducing the ban...

No suprise to hear chequebook has been moaning as per usual though...

Just a teensy weensy difference between Jay and Rooney. Jay played the ball, he played for the ball. In Rooneys case the ball had been kicked away by the other player. Rooney then kicked him in the leg. I think I can be forgiven for saying he kicked the other player in frustration. Another word for frustration? Simple; assault. But if Rooney is England's only hope of survival, and his presence will bring in more money to the FA than Spearong would, then that's OK. Rooney get a two match ban, the wee man gets three. Now, Captain, what can possibly be wrong with that? I mean, it's fair dripping with fairness, isn't it? Dream on. JimmyTheRed

Captain_7_The_Best (U5768)

You talk about delusion and then say this;

"Spearings tackle was a potential leg breaker, Rooneys at worst was a soft kick and at best a trip"

If it was a 'soft kick' or a 'trip' then why was it classed as violent conduct?

Oh and just to clarify Spearing's sending off wasn't even a tackle. He got the ball cleanly before making contact with Dembele. Contact which he couldn't avoid due to his momentum. If it was a potential 'leg breaker' why did Dembele roll about a bit, for effect but was right as rain a couple of minuted later?

I am sorry but if you think getting the ball first excuses any action in the follow through then you do not understand the rules of the game. Also just because a tackle is potentially very dangerous does not mean it will actually cause serious injury...

For example smoking in a petrol station is dangerous but will not nessecarily result in an explosion.

...................................
Just a teensy weensy difference between Jay and Rooney. Jay played the ball, he played for the ball.
...................................

Even if you play the ball you can make a dangerous tackle. Even if you do not play the ball does not nessecarily mean you deserve a 3 match ban.

There are endless of the ball incidents in English football, even though in all of these the ball is not what the players were going for they do not result in 3 match bans. Should obstruction off the ball be a 3 match ban ? no clearly not, a decision needs to be reached based on what actually happened not some mystical rules about the ball being gone so it should be a 3 match ban.

..............................
If it was a 'soft kick' or a 'trip' then why was it classed as violent conduct?
.............................

It is the same as when a player does a really soft headbutt to another, it may be soft and not at all painful but it was a violent action. Infact to call some of the ones I have seen headbutts would be doing them a disservice, it is more moving your head into someone elses at a really slow speed.

Yet they usually get reds and it is called violent conduct because it is a violent reaction/action even if it was not actually strong enough to hurt someone.

.....................................
But if Rooney is England's only hope of survival, and his presence will bring in more money to the FA than Spearong would, then that's OK.
....................................

I guess that is why Gerrard gets away with everything then ?

....................................
Now, Captain, what can possibly be wrong with that? I mean, it's fair dripping with fairness, isn't it? Dream on. JimmyTheRed
....................................

The FA is the last organisation to practice fairness, as a United fan I am well aware of this. The only problem is it was UEFA that reduced Rooneys ban and the FA that handed out Spearings ban.

You may not have noticed but they are different organisations. Regardless a potential leg breaker deserves at least a game more ban than a violent action that wouldn't result in injury even if you did it to 1000 seperate footballers.

Some may even question how Rooney's was deserving of only one games ban less than Spearings was... surely such a wreckless challenge should be punished far more harshly than one which would rarely if ever result in an injury...

Captain 7

I seriously think you need to have a look at it again. It was never a soft kick or a trip. He takes a proper swing at him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeZg2KwsWGw

Whilst you may not call it soft it is certainly not a hard kick, and you certainly cannot deny that Spearings tackle was far more likely to cause injury than Rooneys kick.