Rooney match ban reduced to two games after appeal

wonderboysam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16064924.stm

England striker Wayne Rooney's ban for the Euro 2012 Championship has been reduced to two matches from three after an appeal to Uefa in Switzerland.

He was punished after being sent off for kicking Miodrag Dzudovic during a 2-2 draw with Montenegro in October.

Rooney, 26, will now be available for England's third Group D game, against joint hosts Ukraine, but will miss the fixtures against France and Sweden.
The third match of his ban has been suspended for four years.

A Uefa spokesman told BBC Sport the third game ban would kick in only if he is sent off for violent conduct in another European Championship match.
"The ban applies only to national team competition governed by Uefa," said the spokesman.

Rooney has also agreed to do one day of community service with a Uefa project.
England manager Fabio Capello joined Rooney for the 90-minute hearing before a three-man appeals panel on Thursday morning.

The Manchester United forward travelled to Nyon for the appeal after his club's shock Champions League exit at FC Basel on Wednesday.
Adrian Bevington, the Football Association director of communications and Club England managing director, said: "We've had a very fair hearing.
"Wayne and Fabio are both very pleased. Wayne will head back to Manchester as a matter of priority.
"Wayne has always made clear that he accepted it was a red card offence.
"We arrived with the possibility of him missing the entire group phase - it would have been a huge challenge for Fabio and the team, so to have him available for the final group march against Ukraine is clearly very positive."

It is believed the FA argued a three-match ban that affects games in the finals of a major tournament is a harsher sanction than a suspension of a similar length which would just affect qualifying games.
The appeal included a written letter by Dzudovic asking that the ban be reduced and the FA sent a team including Adam Lewis QC, who has previous experience of chairing Rugby Football Union appeal hearings, a Swiss sports lawyer, its own solicitor James Bonnington and a representative from external lawyers Charles Russell.

Rooney had previously admitted the kick was "stupid" but maintained that the ban was "a bit harsh".
The striker, who has scored 28 goals in 73 appearances for England, was not included in the 1-0 friendly wins over Spain and Sweden in November.
But Capello has said his most prolific forward will appear in subsequent friendlies in the new year, with one organised against the Netherlands at Wembley on 29 February.

BBC pundit Mark Lawrenson said he expected Capello to select Rooney for Euro 2012.
"England will now obviously take Wayne Rooney but I always thought they would - that question was like asking Argentina would they take Lionel Messi to the World Cup in similar circumstances. Of course they would," he said.

"Rooney's presence will be a lift to Fabio Capello and the other players. If they go into that game against Ukraine needing a win or a draw to go through they can call on him - and the fact that he is there might just inspire some big performances in the first two games from players who don't want to get left out of the third one.

"It's really good news for England and Capello and I think the right level of punishment has been reached in the end.
"I always wonder when Uefa give a three-game ban whether they are actually leaving leeway for an appeal and then room for them to reduce it."

Manchester United will play in the Europa League after being knocked out of the Champions League, but a Uefa spokesman said the suspended third game of his ban could not be invoked by a dismissal for his club.
If Rooney was sent off for violent conduct at Euro 2012, he would miss the following two matches - one automatic game for a dismissal, plus another invoked under the current suspension.
So for example, he would be out of the semi-final and final should he be dismissed for violent conduct in any quarter-final game.

double standards much? I'd imagine if this was an ordinary player there'd be no chance in hell of getting the suspension reduced

Paully D

No surprise.

UEFA and their sponsors will want their poster boy at the tournament.

They should really have added an extra match on for 'frivolous appeal' like The FA do for the majority of violent conduct appeals that they get from clubs.

Crazy Horse 6

Laughable

RayCon

Paully D wrote: »

poster boy

For what ? Potatoes ?

Turtyturd

FA sticking two fingers up to their own rules....maybe they should charge themselves.

niallo27

Does anyone know why they reduced the ban, did uefa say why, did they think he didnt kick him as hard as first thought.

Blatter

Typical from the FA.

Rooney does the same thing in a PL match; Three game ban. And don't bother appealing because we'll add another game onto that for wasting our time.

But no, they don't agree with the punishment, and of course appeal it when the shoe is on the other foot.

A bunch of incompetent and hypocritical clowns are the FA.

Mr Alan

Not quite sure how the FA will be able to dish out 3 game bans for violent conduct going forward after this.

However, the objective was clear, they just wanted their best player for as much of the tournament as possible.

CSF

Blatter wrote: »

Typical from the FA.

Rooney does the same thing in a PL match; Three game ban. And don't bother appealing because we'll add another game onto that for wasting our time.

But no, they don't agree with the punishment, and of course appeal it when the shoe is on the other foot.

A bunch of incompetent and hypocritical clowns are the FA.

They've made a fairly decent point that the disciplinary procedures of UEFA are different to their own. Makes no sense to go by their own disciplinary procedures as opposed to those of the competition they're in.

A bit surprised that the appeal has been successful, but blaming the FA for appealing is a bit rich.

Blatter

CSF wrote: »

They've made a fairly decent point that the disciplinary procedures of UEFA are different to their own. Makes no sense to go by their own disciplinary procedures as opposed to those of the competition they're in.

A bit surprised that the appeal has been successful, but blaming the FA for appealing is a bit rich.

I never blamed the FA for appealing, of course they had to.

I was making the point that it's hypocritical of the FA to take advantage of an appeals process(appealing for a violent conduct ban to be reduced) when they don't deem that justifiable in their own competition. A competition that is in the same sport, football.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

daithijjj

There isnt really an issue with the FA appealing to UEFA as has been pointed out by the different rules by both bodies.

What is a problem however, and going on from that, is that there is an apparent lack of consistency and transparency when it comes to the FA dishing out bans and charges to players who are not in the England set up. Its either favouritism or xenophobia. The fact is, the FA are indirectly affected by their actions towards their own players in an England shirt whereas players who do not come under that umbrella seem to have a tougher time. Whatever way it is dressed up it is wrong, discriminatory and sometimes gets hidden in the mix of club loyalties from fans.

So, the closer we get to the Euros, and an incident involving and England squad player goes before the FA, check out the actions taken in comparison to previous similar incidents in respect of other players.

SickBoy

I was hoping he would have gotten another game or two thrown on top of the original ban as there was clearly no grounds for an appeal.
:mad:

CSF

Blatter wrote: »

I never blamed the FA for appealing, of course they had to.

I was making the point that it's hypocritical of the FA to take advantage of an appeals process(appealing for a violent conduct ban to be reduced) when they don't deem that justifiable in their own competition. A competition that is in the same sport, football.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

No, I don't see a hypocricy. Nothing from their appeal suggests a changing of opinion on the topic. But they're obviously not going to shoot themselves in the foot by imposing their own rules on themselves while everyone else gets things easier.

SickBoy

CSF wrote: »

No, I don't see a hypocricy. Nothing from their appeal suggests a changing of opinion on the topic. But they're obviously not going to shoot themselves in the foot by imposing their own rules on themselves while everyone else gets things easier.

:eek:

Warper

Its a farce - one of the most blatant red cards you are likely to see this year. Great example being shown there.

CSF

SickBoy wrote: »

:eek:

Should Premier League clubs refuse to finish ahead of a team on head-to-head record in the Champions League because those aren't the rules they agreed to in the Premiership? No, don't be stupid. You play by the rules of the competition that you're in.

Mr Alan

Yes, but by the FA appealing a 3 game ban for violent conduct they are saying that they don't think violent conduct is worthy of a 3 game ban.

CSF

Mr Alan wrote: »

Yes, but by the FA appealing a 3 game ban for violent conduct they are saying that they don't think violent conduct is worthy of a 3 game ban.

No they aren't. You're the one making that interpretation from their actions. They're saying that they don't think that the incident constitutes a 3 game ban based on UEFA precedents and they were (somehow, don't ask me how) proven right.

Blatter

CSF wrote: »

No, I don't see a hypocricy. Nothing from their appeal suggests a changing of opinion on the topic. But they're obviously not going to shoot themselves in the foot by imposing their own rules on themselves while everyone else gets things easier.

The FA appealed the Rooney suspension on the grounds that he apologised straight afterwards and that the referee commended his acceptance of the dismissal.

However, when Rooney was banned for two games in March for swearing, Manchester United appealed to the FA to have the ban reduced on the basis that Rooney was remorseful and apologised.

And then the FA came out and said “The powers that be have got to sit down and say ‘look, to help everyone you’ve got to get a consistency, for the referee so they know whatever decision they take there is going to be a general support from the different bodies that are represented’,”

So in essence they said that nobody should interfere with decisions that are made and that their body – the F.A. – would back any action taken by the referee.

So they believe it's incorrect and they don't find it justifiable to appeal for the reduction of a ban for swearing or violent conduct in their own competition, yet they themselves find it justifiable to appeal the length of a violent conduct ban in another one?

They're saying they believe in one thing and then going against it themselves.

It's a clear case of hypocrisy.

SickBoy

They can paint it up whatever way they like but at the end of the day he was banned for 3 games for violent conduct and they appealed the decision. It stinks of hypocrisy.

CSF

Blatter wrote: »

The FA appealed the Rooney suspension on the grounds that he apologised straight afterwards and that the referee commended his acceptance of the dismissal.

However, when Rooney was banned for two games in March for swearing, Manchester United appealed to the FA to have the ban reduced on the basis that Rooney was remorseful and apologised.

And then the FA came out and said “The powers that be have got to sit down and say ‘look, to help everyone you’ve got to get a consistency, for the referee so they know whatever decision they take there is going to be a general support from the different bodies that are represented’,”

So in essence they said that nobody should interfere with decisions that are made and that their body – the F.A. – would back any action taken by the referee.

So they believe it's incorrect and they don't find it justifiable to appeal for the reduction of a ban for swearing or violent conduct in their own competition, yet they themselves find it justifiable to appeal the length of a violent conduct ban in another one?

They're saying they believe in one thing and then going against it themselves.

It's a clear case of hypocrisy.

Bans get dropped all the time by the FA. With the co-operation of the referees report usually. UEFA have reduced a ban also with a positive reference from the referee. The FA obviously had a fairly big inkling that there was a good chance of getting the ban reduced because the UEFA procedures are different.

Again, playing by the rules of the competition you're in, as opposed to your own rules, beliefs or morals is not hypocricy, it is what everyone is supposed to be doing.

Mr Alan

CSF wrote: »

No they aren't. You're the one making that interpretation from their actions. They're saying that they don't think that the incident constitutes a 3 game ban based on UEFA precedents and they were (somehow, don't ask me how) proven right.

The FA's job, moreso than helping Englands performance in a tournament is to safeguard the game on their shores.

Their Respect campaign is in a big way about improving players behaviour on the field to make the game safer & more enjoyable for everyone

http://www.thefa.com/RESPECT

By appealing the ban given to Rooney, many are seeing this as them prioritising getting him on the pitch ASAP irregardless of how stupid & dangerous his actions were over sending the message that such dangerous play is unacceptable, irregardless of who you are. It totally undermines their campaign when they're defending him for such reckless behaviour. The same behaviour they're trying to rid the game of.

flahavaj

Wish they'd extended the ban tbh.

Blatter

CSF wrote: »

Bans get dropped all the time by the FA. With the co-operation of the referees report usually. UEFA have reduced a ban also with a positive reference from the referee. The FA obviously had a fairly big inkling that there was a good chance of getting the ban reduced because the UEFA procedures are different.

Again, playing by the rules of the competition you're in, as opposed to your own rules, beliefs or morals is not hypocricy, it is what everyone is supposed to be doing.

The thing is, the competitions are in the same sport, football. Let's not get away from that, it's the same game.

The FA have a policy that you cannot appeal the length of a violent conduct charge.

Why? Because they say they don't believe a violent conduct ban should be reduced

Yet, here we have the FA going against what they are said to believe, by appealing the length of a violent conduct charge.

That makes them hypocrites in my book, as they are saying one thing yet doing another.

Yes, the rule is there that allowed them to appeal it, but they were under absolutely no obligation to use it.

CSF

Mr Alan wrote: »

The FA's job, moreso than helping Englands performance in a tournament is to safeguard the game on their shores.

Their Respect campaign is in a big way about improving players behaviour on the field to make the game safer & more enjoyable for everyone

http://www.thefa.com/RESPECT

By appealing the ban given to Rooney, many are seeing this as them prioritising getting him on the pitch ASAP irregardless of how stupid & dangerous his actions were over sending the message that such dangerous play is unacceptable, irregardless of who you are. It totally undermines their campaign when they're defending him for such reckless behaviour. The same behaviour they're trying to rid the game of.

The FA's job is to look after the game in their own competitions. It is not the FA's job to force their representative teams (be it England or English teams in Europe) to take the moral highground in competitions run by UEFA or FIFA.

Blatter wrote: »

The thing is, the competitions are in the same sport, football. Let's not get away from that, it's the same game.

The FA have a policy that you cannot appeal the length of a violent conduct charge.

Why? Because they say they don't believe a violent conduct ban should be reduced

Yet, here we have the FA going against what they are said to believe, by appealing the length of a violent conduct charge.

That makes them hypocrites in my book, as they are saying one thing yet doing another.

Yes, the rule is there that allowed them to appeal it, but they were under absolutely no obligation to use it.

When you sign upto play in a competition, you agree to follow the rules of that competition. There may be loads in there that you don't agree with or don't believe in. But you sign up to those rules when you take part in that competition. You're right, the FA were under no obligation to follow these procedures, but they would have been shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.

Mr Alan

CSF wrote: »

The FA's job is to look after the game in their own competitionscountry.

Fixed that for you.

Blatter

CSF wrote: »

When you sign upto play in a competition, you agree to follow the rules of that competition. There may be loads in there that you don't agree with or don't believe in. But you sign up to those rules when you take part in that competition. You're right, the FA were under no obligation to follow these procedures, but they would have been shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.

Correct, but most examples of hypocrisy stems from this, do they not?

Say and do one thing, but when it suits, do the opposite.

As said already, there was no obligation on their part to actively act against their ''beliefs'' but they have acted against these ''beliefs''.

I can of course see where you are coming from but I disagree that it doesn't make them hypocrites.

steelcityblues

Might be controversial, but does England exactly need Rooney?

The media put far too much emphasis on him being the 'golden boy' for the national team, yet he has rarely elevated himself to the big occasion.

CSF

Mr Alan wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

No need to fix what is not broken.

Blatter wrote: »

Correct, but most examples of hypocrisy stems from this, do they not?

Say and do one thing, but when it suits, do the opposite.

As said already, there was no obligation on their part to actively act against their ''beliefs'' but they have acted against these ''beliefs''.

I can of course see where you are coming from but I disagree that it doesn't make them hypocrites.

There is a happy medium between the moral highground and hypocricy and its my opinion that this is where the FA lie on this.

For example, I don't agree with alot of things that go on in this country economically take the size of the dole relative to the rest of Europe for instance. If it was me governing the country I'd change it. If I lost my job, would I refuse the dole though? No.

CSF

steelcityblues wrote: »

Might be controversial, but does England exactly need Rooney?

The media put far too much emphasis on him being the 'golden boy' for the national team, yet he has rarely elevated himself to the big occasion.

Have you seen the rest of their attackers/strikers/whatever attacking shape you want to play? England definitely need Rooney

steelcityblues

CSF wrote: »

Have you seen the rest of their attackers/strikers/whatever attacking shape you want to play? England definitely need Rooney

For me, rarely does Rooney match up to his club form, when playing for England.

Like Gascoigne before, he is becoming too much of a distraction from the rest of the team, IMO.

CSF

steelcityblues wrote: »

For me, rarely does Rooney match up to his club form, when playing for England.

Like Gascoigne before, he is becoming too much of a distraction from the rest of the team, IMO.

He hasn't matched his club form for England, you're right. He is still a far better option than Carroll/Defoe/Bent/Zamora whoever you decide to throw in there, even off form. His workrate alone is a massive asset to any team even when he isn't scoring or directly assisting goals.

flahavaj

steelcityblues wrote: »

For me, rarely does Rooney match up to his club form, when playing for England.

Like Gascoigne before, he is becoming too much of a distraction from the rest of the team, IMO.

When the alternatives are Bent, Carroll and Zamora then I'd be happy to have him as a "distraction" any day of the week tbh.

steelcityblues

flahavaj wrote: »

When the alternatives are Bent, Carroll and Zamora then I'd be happy to have him as a "distraction" any day of the week tbh.

You are forgetting Sturridge and Welbeck - two players who have matured a lot in a short time. If Defoe keeps up his good club form, he might get back in the fold.

One good thing recently about England, is that Capello is experimenting far more than he did a few years ago.

CSF

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are forgetting Sturridge and Welbeck - two players who have matured a lot in a short time. If Defoe keeps up his good club form, he might get back in the fold.

One good thing recently about England, is that Capello is experimenting far more than he did a few years ago.

Sturridge and Welbeck aren't fit to lace Rooney's boots. Both players are players of the future (imo Sturridge moreso than Welbeck) but if either were to displace Rooney it would be appalling.

flahavaj

steelcityblues wrote: »

You are forgetting Sturridge and Welbeck - two players who have matured a lot in a short time. If Defoe keeps up his good club form, he might get back in the fold.

One good thing recently about England, is that Capello is experimenting far more than he did a few years ago.

IMO with everyone possible available, I'd play Rooney flanked by Sturridge and Welbeck.

Good and all as they are, if its a straight choice between him and either of them though it'd be insanity to pick anyone but Rooney.

steelcityblues

flahavaj wrote: »

IMO with everyone possible available, I'd play Rooney flanked by Sturridge and Welbeck.

Good and all as they are, if its a straight choice between him and either of them though it'd be insanity to pick anyone but Rooney.

Though lets say if both are involved in the first two matches, and seriously impress against France and Sweden, should Rooney be drafted in for the Ukraine game?

Might not be the best for the squad morale.

flahavaj

steelcityblues wrote: »

Though lets say if both are involved in the first two matches, and seriously impress against France and Sweden, should Rooney be drafted in for the Ukraine game?

Might not be the best for the squad morale.

Of course. He's still the better player and picking them based on the evidence of a couple of games wiuld be stupid. You could still play all three anyway like I think they should and everyone's happy. I'd also say Sturridge and Welbeck are perfectly well aware of their place in the pecking order relative to England's best player.

steelcityblues

flahavaj wrote: »

Of course. He's still the better player and picking them based on the evidence of a couple of games wiuld be stupid. You could still play all three anyway like I think they should and everyone's happy. I'd also say Sturridge and Welbeck are perfectly well aware of their place in the pecking order relative to England's best player.

How do you know he is England's best player?

Most recognisable, I agree. But do his performances suggest he is the best?

Blatter

CSF wrote: »

There is a happy medium between the moral highground and hypocricy and its my opinion that this is where the FA lie on this.

For example, I don't agree with alot of things that go on in this country economically take the size of the dole relative to the rest of Europe for instance. If it was me governing the country I'd change it. If I lost my job, would I refuse the dole though? No.

Well, complaining about the size of the dole and then going ahead and taking it when it suits you would be hypocrisy in my book. Although understandable as needs must and all that, it's still showing a degree of hypocrisy.

There's different levels of hypocrisy for sure and the example with the FA isn't the most blatant example you'll ever see, but hypocrisy nevertheless.

flahavaj

steelcityblues wrote: »

How do you know he is England's best player?

Most recognisable, I agree. But do his performances suggest he is the best?

Its called an opinion.

Who would you say is better?

Even if he's not their best player, your suggestion that the alternatives are better based on some silly idea about "distractions" is ridiculous.

RasTa

Meh, if it was the FAI for Keane or something we would all be delighted.

steelcityblues

flahavaj wrote: »

Its called an opinion.

Who would you say is better?

Even if he's not their best player, your suggestion that the alternatives are better based on some silly idea about "distractions" is ridiculous.

The veteran defenders like Ashley Cole and John Terry, have probably been the more consistent performers through the years. At least Terry was prior to the last WC.

Also, Scott Parker has looked tremendous in recent matches.

Obviously Rooney has been great for United, but for some reason he is a step below when he wears the white jersey. Messi too does not match his club form with Argentina.

Look at Joachim Loew - who chose Klose over Gomez at the last World Cup, because he knew Klose was the more reliable, despite a torrid few years with Bayern.

Again, the media expect miracles from Rooney.

flahavaj

steelcityblues wrote: »

The veteran defenders like Ashley Cole and John Terry, have probably been the more consistent performers through the years. At least Terry was prior to the last WC.

Also, Scott Parker has looked tremendous in recent matches.

Obviously Rooney has been great for United, but for some reason he is a step below when he wears the white jersey. Messi too does not match his club form with Argentina.

Look at Joachim Loew - who chose Klose over Gomez at the last World Cup, because he knew Klose was the more reliable, despite a torrid few years with Bayern.

Again, the media expect miracles from Rooney.

If you were to drop players for being underwhelming in the England jersey then you'd have to start with w whole new squad in fairness.

Rooney is one of the best players around, if he is available he has to play.

I do find Scott Parker's sudden elevation into a top class players somewhat amusing. Decent Pl level player and all that and deserves to play for Englad in the absence of any other quality options as a DM, but jesus like, hardly Lothar Matthaus either.

I doubt Fergie is jumping for joy at this decision.

AgileMyth

flahavaj wrote: »

Rooney is one of the best players around,

When hes on form. Consistency is not his strong point.

flahavaj

AgileMyth wrote: »

When hes on form. Consistency is not his strong point.

I've addressed this point on the previous page. Not sure how you could have missed it tbh.

curry-muff

Apparently a big part of the reduction was the fact that Miodrag Dzudovic sent in a mercy plea to UEFA, feeling that the 3 match ban was too harsh.

He also said after it:

'Rooney will play against Ukraine now? Well, I think Ukraine won't be angry with me. It's football justice. The punishment was too hard, too hard for that foul. I'm glad to help somebody to play at such a great tournament as Euro 2012. Now England will be more interesting to watch.'

I didn't know Ukraine and Montenegro were big rivals :pac:

That_Guy

How Rooney got his ban reduced.

SantryRed

curry-muff wrote: »

Apparently a big part of the reduction was the fact that Miodrag Dzudovic sent in a mercy plea to UEFA, feeling that the 3 match ban was too harsh.

He also said after it:



I didn't know Ukraine and Montenegro were big rivals :pac:

I'm convinced he's been given some money for that.

Crazy Horse 6

curry-muff wrote: »

Apparently a big part of the reduction was the fact that Miodrag Dzudovic sent in a mercy plea to UEFA, feeling that the 3 match ban was too harsh.
He also said after it:
I didn't know Ukraine and Montenegro were big rivals :pac:

Im sure he got well paid to say that.