All hail Wenger - Arsene strikes back

Would Wenger like some cheese to go along with his wine? I expect every manager to stick up for his team but this is silly. Let's face it, every single game in the premeirship is covered by the media and available to for video review. The media covers it more if it's the big clubs, but big ugly incidents like the one at Old Trafford would still get covered if they happened at Fratton Park with Wolves visiting. THey just wouldn't make the same headlines. The FA would still review the incidents at hand and dole out punishments.

More so, Wenger long ago should've realized that with being at a big club comes a big spotlight. His comments feel a bit like he's complaining about being under the microscope. Seems on odd thing to do after all this time and at that with being at Arsenal. Maybe he's finally cracking under the pressure of being expected to win it all with midtable budget?

 

Oh for Lord thundering Jesus, Pk166, you're right. Arsene Wenger is terribly naive. He actually expects the judicial department of the FA to be, well, judicious and to base their decisions on the evidence at hand, taken in context of all the circumstances and made without favour or prejudice towards any of the parties or pandering to the silly twaddle of the Press Corps. The silly guy from France actually thinks that these disciplinary proceedings should be run according to the long established principles of jurisprudence that are enjoyed in every civilized nation on earth, including England.

Of course,the silly ass part comes about because Arsene Wenger has plenty of evidence before him to conclude that such professional, conservative, somber second judgement will ever be forthcoming from the English FA. Was it last year that Viera was suspended for *not* calling the ref a "*#*#*#**** w**ker", as was alleged in the charge against him. The ref lied in his official report and Viera got suspended even after it was agreed by all parties that the words were never uttered by the accused party.

This year, he's facing suspension for **not** having kicked the guy who'd just clattered him to the ground. Yes, he raised his foot. Yes, one can argue intent. Yes, he pulled out of it. Obviously, the intent to kick was replaced by the intent to check his behaviour. If you're going to argue "intent", you have to argue all of it and not just the bits and pieces that suit your fancy.

What was the final results at OT? To my recollection, no one was injured. There was 45 seconds (if that) of poke chest at the final whistle and I suspect some bad language was used. The ref probably had his feelings hurt and his professionalism called into question which is not surprising considering the piss-poor job he did of it. Viera's inital caution was wrong. Fortune was not fouled. For this, the FA charge sheet reads 13 offenses committed by 8 players (6 Arsenal, 2 ManUtd) which could result in 19 game suspensions and a fine for the club. Compare, if you will, the Neill tackle on Carragher the week previous. Carragher **is** hurt. His leg is broken and he'll be out for 6 months or so. At most, Neill will get a 3 game suspension for his misdeed, if found guilty.

Does any of this strike anyone as "judicious", by any definition of the word?

 

The rules of the game say that if attempt to strike or strike, it's a straight red. I would argue based on that law of the game, the ref got it wrong and Viera should've got a straight red.

Did he keep his intent in check? I don't believe so. He was still yapping away after it. And then he went and charged into another ManU player. THat's keeping intent in check? Hardly not.

And does that have any place in the game? How many other games in the EPL does that happen in?
Are you arguing it's no big deal? It was out of the ordinary, not sportsmanlike, and worse yet, really puerile.

Even if Fortune wasn't fouled, which I feel he was, the card was for repeatedly violating the rules of the game. That's much different than a straight yellow for a bad tackle.

But Neill didn't get in the refs face about. He didn't shove some Liverpool player after the fact or taunt Carragher to his face. Neill's tackle was silly, stupid, and reckless. I doubt it was malicious beyond the desire to go in strong. That happens a lot in the game and at the professional level needs to be kept in check. But to say that Neill's actions can be compared? Not really. We're talking about several players on both teams, 8 according to the FA, acting like little school boys. Neill's case is one player being stupid. Different things.

Is there any precendence with the FA for this sort of thing?

 

hey look. I actually like Arsenal. I've never like ManU because it just seems to me that they just outspend people, and being from the land of the salary cap (america), i don't like that. this is the same reason i can't stand Chelsea now. however, lets be real about this. what arsenal did was a disgrace. It seems to me that you placed a lot of weight on the word "intent" and on the Neill tackle. Well, if you are, that's a losing argument. Because how do you prove that there was "intent" to injury on that tackle by Neill? the only thing that can be proven is that he attempted a tackle (which in and of itself is legal) and the RESULT of the tackle was an injury. in sports, people get injured. should everyone who inflicts an injury in the flow of play be banned for life. that kind of stuff happens. i myself endured a broken rib in a match once where a guy collided with me on a high ball when i was the keeper. he had NOOO intent to injure me, but i was injured. in that scenario, are you suggesting that he get a worse fine than a guy who intends to injure but fails in doing so? that's madness. there is no question that people like Keown and Laurent INTENDED to be reckless in their actions. there was NOTHING accidental about what they did to RVN. however, because only his pride was hurt, they shouldn't be punished???? if you continue to let bad actors get away this type of stuff, it only fosters a climate in which the next team feels they can do the same thing! and that's not what i turn on FSW to see ..........

 

So your point is that had not more than one player from Arsenal been involved, and had he merely tackled RvN so violently that he was put out of commission for 6 months or so, then the FA wouldn't be so up in arms about what happened?

If Keown had brought RvN down hard enough to break his leg all you sanctimonious mancs would be screaming for a lifetime ban and the largest fine in the history of football.

What happened at OT wasn't pretty by any means, but if you are to believe the manUre fans and most of the press, save the few brave souls who actually saw the incident as a tempest in a teacup, then Arsenal have committed a crime against humanity and old women and small children should not view the replays of the incident for fear that they might expire from the mere sight of them.

How anyone can argue that a schoolyard shoving match deserves more punishment than a play in which a player's season and career was put in jeopardy is beyond me, but if that is the way the FA sees it then I'm sure someone from Arsenal will get take note of the FA's position, and they will deal with the next match accordingly. I hope that manUre fans like yourself will remember that dangerous, career threatening tackles are not as bad as petulant pushing when RvN or another manUre star is being stretchered off at Highbury in March.

Oh, but that's right, for mancs it's not as bad, lest they forget that their own captain admitted to trying to end a man's career and was suspended for, what, three games?

 

Arsene. As we say on this side of the pond- "you da man!"

Of course, Wenger's strong words will only bring more indignation from the media about Arsenal's "disciplinary" record. Let the siege mentality begin, boys!

 

Boy, this is hard to believe

Namely that 2 weeks on, we're still on about the biggest non-event going...but what the heck.

Viera did NOT kick RvN. While we're on the subject, Arsene Wenger did not punch a little old lady crossing the street on the way to the stadium. Sol Campbell did not commit a bank job. Freddie Ljungberg, while guilty of looking suspiciously Swedish, did not steal the knickers off the tea lady either.

I'm willing to concede that probably some naughty language was used. RvN was taunted for missing the kick. They probably said some rather uncomplimentary things to him. Hell, I said some uncomplimentary things about the cheating twirp while I was sitting on my couch. How old is this clown from ManUtd? Six? Oh, he's an adult. Let's all assume he's heard a bit of rough language before.

The "foul" on Fortune wasn't. Viera shouldn't have been on caution.

As for the rest of it, it was handbags, all handbags and you know it. It was a little bit of poke chest. A couple of slaps at best. If you really have a santimonious need to punish the "bad boys", then fine. If contact was made, let's go. But let's spare everyone the notion that this nonsense was "the End of Civilization As We Know It". It was silly. It was ludicrous. It was ridiculous. It was not anything that deserves 19 games suspensions.

As far as the non-event being a stain on the unsullied reputation of English football and the Shame of the Nation, I think that little patch has been covered quite adequately by the English FA. If any group of people has brought the game into disrepute, it's been that troupe of clowns over the past few years. Inconsistent, injudicious, and capricious are the words to best describe their "decisions".

 

Can I just say that I don't have six posts that equal Canada Gooner Grl's first postings here! You are a most welcome addition to BS!

 

That he attempted to strike is not a copout argument, mate. It's part of the rules of the game.

 

It depends on how he did it. If he did it after screaming in the ugly ol' dutchman's mug after the missed pk, then yes because you'd have to think they're connected and their was some mallice and intent beyond a silly tackle. But that's a very specific incident. Otherwise, it should be the same type of punishment that the FA hands out in those situations.

Think about it a bit. If you're driving a car on an icy day relatively normally but you're not fully paying attention and hit a patch of black ice, spin, and smash up another car do you lose your license? Do you get criminal charges? No. You're still responsible but it's some bad luck and in hindsight more caution was needed . Neill's tackle was like that reckless and stupid. He deserves some sort of a ban and sanctions. But I think we can all agree that he didn't mean to cause harm, he was just overly agressive.

ANd maybe that's part of what's going on. Maybe at this level even that needs to get the boot from the game all together. At this level the players should be capable of avoiding tackles like that. Well, unless they're Irish and have to write about their mallicious intent after the fact.

I think what's getting lost in the media is that the unsportsmanlike behavior is not as bad as Neill's tackle in the sense of lasting physical harm. The issue is that the FA doesn't want it to be part of the game. Cuz once that's okay, why not get in the GKs face after you score a goal and scream "Who's your daddy?!??!!!". It's that whole bringing the game into disripute thing. It's detrimental to the game in different ways. If a blockheaded Polack like myself can come to grips with that, surely everyone can.

 

Remember - Canadian Grrrls Kick Ass - a popular t-shirt here.

Welcome Canada Gooner Grl from the West Coast!