The FA will be taking a closer look at Alex Ferguson’s after match rant against referee Alan Wiley. Manchester United stole a late point from Sunderland this weekend, but that was not enough for Ferguson as he looked to deflect attention from his squad’s poor showing. In his post-game press conference, Ferguson lambasted Wiley for not giving United the proper amount of stoppage time (the extra 30 seconds United deserves when they are behind, presumably) saying that Wiley was not physically fit enough to be a referee. The manager said it was a disgrace “that we see referees from abroad who are as fit as butcher’s dogs” and that Wiley was not one of them. (Anybody care to fill me in on that saying? Seems like a butcher’s dog would be fat from all the meat.)
If Ferguson does not receive a penalty for this stunning verbal assault, we will all know who has whom in their hip pocket.
You’re not the only one who doesn’t get the saying
He should get a four match touchline ban, seems about right.
That’s hilarious.
When Ferguson does not receive a penalty for this stunning verbal assault, we will all know who has whom in their hip pocket.
Fixed.
Check out this definition and the following origin:
The allusion is to a butcher’s dog, which would be expected to be very well fed from scraps. Why that is considered to epitomize fitness isn’t clear, as it might be thought more likely that the dog would be overweight than fit. John Camden Hotten, in A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant and Vulgar Words, 1859, defined ‘butcher’s dog’ this way:
“To be like a butcher’s dog, i.e. lie by the beef without touching it; a simile often applicable to married men.”
That’s clearly a different meaning, i.e. butcher’s dog was then a metaphor for ‘something we are close to but cannot have’. That meaning has gone out of use.
Lie by the beef without touching it…does that refer to the husband or the wife?
“butcher’s dogs” is cockney rhyming slang for “jogs”?!?!?
The FA will require Fergie to apologize as part of his punishment and say that he thought Wiley was fit, but “my God don’t he know it?”.
I applaud the Streets reference.
Manchester United stole a late point from Sunderland this weekend, but that was not enough for Ferguson as he looked to deflect attention from his squad’s poor showing.
So here’s an idea: Don’t let him. Don’t write posts about his rant. Write about his squad’s poor showing.
I swear, it’s like this bizarre meta-game: The press and pundits always point out how a Ferguson rant is intended to deflect everybody’s attention from his players … yet they wind up focusing on the rant anyway. It’s like they ignore the fact that they’re the “everybody” in this equation.
Unprofessional Foul is part of the “everybody,” too, ya know.
@Vuvuzela – we’re part of “everybody”? No one told us we were important!
Seriously, it’s a good point. Maybe that’s just further demonstration of how diabolical Fergie really is. Even we fell for his trap.
@Vuvuzela: That’s a fair point, but I don’t really care about their poor showing. It was obvious. Everybody knows it was poor. The team, the manager, the media. It doesn’t really need my rehashing as there is plenty of analysis.
My concern is (a) that the FA is going to review the comments, (b) whether the FA will charge him or kowtow to him, and (c) what the hell “fit as a butcher’s dog” means.
No one told us we were important!
Hey, on the web, everybody has a megaphone.
I would hope the Pundit column this week is about his s**tty side selection and performance this weekend and not the Chelsea/Pool game.
I mean really, Valencia is supposed to be the replacement for Ronaldo and you bench him for Welbeck? GENIUS!
Everybody knows it was poor.
Yes, but “everybody knowing” isn’t the operative thing here. It’s everybody talking about it. That is what Ferguson’s trying to prevent, so as to psychologically protect his players.
And obviously his prevention efforts are successful, because everyone follows suit: They focus on the rant, not the players, even while noting that this unfortunate circumstance is exactly what Ferguson has aimed for.
I think he’s actually egotistical and deluded enough to not think there was anything wrong with this selection and tactics, and that Wiley actually did f**k up.
Another way to put it:
The press and pundits are essentially saying: “We know that Ferguson is attempting to manipulate what we talk about, and look — we’re letting ourselves be manipulated!”
@Vuvuzela: Like I said previously, I don’t really care about him trying to protect his players or deflect attention. I wouldn’t have written anything about how poor United played in the first place. Now, I have something that interests me that I can write about. By my acknowledging the poor play, I have done more than I had ever previously planned thanks to SAF’s rant.
Fair enough. But if were debate-club dorks and I really wanted to keep making hay out of this, I could say: Yes, but if you’ve acknowledged that the purpose of Ferguson’s rant is simply to deflect attention, then why treat the rant as if it’s substantative in and of itself? Once we’ve granted that the rant is merely a ploy, then it seems the only thing worth discussing is its existence as a ploy.
Which leads us back to: All righty then, Ferguson tried a ploy. So how about that poor performance by the squad?!
The result of such rant and the subsequent review is what will be substantive. Whether he gets punished or not is all that I care about because I am intrigued by the FA and consistency issues, as I have written previously. That is what is worth discussing in my book.
you’re writing a book?!?!
it’s only a pop-up picture book. mostly focused on wags. you provide the pop up.