Conspiracy of Silence

Perhaps Mourinho went too far by suggesting that there's some sort of conspiracy at work to smooth Barcelona's path to the Champions League Final, but in essence he's right that Barcelona are favoured by referees.  It's not exactly rocket science.  Referees don't, I assume, live in a bubble.  It is often noted in papers how referees in this country are up in arms about some of Sir Alex's more angry comments on certain referees and we can see how this affects the referees in our games - how few penalties this season?  Chelsea? So, with all the world fawning over "the most beautiful team to ever play the game" is it not highly likely that this has an effect on the refereeing fraternity?  That when they referee Barcelona they are likely to assume that Barca are trying to play the beautiful game and that the opposition are trying to stop them, by fair means or foul, that as they are the ones playing the beautiful game that their tackles are not malicious.  You could see it in the decisions made against Real Madrid.  You can see it as much in the way Barcelona react to tackles against them, it as if they are not allowed, even the Barcelona players believe the hype: "Don't you know who we how?  How dare you tackle us?!"  The way they surround the referee demanding decisions is borne of the sense of the entitlement they think their beautiful football brings them.  

You see it sometimes with Arsenal, they think they should get everything, they think they can do no wrong, that other teams should just let them pass the ball through them.  Its an affront to decency when teams tackle them.  And similarly in the commentary and subsequent reaction to the Real-Barcelona game, it's apparently an affront to the football gods that Mourinho should set his team up to try and defend against Barcelona.  He should have just gone gung-ho and let his defence be ripped to shreds.  And that he didn't is apparently why he should never be Man Utd manager, according to Henry Winter.  That's a debate for another day, a debate I'm still not sure which side I'm on, except to say that it would take some personality to take over from the legend of Sir Alex.

One other point to make is that when big teams play each other the referee can not win simply because big teams are used to getting the decisions.  As pointed out earlier, referees don't referee in a bubble, they know there will be a bigger outcry if they get decisions wrong against the bigger teams, and so in games where a big club is a up against a small club the big club will generally get the decisions (that is generally portrayed as man Utd getting all the decisions is just something we have to live with).  When big club plays big club someone's going to lose out.  Hence the shock, the over the top reactions to losing a big game on a bad decision. Small clubs are used to it.  Big clubs aren't.  And Mourhino, who seems to like to be able to control every aspect of games, certainly isn't.  But it doesn't need the invisible hand of conspiracy to give barca the advantage, that comes naturally.

All the footprints you've ever left and fear expecting ahead (Chelsea)

A bit of a preview to the Chelsea game tonight  Another feature I used to do regularly and another one that, due to a bit of free time I've got today, I can revive for a special occasion (Tho my spare time is running out, so this preview might feel a little rushed...)

We can start with a bit of nostalgia... rewind to 2008 and the penalty shoot-out - relive it- not on here tho, because embedding was disabled on all the videos of the shoot-out I could find.

Watch it here...

Remember when Tevez was a decent human being...

Remember John Terry "The heart, the soul of Chelsea football club," as the commentator described him, preparing the stage for him scoring the winner, before he slumps to the floor with his head between his knees....

Not that I really believe any  rubbish about that game having a bearing on this one.

And for old-times sake, while we're reminiscing, after watching the Real-Spurs game last, watching Ronaldo and remembering the days.... here's his corker against Porto from the year after:

Brilliant.

And yet we don't need him this year.  We've got more than enough to beat Chelsea.  We showed that in the league game, even though we lost.  The main disappointment in that game, and the loss to Liverpool, was that we allowed ourselves to be kicked out of the game.  It was almost like watching Arsenal against a team that gets to them, and they can't cope.  We didn't have the fight.  Well, in the Champions League, with a better referee, we won't need the fight, we'll just be able to outplay them.  Which doesn't take away from the fact that we could do with more fight in midfield, doesn't take away from the restructuring needed in the summer to keep competing, but we've got more than enough to win this over two legs.  Seen a lot made of our record at Stamford Bridge.  It doesn't matter.  It's 2 legs.  I still think we can get a result at Chelsea, but either way, assuming the scores going to be tight one way or the other going into the home leg - we can do it at Old Trafford, against anyone, let alone a Chelsea side who are far from vintage...

And we'll be remembering it for years to come...

Days of Wine and Roses

Seeing as I've got a bit of spare time and seeing as it's a Champions League quarter final day, I'm returning to the old days and doing a paper round-up.  It's been a while, so I might be a little rusty and The Times has gone behind a paywall since the last time I did one, but we'll see how it goes...

Two main stories today - Rooney and the Chelsea game.  We'll start with Rooney, and the appeal against the severity of the ban which we're contesting on grounds which change depending on the paper you read.  The Mirror claim we'll base it on the intrusiveness of the cameraman:

However Rooney and United have put together a detailed package, explaining the full background to the incident, and have presented it to the FA whose five-man panel will sit to consider their case.

The close proximity of the Sky camera to Rooney after he scored is likely to see the TV company warned after their cameramen broke an unwritten rule by going on the pitch to get a close-up of the striker.
Rooney let fly when the camera homed in on him after his hat-trick goal at West Ham - with pictures showing that some of the close-range ‘money shots’ were made inside the white line.
Rooney reacted to the unwanted attention with his foul-mouthed outburst - and led to his unprecedented rap. Friends say the ‘f*** off, what do you want?’ yell was aimed at the cameras as they closed in on him.

While in the Daily Star the abuse of the West Ham fans is blamed:

United are determined to fight the FA and challenge the severity of the punishment given to Rooney. Starsport understands United’s appeal will claim Rooney was verbally attacked by home fans after completing his hat-trick in his side’s 4-2 win.

Club officials will also ask the three man independent panel to take into consideration the fact Rooney made a public apology shortly after the game to prove he accepted he had been out of order.

United believe Rooney was provoked beyond what they consider to be an acceptable level and that the issue of respect between players and fans has to work both ways. 

As it is in the The Telegraph:

The Daily Telegraph understands that Rooney’s appeal will be supported by United’s claim that his outburst, which followed his hat-trick goal on Saturday, was a mixture of elation and the release of frustration and anger at what he, and United, believe to have been repeated chants of an unsavoury nature directed at the 25 year-old from the home supporters.
In their submission to the FA commission, United will also highlight Rooney’s swiftly-issued apology on Saturday afternoon which they hope will underline his contrition and acceptance of wrongdoing.

Elsewhere on Rooney The Guardian bring to light something that happened ages ago as if it happened today.  Beginning the piece "Wayne Rooney has been dropped by Coca-Cola." Then in the next sentence we discover this was "last year," then further on the quote from Coke, ""Our contract with Wayne Rooney came to an end last year and we mutually agreed that we would not renew our relationship," The Guardian laughably tries to make this tie into the West Ham incident by saying Coca-Cola are "saving itself the hassle of dealing with the most recent demonstration of his boorishness..."  It's the type of reporting one expects from The Mail, not The Guardian.

James Lawton finally has his say on Rooney and it's the usual incoherence- general point - that Rooney is in danger of losing his way by losing sight of the joy that he used to feel playing football in the street:

In a way that would be impossible to convince the vast majority of his critics, there is something of a potential tragedy here. If Rooney cannot find the satisfaction on the football field that floods through someone like Lionel Messi or Andres Iniesta at moments of supreme triumph where will he track it down? Will he get it in some watering hole surrounded by hangers-on who know how to interpret his moods? Perhaps it will come in the seclusion of his pile in the stock-broker belt?

Martin Samuel weighs in on the subject again - Monday he came out against Rooney, Tuesday he came out against The FA, today he comes out against Rooney again but throws Man Utd in general into the mix - arguing, perhaps having just watched Spiderman 3, that with great power, comes great responsibility:

The same goes for Rooney. His charge is flawed because the FA ignored similar behaviour when he was on England duty, but if the best player in the country is banned for swearing into a television camera, others similarly motivated will have to think twice.

Would it happen to a player at Burton Albion? No, because a player at Burton would not be going live to the nation at lunchtime on Saturday.

Manchester United cannot enjoy all the benefits of being part of the elite — the financial rewards, the lucrative global exposure which adds hugely to turnover — without acknowledging that certain responsibilities are part of this deal.

As I pointed out yesterday, this is flawed logic because if this was the case the other so-called "Big 4" clubs would be treated similarly harshly. They're not.

Linking Rooney with The Champions League, The Mail has a quote from Frank Lampard on Rooney and a possible backlash:'

He's a competitive character. When you get headlines, positive or negative, it can spur you on in different ways. 'He's a fantastic player. He's a top player and he'll be a threat.'

In The Guardian Daniel Taylor went to the Sir Alex press conference but got more from another interview:

Ferguson has become convinced the FA is victimising his club and the blanket coverage of a 24/7 media has served only to exacerbate his disdainful feelings towards the people reporting it. These days it is a sad reflection on his relationship with a press he has come to think of as a "monster" that the only true insight into the man tends to come from interviews overseas, the latest being a question-and-answer session with Italy's Gazzetta dello Sport in which the most successful manager in the business spoke with a freedom that is rarely evident in the country where he lives.

Where Taylor sees Sir Alex's paranoia, I see a perfectly justified reaction to a biased media. Sir Alex points out the closeness of the two teams, and the importance of the referee in such encounters because of this:

There is nothing really between our two teams. Both possess excellent footballers, both have international experience, experienced good coaches. ... Last year they beat us with an offside goal; last month David Luiz should have been sent off.

Hopefully a European referee will make the difference in being fair, sorry, strong...

Paul Hayward in the Guardian has a look back to 2008 and what's happened to the teams since that final which is well worth a read, so I won't quote too much from it:

All Chelsea's emotional luggage is loaded on to this one bus. Their Premier League title defence is broken, which creates an advantage over United, who are busy on three fronts. But a look back to May 2008 will encourage Ferguson and his staff. The two sides were much closer then, and United still managed to silence Chelsea when it mattered.

The Daily Star collects some quotes from Sir Alex, including talk of a treble:

It’s 14 games in two months and at United we are used to this kind of thing, using it to our advantage. We can repeat the Treble of 1999.

For anyone who cares (not sure who would though...) Jamie Carragher previews the game for The Mail...

Finally, a wine snob in The Telegraph accuses Sir Alex of being a bad wine snob - a touch of class hatred peeking out...

Money Power Respect

And I thought I could stop writing about the Rooney incident...

This time at least it's something good; an article on The Guardian's Comment is Free site which cuts through a lot of the self-serving bullshit that's been printed on the matter.  First off he suggests that far from there being a "flood of complaints" as The Sun (and everyone else just seemed to assume) claimed yesterday, there was actually just a trickle, or a drip, perhaps a single drop:

The likely nuance is that this particular swearage was perpetrated directly to camera, but so what? Neither personal nor specific, it was a gabbled, meaningless incoherence directed at no one and signifying nothing beyond Rooney's competitive aggression, his usual articulacy overridden by release and relief.And credit where it's due: most people appear to have grasped this; Sky fielding very few complaints as a consequence.

This is my favourite paragraph, neatly summing up the ridiculousness of the arguments and the vomit-inducing nature of the fake-moralising-outrage:

Central to the media sanctimony has been the idea that Rooney deserves punishment because he's some kind of role model; or, in other words, sometimes being good at football has shorn him of the right to equality before the law. The notion that anyone might aspire to his personal characteristics – particularly when those positing it have spent large chunks of their time professing precisely the opposite – is patently absurd, a slight that should ignite parents and teachers into rage. Whether or not any kids were watching – and would there be an issue had the incident taken place during a post-watershed game? – if they're relying on Wayne Rooney to show them how to behave, it's society's problem, not his.

And finishes by pointing out the wrongness of the apology:

The only real pity is that Rooney apologised. It's hard to imagine that he felt a moment's contrition; far more likely, someone at United anticipated the fuss and thought it might help, itself an appalling indictment of our time; perhaps Wayne was actually asking what fucking what the country has become.

Sense.  Finally some sense.  If only anyone had any faith in The FA's sense.  Any wonder no one has any respect for them.

Random stupidities on the Rooney issue that don't fit anywhere else:

The supposed effect on children:

"The feeling is undoubtedly that youngsters ape what they see. We have no definitive proof that they do, but anecdotally that is the widespread belief."

So, it's a feeling.  There's no proof. Just a feeling.  The oddest thing is that he doesn't say, "anecdotally, this is what we see," instead, it's just an anecdotal belief.  Which I assume means that everyone thinks it does, even though there isn't any evidence.  So they're not wanting to confront an actual problem, but the appearance of a problem which probably doesn't even exist.

Of course, some football writers, with their extensive knowledge of child psychology, just know it influences children.  step forward Jason Burt:

It will be argued that Rooney has been victimised or harshly treated, because of who he is. It will be claimed that such language is used all the time, that he is not a role model — well he is by accepting the endorsements – that children are not so easily influenced, which is wrong, or that he received severe provocation from the West Ham fans.

Just plain wrong. Useful links to the literature on the subject by the way Jason... And endorsements mean he's a role model?  Not altogether that's true.  If he starts becoming unpopular then his endorsements will dry up, true enough.  But that endorsing a product (not even specified products aimed at children...) carries with it the burden of being a role model - a leap of logic too far - unless he's endorsing a non-swearing product - perhaps some bowdlerised dictionary...

The anti-working-class agenda.

There is a brilliant example of this today in, where else, The Daily Mail.  A whole piece which can barely disguise the author's disgust at Rooney being just so working-class.  It starts badly enough with the use of "Neanderthal" in the headline, then continues:

Wayne Rooney was lazing indolently ... With his Desperate Dan jaw, impossibly thick neck and veins bulging from his prematurely high forehead, Rooney might have been a boxer striding towards the ring

The boxing ring, a more suitable stage for the working class perhaps being the point.  You can feel the snobbery like poison in every word.  Indeed the author of this had just written a piece bemoaning Rooney's ability to go for a lavish holiday ("their self-indulgent, chav-like behaviour  while holidaying at a seven-star hotel") while the middle-class Mail readers couldn't afford to because of the recession.  It's a piece borne of jealousy that these working-class males are taking money that they don't deserve, money that they aren't entitled too or don't have the "class" to use in ways that the middle-class find acceptable or tasteful.  It sounds like Wayne probably should have given this guy a slap.

And to finish a few good pieces - On FA hypocrisy - ignore the over moralising tone if you will, it is Martin Samuel after all:

For this is not the first time Rooney's furious features have snarled an assault into the ears of the unsuspecting armchair viewer.
June 18, 2010, Group C qualifier, England 0 Algeria 0 at the Green Point Stadium in Cape Town. Rooney was leaving the field after the most abject performance of Fabio Capello's tenure as England manager.
Those that had travelled to a far continent in England's name were not happy. Rooney turned to address the camera lens. 'Nice to hear your own fans booing you,' he said. 'That's what you call loyal support. For f***'s sake.'
And the FA did ... nothing. How could they? Like the rest of the country they were waiting, hoping, desperately for Rooney to come good in South Africa. They didn't want any trouble.

And this explaining the FA's thinking, just replace the word "public" with the word "media":

So having checked which way the public mood was blowing, the FA threw the book at him. 

And where this leaves them:

An FA spokesman said that “industrial language” was not being banned, but when armchair lip-readers can discern expletives aimed at officials, logic says the FA will have to act repeatedly or lose credibility.
Lord Burns proposed an ‘arm’s-length’ disciplinary body that enabled the FA to avoid conflict of interest at all levels. Independence might help avoid hypocrisy being added to the FA’s own charge sheet.

And there's this which links the whole thing to our league campaign:

The overall effect is to give the impression that United, should they regain the Premier League title from Chelsea, will be chameleon champions. This side has adapted itself to every circumstance. That, of course, is exactly what is asked of professionals but they commonly falter in the effort to meet those demands.
The league is about coping as much as commanding. There is now an expectation that large sums will be spent on improving the United squad this summer. The outlay is essential but those set to fade out of Ferguson's plans still seem due to be bearing a medal or two as they depart.

Rules and Regulations

The FA are biased against us.  Fact.  This isn't just paranoia stemming from the treatment of Rooney (and all the other incidents we could mention) it's stated FA policy - as this points out:

Sources at the FA have confirmed, however, that Ferguson was warned following his punishment for criticising referee Alan Wiley in October 2009 that “greater profile carries greater responsibility” – a clear reference to the Scot’s belief that United are victims of heavier punishment than others.

There you have it.  Our profile means we are treated harsher.  Yet:

Rio Ferdinand’s four-game ban for hitting out at Hull City’s Craig Fagan last year, in contrast to Liverpool’s Javier Mascherano and Steven Gerrard escaping censure for similar offences, was cited by Ferguson last season an example of his club being subjected to double standards from the FA. 

Aren't Liverpool high profile enough to warrant  more stringent punishments?  No, it's just us.  FA policy is to treat us worse than everyone else.  FACT.

Dagenham Dave

Another post on Rooney and swearing.  I feel like I'm 13 again, looking for instances of swearing like it's the cutting edge of wit.  Even laughing at some like a 13 year old -

And then good ol' 'arry comes along to tell us how silly Rooney is for swearing so you have to do it all again, not for laughs but to show what a hypocrite 'arry is.  Good ol' 'arry.

Why so angry 'arry?

"Why do these young players have to be so angry with the world? I don't know why."

Good question 'arry, but a better one might be why do old managers have to be such hypocrites?

And apparently 'arry endorsing the FA's position is brilliant:

Ferguson's likely claims of an anti-United bias were severely dented by the unexpected decision of Tottenham Hotspur manager, Harry Redknapp, to intervene on the issue

I'm not sure I see why this dents the accusation of bias, let alone that "Redknapp's intervention strengthens the case for a ban."  He's Spurs manager, nothing to do with us, frankly, I don't see why he's got to have his nose in the trough at all, who gives a toss what he thinks. Everyone knows he's the FA's golden boy/man, who can get away with anything because they want him as next England manager - obviously 'arry is keen to impress them as well...

Fuck This Industry

I was meant to publish this earlier, but was delayed, so now Rooney has been charged and faces a two match ban, which emphasises the point that once the big Other gets hold of something it is very hard to stop its momentum.

I said yesterday that by swearing into the camera Rooney brought swearing into the public eye and as such there is an automatic reaction from society - moralising newspapers moralise. Such a reaction is always, I would say amusing, but given it's our player maybe amusing isn't the word.  Martin Samuel has a very long, very dull opinion piece that suggests interesting isn't the word either. He takes (what feels like) several million words to reach the conclusion "smile, it might never happen," which, from my experience, are the clichéd words of an idiot... He suggests that the most disappointing thing is that Rooney didn't show any joy in scoring, which, given the way that Rooney clutched the ball after full time and kissed it seems spectacularly short-sighted of Samuel - unless he's just leaving stuff out that doesn't fit his agenda.

The silliest thing is the way people make up stories to emphasise their point - Graham Poll -

I have a friend who sat and watched West Ham versus Manchester United in his living room with his six-year-old son, who asked: ‘Daddy, why has Wayne Rooney just said ‘f***’? It was not what he expected at lunchtime on Saturday. Why should we  tolerate such an invasion and one that is likely to come without any punishment?

Bullshit.  Not as bullshit as this though:

Dermot Collins, the manager of the FA’s Respect campaign, told Telegraph Sport: “The other day, my son had a group of friends over and I took them to the park to play football. A couple of the lads played rugby at the weekend and one of them said to me: 'Great, football, that means we can swear.’ 

As if this incident happened. It's the whole class division thing between Rugby and football which this guy is playing on - footballers are working class oiks who need a lesson in manners is the message.  And this from someone who is apparently involved in football.  Absolute tosser.

And this bullshit from The Sun:

a flood of complaints from viewers of the lunchtime match. 

A flood of complaints?  I've yet to seen any figures which suggests to me there are no figures to report.  Who watching that game would have been arsed to complain?  My (entirely real btw) mother, who hates football and hates swearing, sat and watched it and wasn't even shocked, she just tutted at "ignorant footballers..."

The worst comment:

The Premier League’s global appeal means the footage has already been aired all over the world and the sight of Rooney swearing on television has tainted the image of football in this country — a view that is not lost on the FA’s top brass.

Tainted the image?!  Showing passion and commitment taints the image?  Really?

Why football writers feel the need to be the moral champions of the age is utterly beyond.  Step forward Patrick Collins with a awful piece on the whole thing. One gets the feeling he's just angry at rich young working class men getting paid a lot of money - he's angry that the calls of the middle-class rich white men for "respect" have been ignored by the young white men playing the game - 

If anybody was going to reveal the ugliest face of the beautiful game, then Rooney was always a leading candidate. ... He conforms to every squalid stereotype, being massively rewarded, wilfully irresponsible, treating praise as his due and being affronted by the notion of criticism or blame

I think he should stick to watching Rugby...

The most sensible voice I've seen in the whole thing, Sam Wallace in The Independent:

Rooney was goaded mercilessly by West Ham's fans, in the same way that he is at many grounds. In that respect his response, although not to be encouraged, was not surprising. Had he used the same language towards the West Ham supporters, rather than the television viewers, there would have been no need to apologise at all. Those who provoked him deserved what they get. The rest of us have to accept that attending a football match means you will get caught in the crossfire. 

He also points out that the intimacy of Sky's cameras comes at a price:

Another key player in this drama is the Sky Sports cameraman who haunts the touchline with the aim of capturing close-up shots of the emotions of the players. As Rooney prepared to take the penalty for his third goal, the cameraman positioned himself to the right of the goal, in front of the away fans, because experience told him that is where Rooney would go if he scored.

The Sky pitch-side camera is – one supposes – another innovation that makes the game more exciting to watch for those at home. There is a new trend, started by Steven Gerrard, for running straight at it and planting a kiss on the lens to celebrate goals. Mark Noble did so after his first penalty for West Ham on Saturday. It is becoming a focus for celebrations.

But if Sky are going to thrust their camera into the face of a player just seconds after he has singlehandedly led his team back from two goals down, all the time being subjected to abuse about his family, would you not say that there is the chance that something a little ripe might be uttered into the oh-so-sensitive living rooms and saloon bars of the nation?

We cannot have football both ways. We cannot have the raw, edginess of a player like Rooney in a hostile atmosphere and pumped up with adrenaline and then at the same time expect him and every other player to behave like they are taking tea on the lawns of Brasenose College in 1923. 

What would be truly shocking would be to see the steady, always from a distance, TV coverage of 1950's football interrupting by a player shouting swearwords into the camera. Things have moved on though, now it's not really shocking, it's only shocking at one remove, as I pointed out yesterday - shocking for the non-existent other.

 

Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?

Slavoj Zizek talks of the subject supposed to believe,

which is the constitutive figure of the symbolic order.  According to a well-known anthropological anecdote, the primitives to whom certain superstitious beliefs were attributed (that they descended from fish or from a bird, for example), when directly asked about these beliefs, answered: 'of course not - I'm not that stupid!  But I have been told that some of our ancestors did believe that...'  In short, they transferred their belief onto another.

Isn't this precisely what we are doing with the Wayne Rooney "incident?" No one is actually offended by the swearing, they are offended on behalf of another, the children.  Zizek continues:

We go through the ritual of Santa Claus, since our children (are supposed to) believe in it and we do not want to disappoint them; they pretend to believe so as not to disappoint us and our belief in their naivety (and to get presents of course).

Additionally the belief is always dispelled from outside- there's always some naughty child or older brother to ruin the Santa Claus story - the child never just thinks, "this Santa thing is a bit... far-fetched..." The point being that the world ruins the, already mythical, total innocence of children.  Returning to Rooney, this is the point, that by transfering the offence onto the children - being offended on their behalf, we can have our cake and eat it - "I personally, I'm, a man of the world, I don't mind Rooney swearing, but think of the Children!" And I capitalise the word because it is an abstract, non-existing idea of Children.  In the real world children don't need Rooney to teach them swear words - they know them , they've just already worked out the rules for their use - don't swear in front of adults.  

As Zizek points out though, it doesn't matter that no-one is offended:

for the belief to be operative, the subject who directly believes need not exist at all:  it is enough precisely to presuppose his existence, to believe in it, either in the guise of the mythological founding father figure who is not part of our reality, or in the guise of the impersonal actor, the unspecified agent- 'They say that...'/'It is said that...'

One other point: Everyone knows swearing goes on all the time in football, how many times during a game can one see the players mouthing swear words - one doesn't have to be an expert lip-reader to see it.  It goes on all the time.  So why does it become an issue when the words are actually heard.  Here we can turn to another Lacanian concept, that of the big Other, the symbolic order.  The thing is alright, as long as it stays out of the knowledge of the other.  A secret that everyone knows, but know one talks about, the elephant in the room, can be easily lived with, but as soon as someone mentions it out loud it has an effect, everything changes, even though everyone already knew about it, the act of speaking it changes the dynamic.  Zizek, again:

While talking, I am never merely a 'small other' (individual) interacting with other 'small others':  the big Other must always be there.

It must always be there with its rules, so that when the thing, the secret becomes known to the big Other, it changes everything, we have to follow the rules of the symbolic order.  So that swearing in football is there, everyone knows it's there, but it's only when it's shouted, for the big Other to hear, does it change things.