Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum

Sports => Football => Topic started by: Giggsy's Chestwig on September 16, 2008, 09:18:53 AM

Title: John Terry
Post by: Giggsy's Chestwig on September 16, 2008, 09:18:53 AM
His red card from Saturdays game has been commuted by the FA...

He will now escape suspension and play against Man Utd...

Just posting this for all the people who think that Man Utd get all the decisions...
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: giggsy11 on September 16, 2008, 09:24:05 AM
An people wonder why Chelski is so universally disliked!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 09:31:16 AM
An people wonder why Chelski is so universally disliked!

You watched da game?! Universally disliked my ass, it wasn't a red card offense so if people want to be vex dem is some ignorant cunnyholes!!

Fire in Man U rasshole come weekend!!!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Touches on September 16, 2008, 09:44:44 AM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.

Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 09:51:22 AM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.



De ref was ah Man U mole and wanted to slow dong de Blues so de red bullaz could have ah better chance to try and beat de pace setters!!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Giggsy's Chestwig on September 16, 2008, 09:53:15 AM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.



Thats the thing. The red isn't being commuted to a yellow...he will receive no card of any kind.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Giggsy's Chestwig on September 16, 2008, 09:57:28 AM
How John Terry convinced the FA to wipe his red card

(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00491/01_terry_280x390_491959a.jpg)

*SOB* I'm sorry, I won't do it again *SOB*
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: RedDevils on September 16, 2008, 09:58:06 AM
FA like they fraid chelski boi, there players get away with everything, A.Cole and them laughing at d FA again.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: WestCoast on September 16, 2008, 09:59:27 AM
How John Terry convinced the FA to wipe his red card
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00491/01_terry_280x390_491959a.jpg)
*SOB* I'm sorry, I won't do it again *SOB*
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Man, he do ah real good job as he walk away wid no card ::)

FA like they fraid chelski boi, there players get away with everything, A.Cole and them laughing at d FA again.
Dais OK Braveheart :devil:
ManBoo have benefitted from Many off call also....many ;)
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: giggsy11 on September 16, 2008, 10:02:05 AM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.



De ref was ah Man U mole and wanted to slow dong de Blues so de red bullaz could have ah better chance to try and beat de pace setters!!

Sounds like you are a newbie fan of Chelski, may be the year they won their 2 EPL titles? Cause yuh acting rell europhoric and hyper active over the fact yuh side ahead of United. If not, act like yuh been there and not like some never see come see green horn!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Midknight on September 16, 2008, 10:29:25 AM
it was never a red card. He wasn't the last defender and there was no dangerous play involved.

I just vex the red card will still hold in the blasted fantasy league. Because of that call, i lose my head to head match by 1 point
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: rickstaa on September 16, 2008, 10:39:49 AM
An people wonder why Chelski is so universally disliked!
that was ah bad call by the ref should have gotten ah yellow,that was ah professional foul.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: andre samuel on September 16, 2008, 11:15:54 AM
If you look at the footage carefully, although carvalho was covering the play, that foul prevented a two on one situation because Robinho (i think it was him) was the nearest player to the play.

So even though Carvalho was covering Jo after he got past Terry, Robinho was free as a result.  So even though a red card is a harsh penalty, i could have understood the referee seeing it as a denial of an opportunity.

What is even more disgusting is that he has gotten away free from the whole incident without any booking or any reprimand.  Most people here know that i am a chelsea supporter but that ruling shows a clear bias in favour of them.

Oh well, that would just make it easier for us to destroy manutd on the weekend.

ah love it!!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Small Magician aka Wazza on September 16, 2008, 11:19:12 AM
 :D The United fans are going to verbally destroy Terry....hopefully he cries  ;D
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: dinho on September 16, 2008, 11:26:19 AM
now that allyuh finished with the colorful interpretations of the rule and what you think could have happened etc, lets consider what the rule actually says..

It says that it is a red card offence if the last defender denies a clear goalscoring opportunity.

You would have to be generous to decide that the play constituted a clear goalscoring opportunity, but you would have to be a certified mad man to also assert that Terry was the last defender on that play.

I wonder if allyuh even see the game and see the play when I read some of the comments..

the play deserved a yellow for sure and I dont know what the rule is with commuting cards if it can be scaled down to a yellow as some are suggesting, but it was a blatant refereeing mistake.. You could have even told by the pom face look on the referee right after the incident that he knew it as well.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: giggsy11 on September 16, 2008, 11:38:30 AM
:D The United fans are going to verbally destroy Terry....hopefully he cries  ;D


Viva John Terry
Viva John Terry
He thoguht he won the cup
But he f^cked it up
Viva John Terry!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: supporter on September 16, 2008, 12:23:49 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: giggsy11 on September 16, 2008, 01:01:48 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.


Exactly, these defenders get away with murder and they keep doing it because they don't get punished!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 01:20:47 PM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.



De ref was ah Man U mole and wanted to slow dong de Blues so de red bullaz could have ah better chance to try and beat de pace setters!!

Sounds like you are a newbie fan of Chelski, may be the year they won their 2 EPL titles? Cause yuh acting rell europhoric and hyper active over the fact yuh side ahead of United. If not, act like yuh been there and not like some never see come see green horn!

And u song like ah flickin retarded imps!! Euphoric over what? 4 games?!!  Jedd get real nah is early season so it ha no consolation fuh 1st place.   Except of course for the fact that pool put in in allyuh hole!! :rotfl:
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 01:25:20 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.

U should get red carded fuh bein born.  Talkin shit in yuh ass bout cynical foul!!  Wey allyuh does come up wit dem jackassness from jedd?

Giggsy stop hatin jedd.  Wham Terry tief yuh white fowl aought?
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Small Magician aka Wazza on September 16, 2008, 01:49:59 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.

U should get red carded fuh bein born.  Talkin shit in yuh ass bout cynical foul!!  Wey allyuh does come up wit dem jackassness from jedd?

Giggsy stop hatin jedd.  Wham Terry tief yuh white fowl aought?

lol how old are you?   go pelt off transformers yuh rent boy

Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: dinho on September 16, 2008, 02:16:25 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.


Exactly, these defenders get away with murder and they keep doing it because they don't get punished!

not cynical... professional.

is a good thing allyuh never consider refereeing as a career, cause matches would end with 8 men minimum.

Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Midknight on September 16, 2008, 02:40:26 PM
What is even more disgusting is that he has gotten away free from the whole incident without any booking or any reprimand.  Most people here know that i am a chelsea supporter but that ruling shows a clear bias in favour of them.

I don't think it has anything to do with bias. The fact of the matter is that the FA disciplinary commitee or whatever it is doesn't have the right to MODIFY a referee's decision. It can only annull the RESULTS of that decision that AFFECT FUTURE matches.

In other words, if Terry had been sent off in the 5th minute and Chelsea ended up losing 5-0 down a man all game, nothing can be done to modify the score. On the other hand, if it was judged that the offence was not a red card, what affects future matches i.e. Terry's unavailability, can be annulled.

It isn't possible for the FA to say, here that wasn't a Red card, it was a yellow. That's the equivalent of saying, that wasn't a free kick that caused the goal you scored so let's replay the game from the minute of the free kick. If Terry HAD received a yellow on the play, there's nothing to say he wouldn't have received a second yellow 10 minutes later and be expelled, in which case, the suspension would be valid.

I'm pretty sure there are other examples of red cards being wiped and much more horrific tackles going unpunished as a result.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: kicker on September 16, 2008, 02:48:09 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.


Exactly, these defenders get away with murder and they keep doing it because they don't get punished!

not cynical... professional.

is a good thing allyuh never consider refereeing as a career, cause matches would end with 8 men minimum.


Glad yuh post this boy Omar- On a different but related tangent.... I for one am not a big fan of red cards...I think in today's game they are given way too cheaply.  For someone to be expelled it should be determined that they are no longer worthy of taking part in the game....and I think that's an extreme determination.  I actually posted a thread back in the day where I argued that a professional foul committed by last defender where no major physical harm is caused, which leads to a penalty should not be followed up by a red card.  I think a penalty is enough punishment, and in fact the penalty is sometimes if not most often actually be a better scoring opportunity than the one that was denied....men real fight meh down  ;D ... but I still think it makes more sense and people in general are just reluctant to think outside the set rules... I remember arguing the rule of head-to-head over goal difference before it was ever used in any FIFA competition, and get real fight down too...now head to head is a normal scene and men cool with it...oh well.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 02:56:45 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.

U should get red carded fuh bein born.  Talkin shit in yuh ass bout cynical foul!!  Wey allyuh does come up wit dem jackassness from jedd?

Giggsy stop hatin jedd.  Wham Terry tief yuh white fowl aought?



lol how old are you?   go pelt off transformers yuh rent boy



So tell me exactly what does my age have to do with this? Doh get emotional cause Man U cutass book and dey go be near de bottom ah de table guy!!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Touches on September 16, 2008, 02:57:08 PM
Kicker how long yuh toting them feelings breds...

Is not one but two fight down that still stuck in yuh craw... :rotfl:

Red Card is good ting...for the side not being punished.

Side does play better with 10 men and it makes the game more exciting.

Now yellow card is wha being given away cheaply.

Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: RedDevils on September 16, 2008, 03:04:39 PM
It's a RED card and should of stand......he made 2 stupid plays thats why he got it, he first went for Jo's foot but didnt do to much, when he realise Jo made another step and could still get the ball he wrapped his hand around him and pulled him down, the first play would of been a yellow card but JT and his nasty play pulled him down so he deserves a red, never mine that last play rule. he was wrong twice so RED card it is.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Filho on September 16, 2008, 03:13:43 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.


Exactly, these defenders get away with murder and they keep doing it because they don't get punished!

not cynical... professional.

is a good thing allyuh never consider refereeing as a career, cause matches would end with 8 men minimum.


Glad yuh post this boy Omar- On a different but related tangent.... I for one am not a big fan of red cards...I think in today's game they are given way too cheaply.  For someone to be expelled it should be determined that they are no longer worthy of taking part in the game....and I think that's an extreme determination.  I actually posted a thread back in the day where I argued that a professional foul committed by last defender where no major physical harm is caused, which leads to a penalty should not be followed up by a red card.  I think a penalty is enough punishment, and in fact the penalty is sometimes if not most often actually be a better scoring opportunity than the one that was denied....men real fight meh down  ;D ... but I still think it makes more sense and people in general are just reluctant to think outside the set rules... I remember arguing the rule of head-to-head over goal difference before it was ever used in any FIFA competition, and get real fight down too...now head to head is a normal scene and men cool with it...oh well.

personally, i find he deserve the red. but rules are rules and if I was the ref, he would have only received a yellow. i jess find the rule is real toots. Refs should be allowed to take into account the intent of the player. Terry either believed he was the last man, or that it was a clear scoring chance or both. Otherwise he would have not committed the foul...he could have let Carvalho and the backtracking Belletti take care of it. He should get the red for intent.....just like if a man leave his feet to blade yuh, studs up by yuh knee, but he jess happen to miss he could still get his marching orders, or if he take a swing at yuh or try a Cantona-like bravestar and miss..he still walking to the dressing room early. Well the professional foul should give the ref the ability to interpret the players intent. The rules say otherwise, but Terry desreve to get a red imo.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 03:16:28 PM
It's a RED card and should of stand......he made 2 stupid plays thats why he got it, he first went for Jo's foot but didnt do to much, when he realise Jo made another step and could still get the ball he wrapped his hand around him and pulled him down, the first play would of been a yellow card but JT and his nasty play pulled him down so he deserves a red, never mine that last play rule. he was wrong twice so RED card it is.

Well luckily it have rules to the game and u is not ah ref!!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Filho on September 16, 2008, 03:40:13 PM
Went to the FIFA official site and checked the rule. And the ref was actually correct in his interpretation. The rule gives the ref leeway to decide whether there was a clear scoring opportunity and there is nothing in the rule saying Terry had to be the last man. If you look at the rule and the fact that it would have set up a two on one with Carvalho..the ref was within his rights to consider a clear goalscoring opportunity....see what allyuh think

Denying a goal or a goal-scoring opportunity
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area.

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding
whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal (distance was kinda far, so maybe ref loss dat argument)

• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (Jo clearly had full control of the ball going past Terry)

• the direction of the play (Jo was heading straight to goal)

• the location and number of defenders (Altho' Belleti was getting back, he was pretty far from the play and carvalho was stranded in a two on one)
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: sammy on September 16, 2008, 03:53:17 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.

U should get red carded fuh bein born.  Talkin shit in yuh ass bout cynical foul!!  Wey allyuh does come up wit dem jackassness from jedd?

Giggsy stop hatin jedd.  Wham Terry tief yuh white fowl aought?




lol how old are you?   go pelt off transformers yuh rent boy



So tell me exactly what does my age have to do with this? Doh get emotional cause Man U cutass book and dey go be near de bottom ah de table guy!!

here boysie...dont study mean old giggsy and dem...... play with this and cool yuh self...okaaaaaay?

(http://www.entrepremusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/babytip-rattle.jpg)
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: giggsy11 on September 16, 2008, 04:15:07 PM
He deserved the red based on his cynical foul alone.


Exactly, these defenders get away with murder and they keep doing it because they don't get punished!

not cynical... professional.

is a good thing allyuh never consider refereeing as a career, cause matches would end with 8 men minimum.



I am not saying every offense is a yellow or red card but for god sakes the ones that do sometimes don't even get that and the ones that don't do.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: fatimarima on September 16, 2008, 04:19:51 PM
This is a madd topic.  Allyuh fellas must be born and raised in England the way allyuh fussin over  Man U and Chelsea like some die hard Hooligan fans.  :devil:
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: giggsy11 on September 16, 2008, 04:32:02 PM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.



De ref was ah Man U mole and wanted to slow dong de Blues so de red bullaz could have ah better chance to try and beat de pace setters!!

Sounds like you are a newbie fan of Chelski, may be the year they won their 2 EPL titles? Cause yuh acting rell europhoric and hyper active over the fact yuh side ahead of United. If not, act like yuh been there and not like some never see come see green horn!

And u song like ah flickin retarded imps!! Euphoric over what? 4 games?!!  Jedd get real nah is early season so it ha no consolation fuh 1st place.   Except of course for the fact that pool put in in allyuh hole!! :rotfl:


Hey maybe you need to read your original post and then look up the meaning of the word EUPHORIC in addition to OVERLY EXCITED then take your Ritalin, suck on the rattler Sammy provided for you and chill until Sunday. Next time I will not be so nice, next time you will be grounded and no Chelski TV for you!
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$ on September 16, 2008, 04:46:08 PM
While it was a "professional foul"

It did not warrant a red card as he was not denying the attacker a clear goal scoring opportunity, nor was he the last defender. There were two other covering defenders in Carvalho and Cole.

The ref made a mistake thats all...rush of blood ting nah.

A yellow would have sufficed.



De ref was ah Man U mole and wanted to slow dong de Blues so de red bullaz could have ah better chance to try and beat de pace setters!!

Sounds like you are a newbie fan of Chelski, may be the year they won their 2 EPL titles? Cause yuh acting rell europhoric and hyper active over the fact yuh side ahead of United. If not, act like yuh been there and not like some never see come see green horn!

And u song like ah flickin retarded imps!! Euphoric over what? 4 games?!!  Jedd get real nah is early season so it ha no consolation fuh 1st place.   Except of course for the fact that pool put in in allyuh hole!! :rotfl:


Hey maybe you need to read your original post and then look up the meaning of the word EUPHORIC in addition to OVERLY EXCITED then take your Ritalin, suck on the rattler Sammy provided for you and chill until Sunday. Next time I will not be so nice, next time you will be grounded and no Chelski TV for you!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz oh I really feelin small now because ah you an yuh fan club :rotfl:
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: dinho on September 16, 2008, 04:54:18 PM
Went to the FIFA official site and checked the rule. And the ref was actually correct in his interpretation. The rule gives the ref leeway to decide whether there was a clear scoring opportunity and there is nothing in the rule saying Terry had to be the last man. If you look at the rule and the fact that it would have set up a two on one with Carvalho..the ref was within his rights to consider a clear goalscoring opportunity....see what allyuh think

Denying a goal or a goal-scoring opportunity
There are two sending-off offences that deal with denying an opponent an obvious opportunity to score a goal. It is not necessary for the offence to occur inside the penalty area.

If the referee applies advantage during an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and a goal is scored directly, despite the opponent’s handling the ball or fouling an opponent, the player cannot be sent off but he may still be cautioned.

Referees should consider the following circumstances when deciding
whether to send off a player for denying a goal or an obvious goalscoring
opportunity:
• the distance between the offence and the goal (distance was kinda far, so maybe ref loss dat argument)

• the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball (Jo clearly had full control of the ball going past Terry)

• the direction of the play (Jo was heading straight to goal)

• the location and number of defenders (Altho' Belleti was getting back, he was pretty far from the play and carvalho was stranded in a two on one)

but here is the problem, I watch the same play and deduce that carvalho was running across to tackle Jo.

I not saying your prediction of what he might have done is incorrect, I'm just saying that trying to forecast what Carvalho would have done or whether he was stranded, or whether it was a 2 on 1 situation is irrelevant and as such is the wrong way to apply the law.

The only question should be if Terry was the last defender or if there was anyone behind him and the goal. And Carvalho was behind Terry at the time of the foul.

So Terry was not the last man, so no red card.

This is why it was rescinded.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Midknight on September 16, 2008, 05:06:11 PM
I remember arguing the rule of head-to-head over goal difference before it was ever used in any FIFA competition, and get real fight down too...now head to head is a normal scene and men cool with it...oh well.

Sorry to burst yuh bubble, but FIFA went back to goal difference this cycle...
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Filho on September 16, 2008, 07:23:14 PM

but here is the problem, I watch the same play and deduce that carvalho was running across to tackle Jo.

I not saying your prediction of what he might have done is incorrect, I'm just saying that trying to forecast what Carvalho would have done or whether he was stranded, or whether it was a 2 on 1 situation is irrelevant and as such is the wrong way to apply the law.

The only question should be if Terry was the last defender or if there was anyone behind him and the goal. And Carvalho was behind Terry at the time of the foul.

So Terry was not the last man, so no red card.

This is why it was rescinded.


i not explicitly trying to predict what Carvalho would have done..just like you can't predict if Jo woulda score even if Terry was the last man. he coulda trip on de ball by himself, overpush de ball, shoot wide, or Cech coulda save it. And whether Terry was the last man is totally irrelevant. All that matters is whether the ref believed that a clear scoring opportunity existed. But to do so, you do have to size up a 'what if' situation..That is why the ref is asked to consider all those variables. Otherwise the rule would simply say...'If the fouls is committed by the last player before the keeper..yadda..yadda..yadda'. I just saying I could understand according to the laws of the game how a ref could see Jo and Robinho vs Carvalho as a clear scoring opportunity. Read the rules and the issues the ref must consider - time to stop bringing up the fact that Terry wasn't the last man. It is not a requisite. In any case..Terry obviously thought it was a clear scoring opportunity, or else he wouldn't have fouled Jo..If a pro assess de situation as such..who is de ref :devil:

And the fact that it was rescinded just means a panel officially didn't agree with the ref. But that doh mean the ref was wrong. Is Chelsea we talking about..let's not be naive.

And honestly..is not like I care anyhow. I just providing an alternate view that is plausible. Truth may be that the ref messed up and didn't realize carvalho  was so close. But as long as the ref defend his decision by stating what I hypothesized up top, I woulda find it plausible.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: kicker on September 16, 2008, 10:25:20 PM
I remember arguing the rule of head-to-head over goal difference before it was ever used in any FIFA competition, and get real fight down too...now head to head is a normal scene and men cool with it...oh well.

Sorry to burst yuh bubble, but FIFA went back to goal difference this cycle...

I know....that wasn't the point though....the point is that now that head-to-head has actually been used in the FIFA mainstream, the chances of fight down probably alot less than before.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: Midknight on September 17, 2008, 03:54:12 AM
I remember arguing the rule of head-to-head over goal difference before it was ever used in any FIFA competition, and get real fight down too...now head to head is a normal scene and men cool with it...oh well.

Sorry to burst yuh bubble, but FIFA went back to goal difference this cycle...

I know....that wasn't the point though....the point is that now that head-to-head has actually been used in the FIFA mainstream, the chances of fight down probably alot less than before.

not really forcing the issue, but I suspect if they switch it back, is because it get fight down, probably because Nigeria and a few other countries miss out on the WC because of essentially one bad result against the team they were head to head with.
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: assrancid on September 17, 2008, 05:53:16 AM
FA to look into Ferguson remarks 
 
It is not the first time Ferguson has criticised Keith Hackett
The Football Association is looking into remarks made by Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson about referees' chief Keith Hackett.

Ferguson claimed Hackett told referee Mark Halsey to rescind the red card given to Chelsea captain John Terry against Manchester City.

The United manager said Hackett "would never have done this for us".

Terry was exonerated on Tuesday and the referees' body said: "All matters of discipline are an issue for the FA."

Terry had been facing a three-match ban after Halsey deemed the tackle on City striker Jo was "serious foul play".

But the FA's Independent Regulatory Commission upheld Chelsea's appeal, meaning the England skipper is free to face United in Sunday's Premier League clash.

That decision clearly riled Ferguson, who will be without Nemanja Vidic for the same game after the Serbian defender was sent off against Liverpool on Saturday.

 For me it is a surprise, a positive surprise

Chelsea boss Luiz Felipe Scolari on the Terry decision

"My information is that Hackett told Halsey to rescind the red card and he would not do it," said Ferguson.

"If it had been a Manchester United player Hackett would never have done this for us."

Halsey has been removed from the list of Premier League referees for this weekend and will instead take charge of the League Two encounter between Chester and Shrewsbury.

If the FA decides to investigate Ferguson's remarks further, it will write to the United manager asking him to explain them.

BBC Radio 5 Live sports news correspondent Gordon Farquhar explained: "There is a fairly high threshold for what constitutes opinion and debate about football and for an offence to be triggered it would have to be reasonably serious.

"The FA would see an accusation of bias like this as being something which required further investigation.

"The process would now be for the FA to write to the person who made the remark and ask for their clarification and any further disciplinary action would follow on from that - but that is some way off at this point."

Hackett is yet to comment, but a spokesman for referees' body the Professional Game Match Officials Board, of which Hackett is general manager, said he had nothing to do with the decision to rescind Terry's red card.

It is not the first time Ferguson has directed his wrath at Hackett.

After United's FA Cup exit at the hands of Portsmouth last season, Ferguson launched a stinging attack on referee Martin Atkinson's handling of the game and said Hackett was "not doing his job properly".

On that occasion, the FA found him not guilty of improper conduct.

Chelsea boss Luiz Felipe Scolari admitted he was pleasantly surprised that Terry had been cleared.

"I am satisfied because it is the first time I am a coach when they changed the decision of the referee," he said.

"I think only in England this would happen. In other countries the referee is the God.

"This time the referee said he made a mistake. For me it is a surprise, a positive surprise. The Football Association understands that the referee makes mistakes sometimes like you and me."

It was initially thought that Halsey had dismissed Terry for a professional foul on Jo, but he later clarified that the offence was "serious foul play".

That is described by world governing body Fifa as using "excessive force or brutality against an opponent".
 
Title: Re: John Terry
Post by: kicker on September 17, 2008, 08:24:06 AM
I remember arguing the rule of head-to-head over goal difference before it was ever used in any FIFA competition, and get real fight down too...now head to head is a normal scene and men cool with it...oh well.

Sorry to burst yuh bubble, but FIFA went back to goal difference this cycle...

I know....that wasn't the point though....the point is that now that head-to-head has actually been used in the FIFA mainstream, the chances of fight down probably alot less than before.

not really forcing the issue, but I suspect if they switch it back, is because it get fight down, probably because Nigeria and a few other countries miss out on the WC because of essentially one bad result against the team they were head to head with.

You might be right- I could see that.  I was talking more about fight down more from an ole talk perspective...and people in general not being open minded beyond what is already written in the rule book.