Based in London and writing for a global audience our aim is to produce EliteFootballTalk. Enjoy the site and feel welcome to join in our discussion on the beautiful game.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Rooney out of order

Wayne Rooney was sent off against FC Porto in the LG Amsterdam Tournament for a challenge on defender Pepe Ferreira. The referee registered the dismissal with the Dutch FA who in turn reported it to the English FA. The English FA dealt with the dismissal as if it occurred in England and Rooney was handed a three-match ban to commence tomorrow. Paul Scholes was also sent off in that game and was banned too for three matches.

Now Rooney and Scholes lost appeals against the bans, though Scholes was meant to have no qualms about the decision. Rooney, however, has made it clear through his agent Paul Stretford in a letter that stated Rooney may consider pulling out of any commercial duties he agreed to for England because of the FA's stance.

That to me is the proverbial toys out the pram. While the conduct against Ferreira warranted a booking, it can be debated that it was harsh for a straight red. Personally I feel Rooney intentionally used the forearm. Yet because Rooney did not get it his way, he wishes to spite the FA, regardless of the many others he would please. Certainly the FA should not be held to ransom at all by any player and Rooney can withdraw from such duties as he sees fit, someone else can do it instead.



Blogger T said...

Redsman, I agree that this reaction from Rooney is not correct.

As you say, the FA conducted an independent hearing and upheld the red card given in the Amsterdam tournament. Rooney may be aggrieved by the finding, but to take the proposed action seems to me to be in effect an argument that the FA should act with a bias and leniency in favour of a player if they are an important player for the FA's commercial programme.... which of course would render the FA's disciplinary process fundamentally unfair and flawed.

8/22/2006 6:43 pm

Blogger cantona75 said...


How far does Rooney not have to go before all you assume "oh no he's gone again"? This is a disgrace the way he has been treated. The issue itself is a non-starter. Rooney had his eyes on the ball, went up for it and made contact because guess what guys, that's the nature of the sport. It was obvious that he brushed his hand against pepe, the porto player in question and thus senior pepe all too well knew what he wanted to do so did it. He fell down on the ground like a baby and the ref fell for it. As soon as Rooney was off, he got back up again as if nothing had happened. That in itself told you everything about his intentions as a football player. No respect for your fellow oponent whatsoever. Just think if that were a ref of Collina's stature, because to be honest the ref on the pitch was shocking... Collina would have interpreted that scenario before Rooney had gone up and the outcome would have been that he would have yellow carded pepe for play acting, no doubt about it, or have you forgotten about that? Rooney was severely dealt with. On the matter of the Fa, then please unless you have an agenda then why the hell are you sticking up for a organization as pathetic as that? More than disciplinary problems, the Fa have other more serious problems to deal with, which even now they just cannot. It's just like any other body, looking out for themselves and protecting their own backs. If you say that Rooney is ill advised to make a stand then please. It's his right and prerogative to do so. At the end if that's his wish not to become involved with the Fa's on and off field commitments then so be it. You say that he's somehow holding the Fa to ransom because of his actions. This is rubbish. Financially he will loose out, not the Fa. No one player can dictate the Fa and Rooney is not dictating. He feels he has been let down and is making a valid point. It's up to the officials and those in power to understand that yes when he's wrong then punish him, but not over something as nothing like that incident at the Ajax arena.

8/22/2006 10:04 pm

Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems to me that Mr Rooney is a victim of his own success and of a certain referree's desire to make a headline for himself. Whilst he may have had a raised hand as he jumped , he also had his eyes firmly on the ball and had Pepe continued to fight for control, instead of pulling out of the challange, it is likely that the incident would have lost in the flow of the game. The FA committee can only have concluded such a ridiculous and excessive punishment because of Mr Rooney's reputation and not because the incident deserved such harsh treatment. What I find most irritating, however, is the alarming inconsistancy and apparent bias of the FA. How can an accidental hand to face, in what is still supposed to be a physical game, result in an effective four match ban? Surely if a blatant and violent assault, as committed by the two footed lunge of Mr Brown on Mr Giggs, in Sunday's game between Manchester United and Fulham, can go unpunished, then how is the FA able to maintain any credibility as an unbiased and effective organisation ? Is it any wonder that Mr Rooney would choose to disassociate himself with such an inept body.

8/22/2006 10:45 pm

Blogger RedsMan said...

OK, people, now hear this. There is no agenda here with myself and Rooney, that is no.1.

No.2, when Rooney went to jump for the ball, it was Rooney who looked at Pepe before he jumped, I recall this as if it were this evening. That gave away intention to the referee and leading with the forearm calculated to a straight red offence, that and how he jumped for the ball. As I said, it is debatable.

No.3, whenever I play football and go to challenge for the ball, I have never ended with my arms flailing onto another player. There are many in the game who become penalised for jumping yet others who do not. When the arms are raised to bring the body up, the arms go vertical and come down vertically, not to begin vertically and then end up horizontal onto another player's face. That's a weak argument as you can clearly jump for the ball and not end up with a flailing arm onto another player.

No.4, as much as it is debated here, the decision was a red and it was upheld. Rooney appealed and lost. As Alan Ball stated on the BBC web-site, one is far more mature to take the punishment now that the appeal has been exhausted and bid your time, train and get ready to come back. As farcical as Man Utd believe it is, they can play without Rooney and potentially be a better team on his return.

No.5, there must be few who despise the English FA more than myself. From Adam Crozier to Mark Palios, the uproar over the Faria Alam affairs to the fiasco of appointing Eriksson as our national coach and watch him fleece our national squad of proper management while he entertained himself on as much money as he could acclaim to while seeking elsewhere for potential interests away from his actual duties with England, I despise the FA. They seem to be dozy and lapsidaisal in their approach of authority while at the same time earning a salary for doing very little in terms of their association.

When I heard that initially the FA were expected to do little about the red cards, I wasn't surprised. But I am glad to see they actually did uphold them and for Rooney to threaten his exclusion in this manner is out of order. Are the FA to now watch every red card and consider they have to evade issuing any punishment because it is Rooney? Certainly not. That's my view if it were a Liverpool or any other player.

We may not like the FA but they are the authorative organisation of our football. You just wouldn't get this nonsense back in the old days. First the WAGs allowed to come to Germany and now this. The likes of Booby Moore and Emlyn Hughes would have laughed it off, taken it and got back on in time.


8/23/2006 1:38 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ur glad to see that the fa did? WoW Amazing :) Its amazing how you change ur stand for a player when he plays for england and when he plays for a club thats a bitter rival. If Rooney got banned for doing the same thing for England im sure everyone would have labelled the portugese guy a cheat, a diver and if the ban had come from fifa the thread would have been titled an injustice or something similiar. I remember Stevie G and another liverpool player...was it Hamann? Got sent off the last time they played in the same tournament but the fa decided to use commen sense and solve this issue rather then banning the player for an unofficial game.

8/23/2006 2:18 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah and man utd and rooney were angry and decided to resort to this action because the fa assured them that they would not take action before deciding to do so. If the FA goes againts their word why should Rooney allow his image to be exploited?

8/23/2006 2:22 am

Blogger RedsMan said...

Where did you read of such rumours the FA gave assaurances of no sanctions over Rooney? There is no way that could happen and then the adverse decision. The scenario you mentioned of a Portuguese player is not far from the incident in the World Cup, but no one blamed Carvalho because replays showed Rooney did stamp on him.

As for unofficial games, if regulations did not equally stretch to them, there wouldn't be any match but instead flying tackles and other disorderly conduct because of no fear of discipline.

And my tune never changes. I pity that it was a Man Utd player and not a player of another team, say Beckham. The 'rival club' point would come up yet I have always stated I'm impartial in these matters. This isnt about clubs, it's about a player disciplined under league rules but using his international status as a lance to hit back when he is under the administration of the authoritative body of his league.

For such an action by Rooney, though he has yet to totally pull from those duties, he either was urged to do so by Utd or his agent, potentially the latter as Stretford is facing FA charges concerning breaches of FIFA's agent regulations.


8/23/2006 11:05 am

Blogger BlindJak said...

There are really two arguments here. The first is whether the incident required a red or yellow card. IMO, it was only worth a yellow I didn’t notice Roony looking at the player but admit I only saw replays and didn’t pay 100% attention so might well have missed it.

The second argument is whether a red card in a preseason friendly in another country should lead to a ban in premiership games. Personally I don’t think it should. While Reds you do raise a fair point that a lack of punishment might lead to anarchy I can’t honestly see it. Players are aware that they need to play for match fitness and, I most cases, to cement themselves in the first team.

Saying that everyone knew the current rules so why are they surprised at the bans? While I think that the rule should not be there I like it less when rules are circumvented and you have the situation of one rule for one and one for another. Ergo I don’t like but Roony’s bad was right.

8/23/2006 12:13 pm

Blogger RedsMan said...

Thanks BJ.

A red card in another country in pre-season cannot be upheld by the FA of that country as the booked foreign player (foreign in terms of league registration) will not be playing further than the pre-season, if that. Because the administration for the red card takes a while, Rooney couldnt be banned from the tournament. Therefore the Dutch FA passed it on to our FA.

As I said it is debatable but the red card should. The thing is Rooney's attitude to the failed appeal. I couldn't do it, i play for England out of pride, I'm chosen for my ability, I consider it an honour. I lose an appeal I strongly believe I should win, then that is that. Take it on the chin and wait my time. I honour my commercial duties for England because it's my country, not for the FA. The FA simply grant me the opportunities and I agree to take them.

Apparently Rooney is the most commodative player for England after or even since Beckham, whose popularity has waned. I think this has been considered before the letter was sent.


8/23/2006 1:15 pm

Blogger BlindJak said...

It is a bad way to deal with the situation, sometimes you just have to take it on the chin. I know a three match ban is unwelcome but is it worth the extra bad blood a ‘strike’ would create between the FA and Utd?

8/23/2006 4:00 pm

Blogger RedsMan said...

That's right. My opinion is Rooney is being advised 'This is wrong, red card in another country and our FA falls for it? You are their highest commodity since Beckham, and his popularity has gone down now, so its you who sells England, you who has the british bulldog spirit, giveing blood out there the most, for England, only for the FA to turn their backs on you when you are looking for a favour. Why should you promote the squad for them?' An upset Rooney says 'yeah' and there you are.

Rooney should be told 'That FA, they are so muddled up after the umpteen affairs of nonsense that occurs there, but that's it. All you do is focus on your fitness, keep training, support the side and be ready for when your time comes again. No doubt you will be when we need you. The three games will slide by, just think how long Smithy has waited.'

I have little doubt Rooney's agent is behind this rather than the club.


8/23/2006 9:50 pm

Blogger cantona75 said...

You guys still don't get it. The issue of the red card which took place in a friendly was handed down to the Fa (surprising that it even got that far), but it did and hey presto the Fa pull a much missed suspension (and then there were four matches), out for Rooney. Your assumption that he should take that suspension, for again something in which his contribution was absolutely legitimate, only again concludes that you think he deserved his red card. Or did he?, as you put it blindjak and redsman. You guys now seem to suggest that the aftermath of the red card i.e. the saving grace of English football is more important than the loyalty to the club. Again, you are mislead. It is true that national pride and being able to represent your country is of the upmost honour. However to us many fans it starts with our clubs first. That feeling week in week out of wearing your club on your heart is far more representative of any fan, or is club football second nature to the national game now? The needs of England cannot simply outweigh the loyalty that Rooney should first and foremost have for his club. It is here that he has been guided into what he is now. Opposing clubs will always think less of him because of who he is and what he has done in the past. But to those who have seen him mature see the change in him. That's why the anger that he has been treated so immaturely (add Paul scholes to that). As for advice then again, whoever it may be that has advised him has done it right. As I have mentioned before, this nature of promoting your country is exactly the equivalent of promoting your club. Now this is a financial issue therefore personal. If he feels that the Fa have let him down then maybe he feels that he doesn't have to be a part of that Fa strategy. It is strange to think that it is important to him, because as I have stated in my previous blog, it would be Rooney that would financially loose out. But if that's what he wants then that's what he'll get. I do not see where he will dishonour anyone for doing so. Surely his passion will be exactly the same for the England shirt if he does not stand to make a financial gain? And Beckham was totally different. Beckham became a brand known worldwide, Rooney, as big as he is, will never be as big as Becks because of various reasons... England sells itself through all of it's players most notably the captain who leads it. So if you want to go that far, it's Terry's job now to entertain and indulge people, not Rooney, and backed up by Gerrard as v.c.

8/24/2006 12:06 am

Blogger cantona75 said...

P.s. Blindjak,

Would you really take it on the chin if you had been treated as unfairly as that? So, hypothetically, if you were working for me and I docked your pay out of your pocket, that would be okay wouldn't it, because you'd be doing it for the greater good, like paying my tax which I don't feel like paying? Only I'd do that to you more often because you're the one guy that won't stand up to me. (I'm sorry too late in the night to find another analogy, but I hope you get what I'm saying).

8/24/2006 12:15 am

Blogger BlindJak said...

Cantona75, I’m with you on club before country, always have been and always will be, but that has little bearing on my points. Regardless of the merits of the red card it’s is down in the rules that once the foreign FA pass their report onto English FA that they will uphold the red card and suspend the player. It’s, in my opinion, a stupid rule but one that’s been round for ages (In about ’96 Denis Wise missed 3 matches after a red against Athletico Bilbao, so even my team have fallen foul of the rule). So the minute Roony was carded he knew it was coming.

So what recourse does Roony have? He had his personal appeal and it failed. Baring in mind there have been a 1,001 erroneous red cards that have failed to be rescinded over the years are you advocating that all those who play for England withdraw their assistance in promotion?

And also look at the broader picture. While it’s regrettable that Roony has to miss three games he’ll probably play some 600+ for Utd so is it really that big an issue? If it was an erroneous red in a league game that the FA upheld would you still support his actions?

You also have to ask what will Roony actions achieve? Will it get his red rescinded? 100% not. So what’s the point? To make a statement? Then why not make a verbal one? All’s that will happen is his reputation will be hurt, particularly in terms of future consideration for the England captaincy, and he’ll drive a further wedge between Utd and the FA who already have an uneasy relationship.

Incorrect decisions are unfortunately part the game and Roony has to learn that. It wasn’t a witch hunt or conspiracy, just a bad decision. If he strikes every time the FA upholds a bad decision he’ll never take part in any of their activities.

So some times you do just have to take a bad decision on the chin. (also, sorry but I didn’t quite get the analogy).

8/24/2006 9:45 am

Blogger RedsMan said...

I can add little to BJ's comment. My point is I have no distinction between clubs, a player is suspended after losing their appeal, that's it. There is his point regarding the red cards. Rooney hasn't been sent off once, the FA has had to deal with those occasions too but he didn't mention about withdrawing from commercial duties then. Plus the players' strike that time was equally stupid. That was equivalent to the potential threat of strike by our own firearms officers over a shooting incident. If that happened, when would they return to duty? And with armed people on the streets, simple anarchy. The England players decide to strike, can you imagine before Euro2008?

I can't see the precedent of England internationals deciding not to play for England because they feel hard done by by the FA over an incident (didn't Campbell consider not playing for England over a Solskjaer incident?), but in the circumstances Rooney should not exempt himself from England commercial duties to spite the FA. Then the FA will consider withdrawing Rooney from England appearances, and as McClaren said the atmosphere turns ugly.

The rules governing employers' rights are on a different level (civil law) than that of the Premiership League. I have a legal rights of employment and can use high authority to revert or stop an action, whereas Rooney only has a right of appeal and exceeded it, final decision. If Rooney financially loses out more than the FA, that's even more of a reason not to. Three matches out, yet he continues his duties and is paid while the matches whizz by.

If it were myself, I would do it, be paid and be more determined to get back in the squad. Wont break me, make me stronger. But if Mr Berwick and Mr Bevington try to sweet talk me at galas and/or dinners, I would be weary!


8/24/2006 1:42 pm


Post a Comment

<< Home


Locations of visitors to this page