The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The following is a report from Sun Sport, and proves that Vieira is victimised by the FA, in my opinion.
-----
PATRICK VIEIRA has been banned for two matches and fined £25,000 - despite a lip reader insisting he never swore at referee Andy D'Urso.
The Arsenal skipper was found guilty of misconduct yesterday following a red card verbal showdown with D'Urso at Chelsea in September.
And the verdict has infuriated Gunners manager Arsene Wenger.
The French star was cleared of abusive language, after D'Urso alleged in his report he had faced a torrent of swear words and was called a 'f****** w*****'.
But the four-man FA panel at Soho Square judged Vieira had used insulting words, shouting that the ref had 'no personality'.
The Gunners had produced written evidence from the lip-reader as part of their bid to get Vieira totally off the charge.
Arsenal claimed the midfielder only spoke to D'Urso for a maximum of five seconds. The full sequence of comments D'Urso alleged was made would, the club claimed, have taken at least 30.
Wenger fumed after the verdict: "We are naturally very disappointed at this decision and will be thinking about an appeal over the next couple of days."
Vieira clashed with D'Urso after being red-carded for a foul on Chelsea's Jesper Gronkjaer, which was his second bookable offence of the match.
The player has already served a one-game ban for the sending-off - the eighth of his career.
Arsenal have 14 days to appeal against the latest FA action. But they are aware their inspirational French star could then face an increased sentence and fine if the appeal goes against him.
And with the vital Old Trafford date with Manchester United looming on December 7, they will want their captain back as soon as possible.
For now, Vieira, 27, will miss the North London derby with Spurs at Highbury on November 16 and the away trip to Southampton on November 23 as he becomes the first victim of the FA's new crackdown on players mouthing off against officials.
Vieira's latest fine brings his total pay-out to the FA on misconduct charges to an incredible £103,000 since he signed for the Gunners for £4million in August 1996.
It was his seventh misconduct charge overall and the sixth of which he has been found guilty.
His failure to escape punishment capped a bad week for Wenger, who has already seen his team lose their unbeaten Premiership record plus suffer a home Champions League defeat to Auxerre.
As well as the lip reader, Arsenal had called in a legal team led by Mark Phillips QC to the hearing.
They were at pains to point out the club's improved disciplinary record.
Also joining Wenger in attendance was striker Kanu, who was standing next to Vieira and D'Urso during their bust-up.
D'Urso was the only prosecution witness.
However, the FA commission consisting of Barry Bright, John Davey, Peter Heard and Alan Turvey had little option but to support D'Urso's evidence or they risked a referees' backlash.
Ironically, Vieira was cleared of misconduct earlier this year after initially being accused of elbowing Chelsea striker Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.
-----
So Vieira has effectively been cleared of the charges made by Andy D'Urso (using "foul and abusive language"), but the FA have fined and banned him anyway. Worse, if he appeals and loses, both the fine and ban could be increased.
Vieira allegedly said that Duh-so had "no personality"? Well not only is it probably true, but I also doubt that is the worst the Duh-so has heard in his long and pointless career as a (poor) referee. Reporting a player for that only proves the point. His day job is probably as an accountant.
But what of the FA? They apparently "had little option but to support D'Urso's evidence or they risked a referees' backlash". So they're scared of a bunch of part-time power-crazed Hitler's? Worried they'd walk out? Big deal! Most of them aren't fit for the job anyway. Let them go and get some people in who can do the job properly. In any other vocation, such half-assed efforts would mean instant dismissal.
I think a lot of these refs just like the idea of pushing around the stars of the game. It makes them feel big in their otherwise worthless little lives, before they go home to their ugly wife in curlers for another night of no sex and listening to the fat slapper snore her bedsocks off.
So in my humble opinion, if Vieira did call Duh-so a 'f****** w*****', it wasn't an insult - he was simply pointing out the facts.
-----
PATRICK VIEIRA has been banned for two matches and fined £25,000 - despite a lip reader insisting he never swore at referee Andy D'Urso.
The Arsenal skipper was found guilty of misconduct yesterday following a red card verbal showdown with D'Urso at Chelsea in September.
And the verdict has infuriated Gunners manager Arsene Wenger.
The French star was cleared of abusive language, after D'Urso alleged in his report he had faced a torrent of swear words and was called a 'f****** w*****'.
But the four-man FA panel at Soho Square judged Vieira had used insulting words, shouting that the ref had 'no personality'.
The Gunners had produced written evidence from the lip-reader as part of their bid to get Vieira totally off the charge.
Arsenal claimed the midfielder only spoke to D'Urso for a maximum of five seconds. The full sequence of comments D'Urso alleged was made would, the club claimed, have taken at least 30.
Wenger fumed after the verdict: "We are naturally very disappointed at this decision and will be thinking about an appeal over the next couple of days."
Vieira clashed with D'Urso after being red-carded for a foul on Chelsea's Jesper Gronkjaer, which was his second bookable offence of the match.
The player has already served a one-game ban for the sending-off - the eighth of his career.
Arsenal have 14 days to appeal against the latest FA action. But they are aware their inspirational French star could then face an increased sentence and fine if the appeal goes against him.
And with the vital Old Trafford date with Manchester United looming on December 7, they will want their captain back as soon as possible.
For now, Vieira, 27, will miss the North London derby with Spurs at Highbury on November 16 and the away trip to Southampton on November 23 as he becomes the first victim of the FA's new crackdown on players mouthing off against officials.
Vieira's latest fine brings his total pay-out to the FA on misconduct charges to an incredible £103,000 since he signed for the Gunners for £4million in August 1996.
It was his seventh misconduct charge overall and the sixth of which he has been found guilty.
His failure to escape punishment capped a bad week for Wenger, who has already seen his team lose their unbeaten Premiership record plus suffer a home Champions League defeat to Auxerre.
As well as the lip reader, Arsenal had called in a legal team led by Mark Phillips QC to the hearing.
They were at pains to point out the club's improved disciplinary record.
Also joining Wenger in attendance was striker Kanu, who was standing next to Vieira and D'Urso during their bust-up.
D'Urso was the only prosecution witness.
However, the FA commission consisting of Barry Bright, John Davey, Peter Heard and Alan Turvey had little option but to support D'Urso's evidence or they risked a referees' backlash.
Ironically, Vieira was cleared of misconduct earlier this year after initially being accused of elbowing Chelsea striker Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.
-----
So Vieira has effectively been cleared of the charges made by Andy D'Urso (using "foul and abusive language"), but the FA have fined and banned him anyway. Worse, if he appeals and loses, both the fine and ban could be increased.
Vieira allegedly said that Duh-so had "no personality"? Well not only is it probably true, but I also doubt that is the worst the Duh-so has heard in his long and pointless career as a (poor) referee. Reporting a player for that only proves the point. His day job is probably as an accountant.
But what of the FA? They apparently "had little option but to support D'Urso's evidence or they risked a referees' backlash". So they're scared of a bunch of part-time power-crazed Hitler's? Worried they'd walk out? Big deal! Most of them aren't fit for the job anyway. Let them go and get some people in who can do the job properly. In any other vocation, such half-assed efforts would mean instant dismissal.
I think a lot of these refs just like the idea of pushing around the stars of the game. It makes them feel big in their otherwise worthless little lives, before they go home to their ugly wife in curlers for another night of no sex and listening to the fat slapper snore her bedsocks off.
So in my humble opinion, if Vieira did call Duh-so a 'f****** w*****', it wasn't an insult - he was simply pointing out the facts.
Page:
I'm not trying to say he deserved to get banned or anything, it's just that I don't see how this one incident proves he is definitley being victimised by the FA on a regular basis.
They always make mistakes and c***-ups - that's the one thing they seem to do best besides actually doing their job! Look at the Wembley project for example... and now the main bloke in-charge is letting that poncey Adam Crozier walk all-over him - despite his greater-authority.
And they aren't doing anything to help refferees either.
Similr things like this have happened before, but we haven't accused the FA of "victimising" those players. I still don't see it...
But by all means, he did not deserve to get banned after they saw the ref was wrong. That's not victimisation though.
They always make mistakes and c***-ups - that's the one thing they seem to do best besides actually doing their job! Look at the Wembley project for example... and now the main bloke in-charge is letting that poncey Adam Crozier walk all-over him - despite his greater-authority.
And they aren't doing anything to help refferees either.
Similr things like this have happened before, but we haven't accused the FA of "victimising" those players. I still don't see it...
But by all means, he did not deserve to get banned after they saw the ref was wrong. That's not victimisation though.
Solskjær wrote:
> If he was being 'victimised' then surely this kind-of thing would be
> happening to him on a regular basis, and not just in one match every
> year?
Oh come on! He only has to sneeze and they ban him!
As I said in the original post, they basically found him innocent of the charge and yet still banned him. How else can you explain it, apart from victimisation?
I've looked ona few footy sites, and it seems most fans - even those of other clubs - find the ban unjust and ludicrously stupid.
> If he was being 'victimised' then surely this kind-of thing would be
> happening to him on a regular basis, and not just in one match every
> year?
Oh come on! He only has to sneeze and they ban him!
As I said in the original post, they basically found him innocent of the charge and yet still banned him. How else can you explain it, apart from victimisation?
I've looked ona few footy sites, and it seems most fans - even those of other clubs - find the ban unjust and ludicrously stupid.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Because basically he has been found innocent of the charges made, yet
> still banned and fined.
>
> The charge was the use of "foul and abusive language". It
> has been proven that he did not swear at the ref - hence he is
> innocent. Yet he has still been banned and fined.
>
> I'm sorry, but saying to someone "you have no personality"
> does not justify a ban and fine. It's not even an insult!
But I still don't see how this proves Vieira is 'constatly' being victimised by them! This is only a one-off incident, the first time this has happened to Vieira in a long-time - if not ever.
If he was being 'victimised' then surely this kind-of thing would be happening to him on a regular basis, and not just in one match every year?
> Because basically he has been found innocent of the charges made, yet
> still banned and fined.
>
> The charge was the use of "foul and abusive language". It
> has been proven that he did not swear at the ref - hence he is
> innocent. Yet he has still been banned and fined.
>
> I'm sorry, but saying to someone "you have no personality"
> does not justify a ban and fine. It's not even an insult!
But I still don't see how this proves Vieira is 'constatly' being victimised by them! This is only a one-off incident, the first time this has happened to Vieira in a long-time - if not ever.
If he was being 'victimised' then surely this kind-of thing would be happening to him on a regular basis, and not just in one match every year?
Primal wrote:
> You have blatantly put "a report from Sun Sport". Now,
> correct me if I am wrong, but I thought every person in the country
> with an IQ greater than 10 realises that the Sun prints nothing but
> rubbish.
True for general news, but the same doesn't apply to their sports news. Yes, they over-dramaticise things, but the sports news is generally accurate.
Besides, this story was basically the same wherever you read it. This just happened to be copied from their website, and I was simply giving the necessary credit!
> You have blatantly put "a report from Sun Sport". Now,
> correct me if I am wrong, but I thought every person in the country
> with an IQ greater than 10 realises that the Sun prints nothing but
> rubbish.
True for general news, but the same doesn't apply to their sports news. Yes, they over-dramaticise things, but the sports news is generally accurate.
Besides, this story was basically the same wherever you read it. This just happened to be copied from their website, and I was simply giving the necessary credit!
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The following is a report from Sun Sport, and proves that Vieira is
> victimised by the FA, in my opinion.
No offence but I don't need to read the rest of this post.
You have blatantly put "a report from Sun Sport". Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought every person in the country with an IQ greater than 10 realises that the Sun prints nothing but rubbish.
> The following is a report from Sun Sport, and proves that Vieira is
> victimised by the FA, in my opinion.
No offence but I don't need to read the rest of this post.
You have blatantly put "a report from Sun Sport". Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought every person in the country with an IQ greater than 10 realises that the Sun prints nothing but rubbish.
Hmm... now let's see how THIS one turns out...
"Blackburn boss Graeme Souness has urged referee Graham Barber to review Garry Flitcroft's second caution in the 2-1 win at Highbury."
Fair enough. I haven't seen the highlights, but if it was a dodgy decision, it's only fair.
But!
When D'Urso sent Vieira off against Chelsea, the FA came up with some line that it was "not possible to rescind individual yellow cards, only straight red ones".
Odd, because early in the season, Cisse had a 2nd yellow rescinded and escaped a ban.
Then a few weeks after the Chelsea game, we had Ivan Campo's sending off against Arsenal for two yellows. And? Yep - one of the yellow's is rescinded and Campo escapes a ban.
So let's see what happens with this one.
"Blackburn boss Graeme Souness has urged referee Graham Barber to review Garry Flitcroft's second caution in the 2-1 win at Highbury."
Fair enough. I haven't seen the highlights, but if it was a dodgy decision, it's only fair.
But!
When D'Urso sent Vieira off against Chelsea, the FA came up with some line that it was "not possible to rescind individual yellow cards, only straight red ones".
Odd, because early in the season, Cisse had a 2nd yellow rescinded and escaped a ban.
Then a few weeks after the Chelsea game, we had Ivan Campo's sending off against Arsenal for two yellows. And? Yep - one of the yellow's is rescinded and Campo escapes a ban.
So let's see what happens with this one.
http://www.football365.com/You_Say_We_say /MailBox/story_44869.shtml
(Remove 1 space)
(Remove 1 space)
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The charge was the use of "foul and abusive language". It
> has been proven that he did not swear at the ref - hence he is
> innocent. Yet he has still been banned and fined.
That's all this post needed ;-)
Viera did nothing wrong, and gets banned.
> The charge was the use of "foul and abusive language". It
> has been proven that he did not swear at the ref - hence he is
> innocent. Yet he has still been banned and fined.
That's all this post needed ;-)
Viera did nothing wrong, and gets banned.
The Daily Mirror headline
Five Marches
Eight Fouls
Five Yellows
Two Reds..
..cards are stacked against Viera when D'Urso refs an Arsenal game
-------
Now it seem like D'Urso hates Viera.
Five Marches
Eight Fouls
Five Yellows
Two Reds..
..cards are stacked against Viera when D'Urso refs an Arsenal game
-------
Now it seem like D'Urso hates Viera.
Solskjær wrote:
> But I don't see how this proves Vieira gets victimised by the FA??
Because basically he has been found innocent of the charges made, yet still banned and fined.
The charge was the use of "foul and abusive language". It has been proven that he did not swear at the ref - hence he is innocent. Yet he has still been banned and fined.
I'm sorry, but saying to someone "you have no personality" does not justify a ban and fine. It's not even an insult!
> But I don't see how this proves Vieira gets victimised by the FA??
Because basically he has been found innocent of the charges made, yet still banned and fined.
The charge was the use of "foul and abusive language". It has been proven that he did not swear at the ref - hence he is innocent. Yet he has still been banned and fined.
I'm sorry, but saying to someone "you have no personality" does not justify a ban and fine. It's not even an insult!
Page: