The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
No doubt Man U fans will rush to his defence, but in all seriousness, does he have a future in football? More to the point, SHOULD he have a future in football?
After disgracing himself in the debacle with the Republic of Ireland at the World Cup, he now admits in his book that the 'challenge' on Alf Inge Haaland was in fact premeditated - in other words, a deliberate assault.
He was sent off and banned for three games at the time, and now faces another FA disrepute charge. To be honest, I don't think a disrepute charge is enough - unless any related fine is massive, and any additional ban is substantially more than three games.
This is an interesting test for the FA. Will they dare impose a second ban for the same offence, now that they know it was a deliberate assault? Having recently fined Arsenal £50,000 for their "disciplinary problems" last season, surely an admission of a deliberate assault on a fellow professional warrants at least an equal amount? And probably a lengthy suspension too?
Haaland has played just one full game since the incident; his career has been on hold at best, and at worst could be over. I hope that he decides to press formal assault charges. Whehter you like Keane or not, there is surely no defence whatsoever for these actions.
This admission surely also diminishes his standing among his fellow professionals. Personally I have always believed that he is quite simply a nasty piece of work - now he's proved it.
There are two certainties arising from this admission:
1. Keane is a bigger idiot than even I gave him credit for. Committing the offence was bad enough; admitting it publicly is utterly moronic.
2. This season's derby matches between United and City will certainly be worth watching.
After disgracing himself in the debacle with the Republic of Ireland at the World Cup, he now admits in his book that the 'challenge' on Alf Inge Haaland was in fact premeditated - in other words, a deliberate assault.
He was sent off and banned for three games at the time, and now faces another FA disrepute charge. To be honest, I don't think a disrepute charge is enough - unless any related fine is massive, and any additional ban is substantially more than three games.
This is an interesting test for the FA. Will they dare impose a second ban for the same offence, now that they know it was a deliberate assault? Having recently fined Arsenal £50,000 for their "disciplinary problems" last season, surely an admission of a deliberate assault on a fellow professional warrants at least an equal amount? And probably a lengthy suspension too?
Haaland has played just one full game since the incident; his career has been on hold at best, and at worst could be over. I hope that he decides to press formal assault charges. Whehter you like Keane or not, there is surely no defence whatsoever for these actions.
This admission surely also diminishes his standing among his fellow professionals. Personally I have always believed that he is quite simply a nasty piece of work - now he's proved it.
There are two certainties arising from this admission:
1. Keane is a bigger idiot than even I gave him credit for. Committing the offence was bad enough; admitting it publicly is utterly moronic.
2. This season's derby matches between United and City will certainly be worth watching.
Page:
Fergie said the Man Utd Laywers looked at the book before it was published, and that Roy had nothing to worry about.
From http://www.thisislondon.com/ dynamic/sport/reprint.html?in_review_id=701882
(Remove space)
"The Cork-born player is expected to base his defence on the observation that ghost-writer Eamonn Dunphy incorrectly paraphrased his comments over the horrendous tackle which floored Manchester City's Haaland in April last year."
So he didn't read his own book before it went to the publishers? Considering the legalities involved, you're think he'd have made time to make sure he was happy with sections such as this.
Pull the other one, Keano - it's got bells on!
(Remove space)
"The Cork-born player is expected to base his defence on the observation that ghost-writer Eamonn Dunphy incorrectly paraphrased his comments over the horrendous tackle which floored Manchester City's Haaland in April last year."
So he didn't read his own book before it went to the publishers? Considering the legalities involved, you're think he'd have made time to make sure he was happy with sections such as this.
Pull the other one, Keano - it's got bells on!
Keane really does annoy me sometimes.
I reckon he could easily be given another ban for the tackle and saying it was deliberate, simply for bringing the game into disrepute.
There's no way that the FA will let him get away with it.
And Vieira?
Doesn't he start every match with a yellow card anyway for being French?
Funnily enough, this was one tackle Wenger DID see. I couldn't believe it when I read that. Mind you, he was standing right on the touchline. Bo)
I reckon he could easily be given another ban for the tackle and saying it was deliberate, simply for bringing the game into disrepute.
There's no way that the FA will let him get away with it.
And Vieira?
Doesn't he start every match with a yellow card anyway for being French?
Funnily enough, this was one tackle Wenger DID see. I couldn't believe it when I read that. Mind you, he was standing right on the touchline. Bo)
lalakersrule wrote:
> First off why was vieria's foot off the ground in the first place? The
> ball was on the ground so obviously that tells me he's going in over
> the ball and not trying to play it. Or if he is that's a pretty
> unorthodox way of tackling.
It was not a tackle, it was a block. How much football do you watch? I'm guessing not a lot, because players frequently raise legs to block passes. Vieira's feet are higher off the ground when he runs than they were during the incident.
Had Gronkjaer decided not to kick the ball away, but decided to try and cut back inside Vieira, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because his foot wouldn't have been swinging, and no contaact would have been made.
If you pay attention to the replay, Vieira's back was half turned towards Gronkjaer when the contact happened. Difficult to foul someone like that, unless it's obstruction - and no upper-body contact was made.
> Gronkjaer kicked the ball away and due to the way it was kicked he
> left the ground and then Vieria came in and caught his leg. I think if
> the ball is gone or not is pretty relevant actually seeing as if
> gronkjaer's already played the ball which he did then that means
> Vierias late with a challenge.
For the last time - it was not a challenge, it was a BLOCK. Learn the difference and apply your new knowledge to the replay. Whether the ball had gone or not is irrelevant, because Vieira wasn't challenging to win the ball - he was attempting to block the forward pass.
> i didn't say Campbells arms were swinging i said he threw his arm back
That's a swinging arm in my book. Campbells arms were hardly moving, and certainly weren't thrown anywhere. He was doing no more than every player does all the time, to make it hard for the opposition to get the ball. If the diving Italian jockeyboy wants to make a meal of it, that's his problem.
> Dangerous and violent play red card for Keown please.
'fraid not.
> First off why was vieria's foot off the ground in the first place? The
> ball was on the ground so obviously that tells me he's going in over
> the ball and not trying to play it. Or if he is that's a pretty
> unorthodox way of tackling.
It was not a tackle, it was a block. How much football do you watch? I'm guessing not a lot, because players frequently raise legs to block passes. Vieira's feet are higher off the ground when he runs than they were during the incident.
Had Gronkjaer decided not to kick the ball away, but decided to try and cut back inside Vieira, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because his foot wouldn't have been swinging, and no contaact would have been made.
If you pay attention to the replay, Vieira's back was half turned towards Gronkjaer when the contact happened. Difficult to foul someone like that, unless it's obstruction - and no upper-body contact was made.
> Gronkjaer kicked the ball away and due to the way it was kicked he
> left the ground and then Vieria came in and caught his leg. I think if
> the ball is gone or not is pretty relevant actually seeing as if
> gronkjaer's already played the ball which he did then that means
> Vierias late with a challenge.
For the last time - it was not a challenge, it was a BLOCK. Learn the difference and apply your new knowledge to the replay. Whether the ball had gone or not is irrelevant, because Vieira wasn't challenging to win the ball - he was attempting to block the forward pass.
> i didn't say Campbells arms were swinging i said he threw his arm back
That's a swinging arm in my book. Campbells arms were hardly moving, and certainly weren't thrown anywhere. He was doing no more than every player does all the time, to make it hard for the opposition to get the ball. If the diving Italian jockeyboy wants to make a meal of it, that's his problem.
> Dangerous and violent play red card for Keown please.
'fraid not.
apparently Forlan didn't want to take it.
Understandable, since it would have meant nothing if he'd scored, as it's a penalty, and not a goal in open play, and if he's missed, he's have believed he was jinxed, and his morale would have dropped like loose trousers
Understandable, since it would have meant nothing if he'd scored, as it's a penalty, and not a goal in open play, and if he's missed, he's have believed he was jinxed, and his morale would have dropped like loose trousers
yea well in today's Sun anyway Fergie has spoken out against Keane and fined him £180,000. And can i just say about flipping time to. Might increase the morale in the camp finally seeing he's being punished. Also a quick suggstion to Fergie cause i know he reads these forums :) How about fining Keane another 100k for stopping Forlan taking the penalty It was his night right there and Keane went and ruined it
By the way, Fergie has actually said Keane deserved to be sent off after looking at the footage from the other angle. And also mentioned it was the first time a United player has been sent off for using an elbow. Keane will also probably be fined £150K in wages.
haven't read all of this thread, nor scoured the news for the latest.
I will say this however:
Roy Keane, deliberate or otherwise, made an atrocious tackle. He was punished by the FA. Just because he has now put his hand up and claimed it was intended, does not give the right to sentence him again. By all means, let the victim take civil action for assault, punitive damages in such a case would be far more punishment than the FA would ever dare to impose.
People say such tackles have no place in football. True. But then, diving has no place in football either, or deliberate handball. If any of these things are not picked up, they can make or break champions, writing history in a perverted manner. Football has a lot of problems, Roy Keane is not one of them. He is just someone who has broken the rules, and paid the price.
Near enough every time he makes a bad challenge, he will be punished. If the other party ever wants to take it further, I'm confident they can afford an attorney that can take it there.
Personally, I don't think intent makes any difference. Only the result of the challenge.
I will say this however:
Roy Keane, deliberate or otherwise, made an atrocious tackle. He was punished by the FA. Just because he has now put his hand up and claimed it was intended, does not give the right to sentence him again. By all means, let the victim take civil action for assault, punitive damages in such a case would be far more punishment than the FA would ever dare to impose.
People say such tackles have no place in football. True. But then, diving has no place in football either, or deliberate handball. If any of these things are not picked up, they can make or break champions, writing history in a perverted manner. Football has a lot of problems, Roy Keane is not one of them. He is just someone who has broken the rules, and paid the price.
Near enough every time he makes a bad challenge, he will be punished. If the other party ever wants to take it further, I'm confident they can afford an attorney that can take it there.
Personally, I don't think intent makes any difference. Only the result of the challenge.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> lalakersrule wrote:
> lemme check this through. *and he made no contact* and *his follow
> through hit vierias foot*
>
> can you clear that up for me
>
> Okay, in simple terms...
>
> The ball broke to Gronkjaer. Vieira went after it. As Gronkjaer went
> to kick the ball, Vieira got himself in front of him, with a foot
> raised about 12 inches from the pitch, to block the forward ball. No
> contact so far.
First off why was vieria's foot off the ground in the first place? The ball was on the ground so obviously that tells me he's going in over the ball and not trying to play it. Or if he is that's a pretty unorthodox way of tackling.
> Gronkjaer kicks the ball with his left foot (I think). The ball
> travels off - can't remember if it hit Vieira or got past, but that's
> irrelevant.
>
> As Gronkjaer's left foot follows through the swing of the kick, it
> hits Vieira's boot.
>
> Put simply, Vieira did not make contact with Gronkjaer - Gronkjaer
> made contact with Vieira. Hence, no foul was made by Vieira.
Gronkjaer kicked the ball away and due to the way it was kicked he left the ground and then Vieria came in and caught his leg. I think if the ball is gone or not is pretty relevant actually seeing as if gronkjaer's already played the ball which he did then that means Vierias late with a challenge. Usually a late challenge results in action from the referee.
> Campbell threw his arm back and caught Zola in the face
>
> Campbell's arms weren't swinging - it was a straightforward battle for
> the ball. Campbell had it, Zola wanted it, Campbell kept it. Zola
> obviously didn't feel that hard done by, because they were smiling and
> shaking hands afterwards - two professionals, accepting that, hey,
> s**t happens in a game.
i didn't say Campbells arms were swinging i said he threw his arm back and caught Zola in the face which left him on the ground for a few seconds. Then on the same run Campbell used what looked like an elbow to get De Lucas out the way and he ended up on the ground clutching his face for a while as well. Of course Zola isn't going to get angry what's he going to do headbutt Campbell in the knee? Plus he's the calm Italian everyone loves.
> Keown gave him a pretty good shove in the top of the chest that was
> more vicious then the Keane incident yesterday.
>
> I'm sorry, but a push on the chest is nowhere near as vicious as an
> elbow in the head. And it's not like Hasselbaink is an angel - he was
> giving as good as he was getting.
Keown obviously had some intent on that shove if you saw his look he gave to Hasselbaink and it was very hard. The fact it was near the throat makes it even more dangerous and deserved action. I only saw Hasselbaink bump into Keown as he was walking around the box and then Keown lashed out at him. Dangerous and violent play red card for Keown please. When they're reviewing the Vieria incident how about reviewing that as well.
> lalakersrule wrote:
> lemme check this through. *and he made no contact* and *his follow
> through hit vierias foot*
>
> can you clear that up for me
>
> Okay, in simple terms...
>
> The ball broke to Gronkjaer. Vieira went after it. As Gronkjaer went
> to kick the ball, Vieira got himself in front of him, with a foot
> raised about 12 inches from the pitch, to block the forward ball. No
> contact so far.
First off why was vieria's foot off the ground in the first place? The ball was on the ground so obviously that tells me he's going in over the ball and not trying to play it. Or if he is that's a pretty unorthodox way of tackling.
> Gronkjaer kicks the ball with his left foot (I think). The ball
> travels off - can't remember if it hit Vieira or got past, but that's
> irrelevant.
>
> As Gronkjaer's left foot follows through the swing of the kick, it
> hits Vieira's boot.
>
> Put simply, Vieira did not make contact with Gronkjaer - Gronkjaer
> made contact with Vieira. Hence, no foul was made by Vieira.
Gronkjaer kicked the ball away and due to the way it was kicked he left the ground and then Vieria came in and caught his leg. I think if the ball is gone or not is pretty relevant actually seeing as if gronkjaer's already played the ball which he did then that means Vierias late with a challenge. Usually a late challenge results in action from the referee.
> Campbell threw his arm back and caught Zola in the face
>
> Campbell's arms weren't swinging - it was a straightforward battle for
> the ball. Campbell had it, Zola wanted it, Campbell kept it. Zola
> obviously didn't feel that hard done by, because they were smiling and
> shaking hands afterwards - two professionals, accepting that, hey,
> s**t happens in a game.
i didn't say Campbells arms were swinging i said he threw his arm back and caught Zola in the face which left him on the ground for a few seconds. Then on the same run Campbell used what looked like an elbow to get De Lucas out the way and he ended up on the ground clutching his face for a while as well. Of course Zola isn't going to get angry what's he going to do headbutt Campbell in the knee? Plus he's the calm Italian everyone loves.
> Keown gave him a pretty good shove in the top of the chest that was
> more vicious then the Keane incident yesterday.
>
> I'm sorry, but a push on the chest is nowhere near as vicious as an
> elbow in the head. And it's not like Hasselbaink is an angel - he was
> giving as good as he was getting.
Keown obviously had some intent on that shove if you saw his look he gave to Hasselbaink and it was very hard. The fact it was near the throat makes it even more dangerous and deserved action. I only saw Hasselbaink bump into Keown as he was walking around the box and then Keown lashed out at him. Dangerous and violent play red card for Keown please. When they're reviewing the Vieria incident how about reviewing that as well.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
You don't win the double having crap defenders.
> Neville brothers excluded.
LOL, Gary's not that bad and I would rather have him in the england team than Danny Mills but the less said about Phil the better.
You don't win the double having crap defenders.
> Neville brothers excluded.
LOL, Gary's not that bad and I would rather have him in the england team than Danny Mills but the less said about Phil the better.
Page: