comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
In 2006 Manchester City defender Ben Thatcher was suspended for eight games with a 15-match suspended ban by the Football Association for elbowing Portsmouth midfielder Pedro Mendes.
Thatcher was only booked at the time by referee Dermot Gallagher, but the FA circumvented its own rules to lodge a charge of "serious foul play" against Thatcher.
As I said they pick and choose, you trying to gloss over this fact does nothing to advance your case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they got hell for it, which is why they wouldn't do it again...
Much like Britain used to have the death penalty, but no doesn't....
This doesn't mean that Britain contradicts itself, or picks and chooses who to kill and who not to kill. What this means is it is something they used to do but for whatever reason decided they should no longer do...
TOOR given you were around for the debates at the time I am pretty sure you already know all the stuff I am telling you...
So quite frankly what is the point?
You just trying to look stupid?
If so you are succeeding spectacularly!
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
The referee didn't see the bite otherwise Suarez would have been sent off there and then. The referee specifically stated he had not seen the incident.
I don't see how lying about such a well known point advances your case here...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referee didn't see the elbow into the back of the head from Rooney otherwise it would have been a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So remind me again what he gave Rooney the yellow card for?
TOOR this is getting pretty embarrassing for you now...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not an elbow as everybody knows an elbow is a red.
You're just like the FA, turn a blind eye and hope it goes away. Blanking it out does nothing. If one player gets retrospective punishment for a red card offence, another should also, even if he is England captain and plays for United.
And this hiding behind the referee saw it and acted(wrongly) on it, has to stop also. Especially considering they pick and choose when to adopt it.
Obviously not an elbow as everybody knows an elbow is a red.
.......................................................
Not at all, players catch each other with elbows all the time and don't get red cards for it...
.................................................
You're just like the FA, turn a blind eye and hope it goes away. Blanking it out does nothing. If one player gets retrospective punishment for a red card offence, another should also, even if he is England captain and plays for United.
...........................................
What I am is not crazy like your good self TOOR.
So basically what you are saying is the FA are biased because they didn't make an exception to what they usually do and go out of their way to punish Rooney for this incident?
Yeah you've got them bang to rights there TOOR....
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
Obviously not an elbow as everybody knows an elbow is a red.
.......................................................
Not at all, players catch each other with elbows all the time and don't get red cards for it...
.................................................
You're just like the FA, turn a blind eye and hope it goes away. Blanking it out does nothing. If one player gets retrospective punishment for a red card offence, another should also, even if he is England captain and plays for United.
...........................................
What I am is not crazy like your good self TOOR.
So basically what you are saying is the FA are biased because they didn't make an exception to what they usually do and go out of their way to punish Rooney for this incident?
Yeah you've got them bang to rights there TOOR....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I'm saying they shouldn't just pick and choose when to adopt this rule. In fact I believe the rule shouldn't apply at all.
You've now went from trying to turn a blind eye to it, to turning it into a joke.
I should have expected this from you. If it doesn't go for you, it's all a big joke.
Anyhow, I'l leave you with the facts, choose to accept them or not, it's up to you.
Two players in one game, committed a red card offence, you decided one was only worthy of a yellow(it happened to be commited by a United player, the team you support, coincidence?) and one player was punished retrospectively, the other wasn't. The same player also got away with elbowing another on the back of the head and on both occasions the excuse was used that the referee had already acted on it, yet on other occasions, other players haven't been able to get the benefit of that excuse, for example, Suarez, who had a freekick awarded against him and no card(like Rooney in the Liverpool-United game) and Thatcher, who was booked at the time(like Rooney in the game he elbowed a Wigan player in the back of the head). Just two examples of the FA picking and choosing.
A recent example, Costa, who stamped on Skrtel, not acted upon.
As I said and is widely accepted, the FA pick and choose when to act and in some instances hide behind their stupid rule, when a referee wrongly gives a decision, it can't be changed and on others, they do change it.
I'm all for Skrtel getting his ban but I think Rooney should get his also, even if he is England captain and plays for United, just to be fair and all.
I'll leave you to make jokes out of this serious matter and rule which gets more ridiculous each time I think of it.
Two players in one game, committed a red card offence, you decided one was only worthy of a yellow(it happened to be commited by a United player, the team you support, coincidence?) and one player was punished retrospectively, the other wasn't.
........................................................
Sorry what is this one game you talk about where 2 players committed a red card offence and one got done retrospectively and the other didn't?
Surely you are talking about multiple games here rather than just one game?
Conspiracy theories are silly enough to start with without you making them sound even stupider by messing up all the facts!
The same player also got away with elbowing another on the back of the head and on both occasions the excuse was used that the referee had already acted on it, yet on other occasions, other players haven't been able to get the benefit of that excuse, for example, Suarez
_________________________________
The FA don't retrospectively punish anyone.
What you are basically doing is accusing them of being biased by NOT treating Rooney differently.
What you are actually asking for is for them to treat Rooney differently, for them to actually treat him more harshly...
You do realise that would actually make them more biased and not less biased though, right?
Also we have already covered this TOOR, the referee did not see Suarez bite Ivanovic, he made clear in his report he had not seen the incident.
What you are again asking for is different treatment, except this time you want the treatment in the players favour.
Again, this would make them more biased if they made special exceptions for players you like or dislike.
................................................
who had a freekick awarded against him and no card(like Rooney in the Liverpool-United game
................................................
The FA were never going to ban him for that, in the same way the FA were never going to ban Liverpool players for all the fouls outside of the Gerrard and Skrtel ones.
Not even that many Liverpool fans seem to think Rooney should be banned for his challenge on Mignolet. What is your excuse there?
Are they biased towards United as well. Maybe everyone else is blind and you're the only one that can see the truth?
.......................................................
and Thatcher, who was booked at the time
.....................................................
We have already covered this TOOR, we can go through it again if you'd like.
Thinking on it I'll save myself the effort and just copy paste what I wrote earlier on it.
______________________________
Yes and they got hell for it, which is why they wouldn't do it again...
Much like Britain used to have the death penalty, but no doesn't....
This doesn't mean that Britain contradicts itself, or picks and chooses who to kill and who not to kill. What this means is it is something they used to do but for whatever reason decided they should no longer do...
____________________________________
.............................................................
like Rooney in the game he elbowed a Wigan player in the back of the head). Just two examples of the FA picking and choosing.
A recent example, Costa, who stamped on Skrtel, not acted upon.
.....................................................
That is the FA being consistent.
As much as you might like them to change the rules every time it suits Liverpool that isn't going to happen. They aren't allowed to deal with an incident if the referee has already dealt with it.
As much as you might like them to change the rules on a whim to punish United and Chelsea when the opportunity arises they are not allowed to do so, although this works in Liverpools favour as well...
As it also means they don't change the rules on a whim to punish Liverpool either...
..................................................
I'm all for Skrtel getting his ban but I think Rooney should get his also, even if he is England captain and plays for United, just to be fair and all.
................................................
The only problem is Rooney didn't stamp or commit any other kind of red card challenge in that United Liverpool game...
Not sure being captain of England and United is legitimate grounds to ban someone, seems a bit harsh.
Sign in if you want to comment
skrtel banned
Page 4 of 4
posted on 26/3/15
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 44 minutes ago
In 2006 Manchester City defender Ben Thatcher was suspended for eight games with a 15-match suspended ban by the Football Association for elbowing Portsmouth midfielder Pedro Mendes.
Thatcher was only booked at the time by referee Dermot Gallagher, but the FA circumvented its own rules to lodge a charge of "serious foul play" against Thatcher.
As I said they pick and choose, you trying to gloss over this fact does nothing to advance your case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes and they got hell for it, which is why they wouldn't do it again...
Much like Britain used to have the death penalty, but no doesn't....
This doesn't mean that Britain contradicts itself, or picks and chooses who to kill and who not to kill. What this means is it is something they used to do but for whatever reason decided they should no longer do...
TOOR given you were around for the debates at the time I am pretty sure you already know all the stuff I am telling you...
So quite frankly what is the point?
You just trying to look stupid?
If so you are succeeding spectacularly!
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 hours, 48 minutes ago
The referee didn't see the bite otherwise Suarez would have been sent off there and then. The referee specifically stated he had not seen the incident.
I don't see how lying about such a well known point advances your case here...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The referee didn't see the elbow into the back of the head from Rooney otherwise it would have been a red card.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So remind me again what he gave Rooney the yellow card for?
TOOR this is getting pretty embarrassing for you now...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously not an elbow as everybody knows an elbow is a red.
posted on 26/3/15
You're just like the FA, turn a blind eye and hope it goes away. Blanking it out does nothing. If one player gets retrospective punishment for a red card offence, another should also, even if he is England captain and plays for United.
posted on 26/3/15
And this hiding behind the referee saw it and acted(wrongly) on it, has to stop also. Especially considering they pick and choose when to adopt it.
posted on 26/3/15
Obviously not an elbow as everybody knows an elbow is a red.
.......................................................
Not at all, players catch each other with elbows all the time and don't get red cards for it...
.................................................
You're just like the FA, turn a blind eye and hope it goes away. Blanking it out does nothing. If one player gets retrospective punishment for a red card offence, another should also, even if he is England captain and plays for United.
...........................................
What I am is not crazy like your good self TOOR.
So basically what you are saying is the FA are biased because they didn't make an exception to what they usually do and go out of their way to punish Rooney for this incident?
Yeah you've got them bang to rights there TOOR....
posted on 26/3/15
comment by SAF_The_Legend-FreePalestine(7) (U5768)
posted 2 minutes ago
Obviously not an elbow as everybody knows an elbow is a red.
.......................................................
Not at all, players catch each other with elbows all the time and don't get red cards for it...
.................................................
You're just like the FA, turn a blind eye and hope it goes away. Blanking it out does nothing. If one player gets retrospective punishment for a red card offence, another should also, even if he is England captain and plays for United.
...........................................
What I am is not crazy like your good self TOOR.
So basically what you are saying is the FA are biased because they didn't make an exception to what they usually do and go out of their way to punish Rooney for this incident?
Yeah you've got them bang to rights there TOOR....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I'm saying they shouldn't just pick and choose when to adopt this rule. In fact I believe the rule shouldn't apply at all.
You've now went from trying to turn a blind eye to it, to turning it into a joke.
I should have expected this from you. If it doesn't go for you, it's all a big joke.
Anyhow, I'l leave you with the facts, choose to accept them or not, it's up to you.
Two players in one game, committed a red card offence, you decided one was only worthy of a yellow(it happened to be commited by a United player, the team you support, coincidence?) and one player was punished retrospectively, the other wasn't. The same player also got away with elbowing another on the back of the head and on both occasions the excuse was used that the referee had already acted on it, yet on other occasions, other players haven't been able to get the benefit of that excuse, for example, Suarez, who had a freekick awarded against him and no card(like Rooney in the Liverpool-United game) and Thatcher, who was booked at the time(like Rooney in the game he elbowed a Wigan player in the back of the head). Just two examples of the FA picking and choosing.
A recent example, Costa, who stamped on Skrtel, not acted upon.
As I said and is widely accepted, the FA pick and choose when to act and in some instances hide behind their stupid rule, when a referee wrongly gives a decision, it can't be changed and on others, they do change it.
I'm all for Skrtel getting his ban but I think Rooney should get his also, even if he is England captain and plays for United, just to be fair and all.
I'll leave you to make jokes out of this serious matter and rule which gets more ridiculous each time I think of it.
posted on 26/3/15
Two players in one game, committed a red card offence, you decided one was only worthy of a yellow(it happened to be commited by a United player, the team you support, coincidence?) and one player was punished retrospectively, the other wasn't.
........................................................
Sorry what is this one game you talk about where 2 players committed a red card offence and one got done retrospectively and the other didn't?
Surely you are talking about multiple games here rather than just one game?
Conspiracy theories are silly enough to start with without you making them sound even stupider by messing up all the facts!
posted on 26/3/15
The same player also got away with elbowing another on the back of the head and on both occasions the excuse was used that the referee had already acted on it, yet on other occasions, other players haven't been able to get the benefit of that excuse, for example, Suarez
_________________________________
The FA don't retrospectively punish anyone.
What you are basically doing is accusing them of being biased by NOT treating Rooney differently.
What you are actually asking for is for them to treat Rooney differently, for them to actually treat him more harshly...
You do realise that would actually make them more biased and not less biased though, right?
Also we have already covered this TOOR, the referee did not see Suarez bite Ivanovic, he made clear in his report he had not seen the incident.
What you are again asking for is different treatment, except this time you want the treatment in the players favour.
Again, this would make them more biased if they made special exceptions for players you like or dislike.
................................................
who had a freekick awarded against him and no card(like Rooney in the Liverpool-United game
................................................
The FA were never going to ban him for that, in the same way the FA were never going to ban Liverpool players for all the fouls outside of the Gerrard and Skrtel ones.
Not even that many Liverpool fans seem to think Rooney should be banned for his challenge on Mignolet. What is your excuse there?
Are they biased towards United as well. Maybe everyone else is blind and you're the only one that can see the truth?
.......................................................
and Thatcher, who was booked at the time
.....................................................
We have already covered this TOOR, we can go through it again if you'd like.
Thinking on it I'll save myself the effort and just copy paste what I wrote earlier on it.
______________________________
Yes and they got hell for it, which is why they wouldn't do it again...
Much like Britain used to have the death penalty, but no doesn't....
This doesn't mean that Britain contradicts itself, or picks and chooses who to kill and who not to kill. What this means is it is something they used to do but for whatever reason decided they should no longer do...
____________________________________
.............................................................
like Rooney in the game he elbowed a Wigan player in the back of the head). Just two examples of the FA picking and choosing.
A recent example, Costa, who stamped on Skrtel, not acted upon.
.....................................................
That is the FA being consistent.
As much as you might like them to change the rules every time it suits Liverpool that isn't going to happen. They aren't allowed to deal with an incident if the referee has already dealt with it.
As much as you might like them to change the rules on a whim to punish United and Chelsea when the opportunity arises they are not allowed to do so, although this works in Liverpools favour as well...
As it also means they don't change the rules on a whim to punish Liverpool either...
..................................................
I'm all for Skrtel getting his ban but I think Rooney should get his also, even if he is England captain and plays for United, just to be fair and all.
................................................
The only problem is Rooney didn't stamp or commit any other kind of red card challenge in that United Liverpool game...
Not sure being captain of England and United is legitimate grounds to ban someone, seems a bit harsh.
Page 4 of 4