This. Absolute joke.Banning a Manager from attending the game because he criticized a referee Hahahahahaha
If the officials have done a poor job then they deserve to get called on it. No matter the manager.
Last edited:
Another non punishment for Ferguson
- Thread starter Rotty
- Start date
If the officials have done a poor job then they deserve to get called on it. No matter the manager.
He can't have any complaints and I think he deserves it. He was already on a suspended so should know better. If a player is on a yellow card and then makes a reckless challenge, he deserves all he gets. Same here with Fergie.
Shame people round here can't criticise Man Utd/Fergie without getting labelled Man Utd haters.
Shame people round here can't criticise Man Utd/Fergie without getting labelled Man Utd haters.
As has been said, certain reporters will ask questions looking for a controversial answers but Fergie could have answered questions about the refs performance without questioning his integrity.
Every week managers (including Fergie) criticise individual decisions and refereeing perfomances as a whole (providing they've not gone ott) without getting charged.
Exactly and they always have done.
So why is Ferguson singled out for this kind of punishment, I've heard far worse said.
Van Persie after the Barca game called the ref a joke (I know it was CL) Grant the other week, I remember Bryan Robson (Get Well Robbo
) when he was managing West Brom call the ref a cheat straight out to the camera.So why now? because of previous? Come on, when you have been in the game as long as he has I doubt there's many things he hasn't said or done.
I for one hopes he pulls every player out of the England squad, why should he do them any favours?
How do you draw the line though. From my experience (even of youth football)the rules are very black and white on this. ANY Crticism of a ref is wrong. Ok maybe Fergies comments about wanting a strong ref crossed the line but to the FA that is the same as saying that a ref get a 50/50 penalty decision wrong.
edit
From the managers point of view I guess there is no real vehicle of appeal. How can any manager change game changing yellow card situations or contentious penalty decisions ?? They can't. The issue here is that football has universal rules. So if you bring in retrospective punishment or yellow card appeal or appeal by TV evidence of a dive, you have to do it at all levels of football from Champions League to Sunday League to kids 7-a-side. why ??? Because thats what makes it fair. Ref's get it wrong at every level. There is just more money riding on it at the highest level
Last edited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jan/09/kenny-dalglish-liverpool-manchester-united
Ban TBH
Whole things a non event to me, Moyes certainly has moaned about refs as much as Fergie or Wenger but he's small time so no one cares.
Ban TBH
Whole things a non event to me, Moyes certainly has moaned about refs as much as Fergie or Wenger but he's small time so no one cares.
It's not the same thing to the FA though. I can't recall where I read it but 1 of the rag's got a comment from the FA where they said that there's nothing stopping players/managers from being critical of the performance of the ref providing they don't over step the mark (or words to that effect).
Fergie didn't simply say the ref had a bad game or got certain decisions wrong, he questioned the refs integrity by saying he wanted a strong and fair ref. He then made things worse by sticking by what he said despite being advised by Utd's own lawyers to back down.
Exactly and they always have done.
So why is Ferguson singled out for this kind of punishment, I've heard far worse said.
Van Persie after the Barca game called the ref a joke (I know it was CL) Grant the other week, I remember Bryan Robson (Get Well Robbo
So why now? because of previous? Come on, when you have been in the game as long as he has I doubt there's many things he hasn't said or done.
I for one hopes he pulls every player out of the England squad, why should he do them any favours?
As above, he's not being punished for being critical of the ref but because he questioned the ref's integrity. Of course the length of his ban will be effected by his previous record though (rightly or wrongly).
Had he accepted the charge and simply claimed he said what he did in the heat of the moment then maybe he'd have been let off with only the 1 game ban or even a fine (of course the 2 game suspended ban would have kicked in anyway). He didn't though, he's publicly stuck by what he said.
The FA can't have somebody as high profile as Fergie coming out saying what he did and then sticking by it. They had to act and it's not as if other managers haven't received 3 game bans before.
As I said with the Babel/Webb incident, it would be nice if the FA concentrated on bigger things like punishing Carra/Rafael for their challenges than what is said after the game.
So they punished him more because of his profile?
Personally if I was Ferguson (or any manager punished for having an opinion) I would simply stop giving pre/post match interviews to the media rights holders and that's it.
Rightly or wrongly, yes. Any EPL manager that would have made comments like Fergie's are likely to be punished more severely than a non-league manager for instance.
He does that quite a lot anyway, despite it being mandatory, without being punished.
Last edited:
Which is why the rules are draconian and should only be applied equally.
It only became mandatory this season, and both Ferguson and Manchester United have the integrity to stand by their convictions.
Unlike the league who have yet to decide a punishment or if they are even able to give one as no-one has made a formal complaint and the BBC decided that it didn't want to take on Manchester United in a legal situation. As I understand it the maximum imposable punishment is £25k fine, which Utd have already said they will cover if necessary.
He could always do what one of the US NFL managers done when he was forced to attend press conferences. He asked himself the questions and only answered those, thus fulfilling his obligation to attend and participate.
Last edited:
And that's the problem, the FA are usually too spineless to dish out punishments that actually hurt, instead of window dressing. And when they do, by banning him for 5 games (which has already been stated won't actually affect his matchday involvement much anyway), people start crying "unfair".
I agree but it's not the reality though. It's the same with what is and isn't acceptable on the pitch in lower league games compared to EPL games too.
He's only 'standing by his convictions' when he refuses to talk to the BBC, not when he refuses to talk to Sky.
As of next season it will be mandatory to give pre and post game press-conferences too, what convictions will he be standing by when he doesn't attend those too?
Interesting article from Henry Winter here. His view is that it should be a stadium ban as touchline ban will not harm him at all, he can even still speak to officials at half-full-time. And if that doesn't work, 1 point deduction.
Mind you, I think his last paragraph says it all:
I agree.
Mind you, I think his last paragraph says it all:
I agree.
He's only 'standing by his convictions' when he refuses to talk to the BBC, not when he refuses to talk to Sky.
As of next season it will be mandatory to give pre and post game press-conferences too, what convictions will he be standing by when he doesn't attend those too?
The mandatory nature of pre and post match games hasn't been voted on yet afaik. It would take a 2/3 majority of EPL clubs to put it through and the AGM isn't until the end of the season.
As for conviction, he had his reasons for not talking and stood by them. It's not a debate, it simply is.
They would be breaking the law by banning him from his contracted place of work.
Deducting points is not something the FA can legally do either, that is the sole purview of the EPL.
The FA need to be careful how far they push Premier League clubs, they only affiliate because they want to not because they have to, and the FA is only a single shareholder with some veto powers regarding chairmen. afaik.
Last edited:
You're right, it hasn't been rubber stamped yet. Given the fact that it's only Fergie that refuses to give post-match press-conferences, I can't imagine getting a 2/3 majority would be an issue.
He has his reasons for refusing to talk to the BBC. His reasons for refusing to talk to Sky on occasions and not giving post match press-conferences are usually BS though. Was a reason given for his latest media blackout or was it simply because the media had the cheek to report his comments?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,010
- Location
- Surrey
Well I think it's understandable that he refused to talk to them after the match before where he gets charged for talking to them!!
He wasn't charged for talking to them. He was charged for questioning the refs integrity.
edit: It's interesting to read that Fergie's defense at his hearing was that his comments were misunderstood by everybody. A bit of a back down from his Arsenal programme notes where he claimed he will stand by what he said as he was simply telling the truth.
edit: It's interesting to read that Fergie's defense at his hearing was that his comments were misunderstood by everybody. A bit of a back down from his Arsenal programme notes where he claimed he will stand by what he said as he was simply telling the truth.
Last edited:
saying a ref made mistakes is one thing, questioning their integrity is an entirely different level
All depends really, IIRC the comments he's supposed to have made where that he wanted a fair/strong ref now if all he meant to say was he wanted a strong ref then thats not questioning anyone's integrity so maybe from that perspective they were misunderstood