"Printed confession 'insufficient evidence'"

**Bondvillain** · 21/10/2004, 2:24 PM

It has been announced on RTE news that the English Football Association has exonerated David Beckham from any accusations of misconduct re:Bringing the game into disrepute with his deliberate attempt to recieve a booking for dangerous & unsportsmanlike conduct in Englands recent WCQ against Wales, and printed comments attributed to him thereafter.

All charges have been dropped, the F.A. citing 'insufficient evidence' as the reason.

You confess quite openly to malicious cheating, attempting to harm, attempting to directly influence team selection, bad sportsmanship, and pulling the wool over FIFA's eyes in a national newspaper,then smugly tell EVERYONE how clever you are for doing it.

This is 'insufficient' grounds to proceed with any kind of disciplinary action?

As we speak, Saddam Hussein & Slobodan Milosivic are most likely on the phone to their Lawyers, from their respective tiny cells, screaming "Get me the the sports desk at the Telegraph! I want to tell them I did it! I did everything! I'm evil but I'm clever! I did it, I want out!"

Is the message here that the captain of England is above reproach, where other nation's players are not? Surely it couldn't be? Could it?

**The Legend** · 21/10/2004, 4:06 PM

who cares!

**roboyle** · 21/10/2004, 4:31 PM

...to the 'General Football' forum?

**Steviewonder** · 21/10/2004, 4:34 PM

Originally Posted by The Legend

who cares!

Is the message here that the captain of England is above reproach, where other nation's players are not? Surely it couldn't be? Could it?

Maybe im thick, but i think that the point is that any Irishmen who have been accused of bringing the game into disrepute have not been treated quite so fairly.....

**Peadar** · 21/10/2004, 4:38 PM

Originally Posted by Conor74

He hardly brought the game into disrepute.

He did really.
Not by what he did but by blabbing to the press about it.

**Bondvillain** · 21/10/2004, 4:43 PM

Originally Posted by Steviewonder

Maybe im thick, but i think that the point is that any Irishmen who have been accused of bringing the game into disrepute have not been treated quite so fairly.....

Sold to the man with the long memory in the dreadlocks and shades!

I did feel in light of past events, that the story had a suitable angle for here, but if it dont belong, feel free to move it where it do.

**Bondvillain** · 21/10/2004, 5:06 PM

Originally Posted by Conor74

I wouldn't say it's some big anti-Irish thing at all, even if the logic is a bit flawed...

Spot on, I don't think it's specifically an anti-Irish thing either.
It's more a "Rules are rules. Until we change them to suit" thing.
I just wonder how quickly this one will be swept under the carpet, whereas the other one brewed for weeks with "Ban this thug" type headlines (admittedly not helped by profit-generating serialisations..)

Respected heads were speculating that the lad would be firmly admonished, and at the very least, be stripped of the captaincy, and whats happened?

he should get a pat on the head and be told to run along and play in the sandpit

...thats pretty much whats happened!

It would seem the consensus amongst the Venerable F.A. would be that one was vindictive and exorcised his demons on the pitch (accurate), whereas the other one was noble, and took one for the team. (slightly less so..)

**thejollyrodger** · 21/10/2004, 7:05 PM

I wouldn�t normally comment on Beckham because I think it isn�t worth the effort.

Anyway, his written comments were pretty thick tbh. Fair enough he might have the cop on to get the booking out of the way but should have kept his mouth shut till he wrote a book about it years later.

His perceived intelligence drops too a new low.

As for the F.A's reaction, well they should have given him a 2 or 3 match ban for bringing the game into disrepute. When Roy Keane said he made those tackles on the player the book was thrown at him. A little bit of consistency wouldn�t go astray

**zinedineontour** · 21/10/2004, 7:33 PM

who gives a **** ?

beckham - thick averagely talented footballer not affecting us so again who cares

**LadyJane** · 22/10/2004, 12:17 AM

originally posted by ZINEDINEONTOUR

who gives a **** ?

Perfectly entitled to your opinion Z, but for me, when an Associations' rules smack of double standards (however tenuously..., kudos to Conor for pointing this out & to Bv for raising the point so cryptically) for players of different nationalities (e.g. Irish/Welsh/Scottish; one rule, Golden Haired Boy of English Football; Another rule) then I give a ****, to be honest.

I dont think anyone posting here was under any illusion that beckhams escape to victory would physically affect us in any manner, but since the circumstances were relatively close to matters that, in the opinion of some, have affected us in the past, I think that comparisons of the results are interesting.

Peace and love etc.

**1MickCollins** · 22/10/2004, 2:29 AM

I think FIFA needs to come up with a better way to deal with infringemnets during games. I think a 10 minute sin bin would be an idea, red cards could still be used but yellow cards wouldn't accumulate removing the type of abuse that Beckham admited to.

In addition the way yellow cards work right now impacts teams with less depth far more than teams like England or Italy so it is really unfair in that sense as well.

**wallis** · 22/10/2004, 9:26 AM

Come on , the 'golden boy' of english football ? what was the FA supposed to do - ban him from the next 4 internationals ?

You have to remember this was during an England game not a premiership match. The FA would only be able to fine him, I doubt they would ban him from internationals as that would be down to FIFA. Once FIFA opt to not punish him the FA are going to follow suit.

Lets face it , if one of our players had got a deliberate booking against France so that they would miss the Faroes game the Irish FA wouldnt punish them either and we wouldnt want them to.

As for the 'insufficient evidence' part, well , what do you believe :

1. he is clever enough to deliberately pick up the booking (if so why not just kick the ball away towards the end of the match ?)

2. he is a petulant idiot that deliberately tried to injure another player and then had a brainstorm trying to explain why he picked up the yellow card

If the answer is 2 , then you dont have evidence to prove he did it on purpose.

The most over rated player in football - now thats a charge even Perry Mason couldnt get him off

**LadyJane** · 22/10/2004, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by wallis

Lets face it , if one of our players had got a deliberate booking against France so that they would miss the Faroes game the Irish FA wouldnt punish them either and we wouldnt want them to.

You're Dead right.
But I would hope that if an Irish player did something as such (which i'm sure never crossed their minds. Ever.

) that:
A) They wouldnt barrell into an opposition player like Giant Haystacks on acid, putting both of them at risk of injury, and
B) They wouldn't run to the Indo singing "See what I did there? How clever am I, eh? F*cking Mastermind, I am.. Make Stephen Hawking look like Jason McAteer, I do!"

Anyhoo, I was just p*ssed off at the inconsistency.