Is Ronaldo a ****?

[Cheeky Monkey]

What amazes me in people keeping this issue alive as a subject worthy of debate

My sentiments exactly LI.

Close the thread and move on with your lives. It's done, it's dusted.

 

[London Irish]

double post

 

[keaton]

Borderline circumstantial?

The issue, as far as I understand it, is what was the motivation of the ref as he carded Rooney. Sven's account speaks DIRECTLY to that by the gathering of FIRST-HAND evidence after the game.

What you seem to be relying on is your impression of what happened by looking at a TV screen, now that I think is genuinely circumstantial!

What amazes me in people keeping this issue alive as a subject worthy of debate is that Rooney's offence was a red card offence - stamping on a prone player's bollocks! He deserved to walk, there apears to be no dispute about this whatsoever.

Frankly, when Daniele De Rossi got sent off for his piece of stupidity, there was absoltely no sympathy for him among Azzurri fans. Nor should there be for Rooney among English fans.

While Rooney should not be hung out to dry, no one should be making excuses for his behaviour. He will almost certainly be suspended for McClaren's first Euro 2008 qualifier at least and the last thing England need is him then coming back into the team and doing something similar in another vital game.

i've watched the replay many times, and i don't think it's a deliberate stamp at all. If you watch it in slow motion and see the anger in his face and hate Rooney anyway you can convince yourself it's deliberate, but the bloke's behind him and where he puts his foot down looks where you'd put down if you were trying to regain your balance.
I think if wasn't Rooney it wouldn't have been a red

 

[Hannibal smith]

My sentiments exactly LI.

Close the thread and move on with your lives. It's done, it's dusted.

Absolutely. 95% of NSC think Ronaldo is a ****.

Thats conclusive enough for me.

 

[Gazwag]

I think what people seem to have forgotten is the fact that judging by the way Cavalwhatisface went down from a minor tackle earlier in the match in agony when he wasnt even touched suggests he hasnt got any bollocks to stamp on anyway and if Rooney really had stamped on them, would he really have played much more in the game

 

[Barrel of Fun]

What amazes me in people keeping this issue alive as a subject worthy of debate is that Rooney's offence was a red card offence - stamping on a prone player's bollocks! He deserved to walk, there apears to be no dispute about this whatsoever.

That is not the debate of this thread. The thread is targetted towards Ronaldo. It is up to the referee to issue a card or make a decision from what he has seen. The only factors the referee should take into account are those of his own and the linesman. It is not up to another player to get involved and cause a fracas. Being a rugby fan you should know how well the system works. Talk to the offenders and the captains and noone else.

Yes the offence was a red card offence (obviously), but again Ronaldo had no right to interfere. That is the gripe.

There is no consistency.

 

[London Irish]

That is not the debate of this thread. The thread is targetted towards Ronaldo. It is up to the referee to issue a card or make a decision from what he has seen. The only factors the referee should take into account are those of his own and the linesman. It is not up to another player to get involved and cause a fracas. Being a rugby fan you should know how well the system works. Talk to the offenders and the captains and noone else.

Yes the offence was a red card offence (obviously), but again Ronaldo had no right to interfere. That is the gripe.

There is no consistency.

Fair enough, totally agree with you that Ronaldo had no right to be involved, but this problem is widespread in football (but not in rugby as you say because their team would almost certainly have a penalty reversed and/or be marched back 10 yards).

Because of that, I would be perfectly happy to see it made a widespread yellow card offence in football though (the occasional one has been handed out in this tournament, one at least I think, but you are right, there is no consistency) although for a fair period you will have a lot of games with nine men against ten as players struggle to get used to having their old "right" to whinge at the ref taken away from them.

 

[Goodfella]

I'm not a one for retaliation, so i reckon we ought to just...........































KILL THE ****


End of.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Quite right. It works well in rugby, so why not football? Players would get over the initial shock of the proceedings and I feel the game would be better for it.

What did happen to the 10 yard rule? I remember seeing it a few times at Withdean, but now the refs don't seem interested. Also, I thought we were meant to be clamping down on holding onto the ball when a decision goes against you. Still rife in international and league football.

It is telling when you see a ref running backwards trying to get players off his case, rather than standing his ground and threatening them with yellows. FIFA must put in legislation to talk to the offenders and the captains and send everyone else away. It rarely happens!

Learn from rugby!!

PLUS: It was supposed to be an offence to wave an imaginary card, but I haven't seen any given for that, this world cup.

 

[Commander]

Fair enough, totally agree with you that Ronaldo had no right to be involved, but this problem is widespread in football (but not in rugby as you say because their team would almost certainly have a penalty reversed and/or be marched back 10 yards).

Because of that, I would be perfectly happy to see it made a yellow card offence in football though, although for a fair period you will have a lot of games with nine men against ten as players struggle to get used to having their old "right" to whinge at the ref taken away from them.

Yeah but that would only last a few months, and then they would get used to it. Same with diving. With video evidence you can prove 90% of the time whether a player dived or not, and if you can prove that he has (I'm talking about after the game, the referee's job is extremely difficult when it comes to diving), why not ban him for ten games and fine him £100 grand? Diving is cheating. If you take steroids you get banned for years, that is cheating. What's the difference?

Commiting a bad foul is not cheating, it's something that is wrong but done in the heat of the moment. Diving is far worse than that.

And in answer to the original question, yes, he is a ****.

 

[Les Biehn]

Coz Rugby players never punch and stamp on each other.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Coz Rugby players never punch and stamp on each other.

They do and they are punished for it. Unlike Figo getting away with a yellow card.

I am not saying it stops that sort of play, but these things are more likely to happen in rugby as it is a close contact sport.
There is much more order and a lot more respect for officials on the whole. They are also not vilified in the press or by coaches etc.

 

[Dave the OAP]

....but then the flip side of the story is what happened with Terry Henry

He gets belted in the chest region and he falls down clutching his face...when accused of being a f***ing cheating twat, he says that he held his face in shock as everyone does in the sane circumstance....Yes Terry we believe you.

....and then you have the situation whereby a ref tries to uphold the law, sends 4 cheating bastards off and books 16 cheating bastards ( Portugal ....see a pattern?) and FIFA in the name of Sepp "Sychophantic Cheating bastard" Blatter vilifies him and sends him home.

You cant win

 

[Silent Bob]

 

[zefarelly]

Rooney is a mentally challenged lad, theres no doubt about it, and the stamp was out of order, I just hope he does the same to Ronaldo but hard enough to ensure the little shits knackers never come down again.

Les/Rob I agree, a poor WC finals IMO and it won't change because of anything the authorities do.

Q: If Rooney floors or 'Keanes' ROnaldo in a Manure game would he get sent off ? now that would be good TV, especially the look on Fergies face

 

[The Large One]

The issue, as far as I understand it, is what was the motivation of the ref as he carded Rooney. Sven's account speaks DIRECTLY to that by the gathering of FIRST-HAND evidence after the game.

What you seem to be relying on is your impression of what happened by looking at a TV screen, and your impression of "body language" - now that I think is genuinely circumstantial!

Again, you're blurring the issues.

Can you verify the conversation between Sven and the ref. The ONLY point of reference in your point here is Sven's word, and you being a journalist ought to know about checking your sources and getting them verified.

What amazes me in people keeping this issue alive as a subject worthy of debate is that Rooney's offence was a red card offence - stamping on a prone player's bollocks! He deserved to walk, there apears to be no dispute about this whatsoever.

In that instance, I'd agree IF (and I capitalise 'if) it was a deliberate stamp, then of course he should go, but that then muddies the waters further.

1. If the red card for an accidental stamp, that's an outrage. In my opinion, it wasn't accidental, although slow-mo replays often portray a far more sinister perspective.

2. If it was for pushing Ronaldo, that too is an outrage, but it is within the laws of the game about pushing an opponent (or rather, an updated guideline on 'violent conduct').

3. If the red card was for what the referee considers was a deliberate stamp, then of course he should go.

Looking at the replays, there is a clear case for arguing that was what happened. However, the ref showed no inclination of wanting to send Rooney until AFTER Rooney pushed Ronaldo.

My point is, I believe Rooney was rightly sent off, but for the wrong reason.

Frankly, when Daniele De Rossi got sent off for his piece of stupidity, there was absolutely no sympathy for him among Azzurri fans. Nor should there be for Rooney among English fans.

You're working on an assumption that everyone considers Rooney's stamp to be deliberate, and that the ref's decision to send him off was based on this, and this alone. Point is, not everyone does.

And to re-state my earlier point, Sven's word has not yet been verified by the referee.

 

[London Irish]

Again, you're blurring the issues.

Can you verify the conversation between Sven and the ref. The ONLY point of reference in your point here is Sven's word, and you being a journalist ought to know about checking your sources and getting them verified.

And to re-state my earlier point, Sven's word has not yet been verified by the referee.

I think you are clutching at straws a bit in implying that Sven might be somehow misrepresenting the views of the ref. I know there is widespread feeling among England fans that he is a bad manager, but a liar? What earthly motive would he have for doing this? If Rooney had been incorrectly sent off, surely he would have wanted to play up this issue as a covering excuse for the defeat? That might well have been his motive in seeking out the ref so early after the game and checking this entire issue out, but the ref gave him a clear explanation and he had to accept the ref's word, probably reluctantly.

Looking at the Sven interview on the BBC, I think this has effectively kiiled any media interest in this story about what the ref intended to do.

The circus has now moved on to the future relationship of the two Man U players - should this interest anyone except Fergie and Man U fans? Well, only I guess as a bit of fluffy sporting soap opera, it ain't that important to anyone else.

But I guess if you want further verification of the ref's views, then you'll probably get that with Rooney's disciplinary hearing sometime this week.

 

[London Irish]

I was shopping in London Road this afternoon and I spotted a short fat bloke wearing a Portugal replica with the name C Ronaldo spelt out on his back. Even more strikingly, what was probably his son was wearing a very bright garishly coloured tee-shirt that was made up entirely of a depiction of Cristian Ronaldo's face.

I passed them several times on London Road while doing my errands, they seemed to be ambling along from shop to shop without a care in the world.

Tolerant Brighton

 

[Eggmundo]

Yes

 

[The Large One]

I think you are clutching at straws a bit in implying that Sven might be somehow misrepresenting the views of the ref. I know there is widespread feeling among England fans that he is a bad manager, but a liar? What earthly motive would he have for doing this? If Rooney had been incorrectly sent off, surely he would have wanted to play up this issue as a covering excuse for the defeat? That might well have been his motive in seeking out the ref so early after the game and checking this entire issue out, but the ref gave him a clear explanation and he had to accept the ref's word, probably reluctantly.

Looking at the Sven interview on the BBC, I think this has effectively kiiled any media interest in this story about what the ref intended to do.

The circus has now moved on to the future relationship of the two Man U players - should this interest anyone except Fergie and Man U fans? Well, only I guess as a bit of fluffy sporting soap opera, it ain't that important to anyone else.

But I guess if you want further verification of the ref's views, then you'll probably get that with Rooney's disciplinary hearing sometime this week.

No, not a liar. A diplomat, which is all the FA require of a Head Coach. That, and subservience.