Jose's Way To Glory

[ross.mcfc]

If City had done in the same situation we would all be in raptures about how smart it was.

I thought it was quite funny and Mourinho played the rule book like a fiddle.

[Beefymcfc]

If City had done in the same situation we would all be in raptures about how smart it was.

I thought it was quite funny and Mourinho played the rule book like a fiddle.

Canny little fucke ain't he.

[avoidconfusion]

This happened about 20 years ago in German football as well by the way. The ban for the player who did it was increased and he missed the game he wanted to be available for (by getting himself sent off with a second yellow). Both the player as well as the manager were fined too.

[Beefymcfc]

This happened about 20 years ago in German football as well by the way. The ban for the player who did it was increased and he missed the game he wanted to be available for (by getting himself sent off with a second yellow). Both the player as well as the manager were fined too.

Deserved aswell. It might be clever, but it ain't big!

[john@staustell]

If City had done in the same situation we would all be in raptures about how smart it was.

I thought it was quite funny and Mourinho played the rule book like a fiddle.

If City had been in the same situation all hell would've broken loose and the media would be screaming for us to be banned from Europe for 5 years, and you know it!

Instead it's 'good old Jose'.

[Im_Spartacus]

If City had done in the same situation we would all be in raptures about how smart it was.

I thought it was quite funny and Mourinho played the rule book like a fiddle.

If City had been in the same situation all hell would've broken loose and the media would be screaming for us to be banned from Europe for 5 years, and you know it!

Instead it's 'good old Jose'.

I was pretty surprised as others have said, I thought cards were wiped after round 1. I was quite shocked to see what they did, but the fact is that the top teams are nearly always qualified by the 3rd/4th group game, so the dead rubbers become open to all sorts of abuse, not just with yellow cards, but fielding weakened sides which affects the other teams attempting to qualify etc.

I don't know what the answer to this one is, maybe 2 points for a win, then it is harder to qualify so early, but you shouldnt penalise teams for being good.

[blues-clues]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

[Ted Hughes]

I've no doubt if you were to look back, you'd find it's happened on many occasions that top players have picked up random, blatant, yellows, several games before the last group game, when qualification is looking fairly certain. Jose's mob were just more obvious because there were 2 each & less violent in getting the cards than someone like Scholes would be.

The fact that they did make it so obvious however, means that UEFA need to make an example.

[Im_Spartacus]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

[Ted Hughes]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

UEFA, or even our own Prem Lg, don't have to prove things; as the PL have shown on many occasions by riding roughshod over their own rules to prosecute City players after the event, in order to sate the media bloodlust.

[Im_Spartacus]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

UEFA, or even our own Prem Lg, don't have to prove things; as the PL have shown on many occasions by riding roughshod over their own rules to prosecute City players after the event, in order to sate the media bloodlust.

Most times, clubs won't argue, they will take a token punishment for a player ban for foul play, violent conduct, crowd disorder etc on the chin.

But with cheating or gamesmanship, lawyers will automatically get involved because there are far reaching consequences with regards the image of the club & the individual. Branding someone guilty as a cheat isn't something you can do without 100% proof, because you open up all sorts of cans of worms such as defamation, damage to personal/corporate reputations etc.

This is the reason there has never been a coherent strategy to combat "simulation", and there probably never will

[Ted Hughes]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

UEFA, or even our own Prem Lg, don't have to prove things; as the PL have shown on many occasions by riding roughshod over their own rules to prosecute City players after the event, in order to sate the media bloodlust.

Most times, clubs won't argue, they will take a token punishment for a player ban for foul play, violent conduct, crowd disorder etc on the chin.

But with cheating or gamesmanship, lawyers will automatically get involved because there are far reaching consequences with regards the image of the club & the individual. Branding someone guilty as a cheat isn't something you can do without 100% proof, because you open up all sorts of cans of worms such as defamation, damage to personal/corporate reputations etc.

This is the reason there has never been a coherent strategy to combat "simulation", and there probably never will

I recon if UEFA had to take that to court & showed the video to a jury, they'd win. Don't the clubs sign an agreement to abide by the rulings & punishments of the governing body regarding playing matters though? Otherwise there'd be a lawsuit every week when players get seriously injured by bad tackles etc surely?

[Lees Alter Ego]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

UEFA, or even our own Prem Lg, don't have to prove things; as the PL have shown on many occasions by riding roughshod over their own rules to prosecute City players after the event, in order to sate the media bloodlust.

Most times, clubs won't argue, they will take a token punishment for a player ban for foul play, violent conduct, crowd disorder etc on the chin.

But with cheating or gamesmanship, lawyers will automatically get involved because there are far reaching consequences with regards the image of the club & the individual. Branding someone guilty as a cheat isn't something you can do without 100% proof, because you open up all sorts of cans of worms such as defamation, damage to personal/corporate reputations etc.

This is the reason there has never been a coherent strategy to combat "simulation", and there probably never will

Its UEFA's "game" so surely they can decide what they want?

[Swales4ever]

Several things should happen.

1. Real should be fined for bringing the game into disrepute
2. Both players should be booked at the earliest opportunity in the first group game and at every opportunity thereafter - teach them to take the piss
3. The rules about sporting behaviour need beefing up and enforcing. Cheats need driving out of the game before it loses its integrity altogether.

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

UEFA, or even our own Prem Lg, don't have to prove things; as the PL have shown on many occasions by riding roughshod over their own rules to prosecute City players after the event, in order to sate the media bloodlust.

Most times, clubs won't argue, they will take a token punishment for a player ban for foul play, violent conduct, crowd disorder etc on the chin.

But with cheating or gamesmanship, lawyers will automatically get involved because there are far reaching consequences with regards the image of the club & the individual. Branding someone guilty as a cheat isn't something you can do without 100% proof, because you open up all sorts of cans of worms such as defamation, damage to personal/corporate reputations etc.

This is the reason there has never been a coherent strategy to combat "simulation", and there probably never will

I recon if UEFA had to take that to court & showed the video to a jury, they'd win. Don't the clubs sign an agreement to abide by the rulings & punishments of the governing body regarding playing matters though? Otherwise there'd be a lawsuit every week when players get seriously injured by bad tackles etc surely?

Yes, they do. On the basis of the fact that sportmanship is all about allround respect.
Then, Jose is not a sportsman, he's just a marketing man (of himself).

On side note: does the rule of restricting the backward passing to goalkeepers was right on the spirit against those kind of unfair conducts? Just to enforce the point that UEFA/FIFA know their bollocks when they want to...

[Im_Spartacus]

Problem is, that even though the whole world can see what has happened, you cannot prove it.

Similar with diving - remember Eduardo vs Celtic a couple of years back. They did him for the dive after reviewing video evidence, then rescinded the ban on appeal because Arsenal got the lawyers involved and they proved that UEFA didnt have a shred of evidence to "prove beyond doubt" he intended to decieve the referee. Without cast iron proof, you cannot ban - and since then, UEFA have not tried doing anyone for diving because they learned their lesson.

Gamesmanship such as we saw the other night, and diving cannot be eradicated from the game because of the legal complications. We all think it is simple, but the fact is, its the same scenario if you felt you had been wronged at work or by your regulating body, you would appeal, and under the laws of the land, if there is no physical "smoking gun" proof, then they will have to let the matter drop. Falling over theatrically with nobody within a 10 yard radius is not proof that somebody dived, however frustrating it is.

UEFA, or even our own Prem Lg, don't have to prove things; as the PL have shown on many occasions by riding roughshod over their own rules to prosecute City players after the event, in order to sate the media bloodlust.

Most times, clubs won't argue, they will take a token punishment for a player ban for foul play, violent conduct, crowd disorder etc on the chin.

But with cheating or gamesmanship, lawyers will automatically get involved because there are far reaching consequences with regards the image of the club & the individual. Branding someone guilty as a cheat isn't something you can do without 100% proof, because you open up all sorts of cans of worms such as defamation, damage to personal/corporate reputations etc.

This is the reason there has never been a coherent strategy to combat "simulation", and there probably never will

I recon if UEFA had to take that to court & showed the video to a jury, they'd win. Don't the clubs sign an agreement to abide by the rulings & punishments of the governing body regarding playing matters though? Otherwise there'd be a lawsuit every week when players get seriously injured by bad tackles etc surely?

Personally, I have to abide by the rules and regulations of the Financial Services Authority to carry out my day to day business, who are well known as being cunts and punishing people summarily. If they made a judgement against me that is circumstantial rather than proof based and which will materially affect my personal standing, character or reputation then I ultimately have recourse to the law and the law is clear that there would have to be proof to support a judgement by a regulator, because they are not above the law - the regulator still has to act within it.

UEFA/FIFA/FA can make the rules, but the rules and any sanctions / punishments ultimately have to be within the law.

The evidence in this case would be purely circumstantial, due to no absolute proof of the players' intentions. We all know what they did, and so would a judge, but ultimately the accusation has no standing in law.

Again, with bad tackles you have to prove intent which is almost impossible. The only bad tackle I can remember being punished in court was Fashanu on Mabbutt - the reason why so few go to court is because there really isn't any true way to prove that a player acted with intent. An angry face, or not looking at the ball can all be easily explained away, thus introducing "reasonable doubt" to the legal process

I agree with your principle, but in practice cases like this would fall in like a pack of cards once it went beyond the regulator and into the realms of "does that decision to ban x for cheating stand up to scrutiny in court"

[blues-clues]

The clubs do have an agreement to accept the decision of the regulatory authority; in this case UEFA. For instance it doesn't matter if it can be demonstrated that a yellow card should not have been given, the ONLY circumstances where it can be rescinded are for mistaken identity. The rules are that you cannot go to a higher court and the rules state that if you do, you get thrown out of the relevant competition. If you want to play those are the rules. Uefa should be able to enforce rules on sporting behaviour without worrying about legal action.

If they can enforce financial fair play rules, which certainly would not apply in normal business, they can enforce sporting fair play rules. If not then the game is already dead.

[Ted Hughes]

Both players + Jose & Dudek plus the physio geezer (for passing on the message) are under investigation for misconduct apparently.

[Im_Spartacus]

The clubs do have an agreement to accept the decision of the regulatory authority; in this case UEFA. For instance it doesn't matter if it can be demonstrated that a yellow card should not have been given, the ONLY circumstances where it can be rescinded are for mistaken identity. The rules are that you cannot go to a higher court and the rules state that if you do, you get thrown out of the relevant competition. If you want to play those are the rules. Uefa should be able to enforce rules on sporting behaviour without worrying about legal action.

If they can enforce financial fair play rules, which certainly would not apply in normal business, they can enforce sporting fair play rules. If not then the game is already dead.

Financial Fair play was voted in by the clubs, but......watch this space, I think when clubs start to get twitchy as full implementation comes into play, you will see clubs using every loophole there is to get out of complying. I firmly believe City have something up their sleeve to get round the rules, they have to - because we will NEVER be able to comply in the next 5 years.

The issue with unsporting behaviour, such as in the Eduardo incident are that effectively to ban/fine a player for diving, the player or club in question will have no actual issue with the actual implementation of the rules themselves, but by insinuation, being found guilty of diving is essentially being called a cheat - and by finding them guilty under UEFA rules, you are effectively also calling them a cheat publically - which in the absence of firm evidence is defamation of character, which in turn becomes a legal matter.

Nobody in their right mind would accept such a slur and tarnish on their reputation in the absence of credible nailed on evidence, and that is where the issue lies - regardless of competition rules etc, recourse to law is open to anybody who does not want to accept such defamation.

In this case, personally I think if UEFA did throw the book at Real, they would just laugh it off and cop for the punishment.

As for diving, how many players can you ever remember being charged, found guilty, and remaining guilty after appeal?

[Ted Hughes]

It's Cassillas (sp) not the physio, who's the other person charged. Opinion is that they'll either get off with fines or they'll change the 2 yellows to reds.

[blues-clues]

Thats why it is not called diving....it is called simulation!

You are not accusing them of cheating, you are accusing them of trying to achieve an alternative continuum by simulting the outcome of an event that has not occurred but if it had would have resulted in said outcome.

It is not just cheating it is far more serious, altering the continuum may have profound and unforseable consequences. This is has been described as the butterfly effect but in football it is more commonly known as "Ronaldo you cheating diving twat".