David Meyler

[Charlie Darwin]

I can't speak for anybody else but I only read later that the ref gave it as a foul. I only saw the gif replay.

[DannyInvincible]

... why were all you guys so sure that Meyler would get busted?

Like Charlie, I'd only seen the GIF. I wasn't up-to-speed with the relevant rules and was putting my unquestioning faith in the knowledge of these hopeless other guys, so I have to put my thinking of Meyler as being lucky to escape a ban down to that unfortunate combination of circumstances. Shame on the rest of you!

[DannyInvincible]

By the way, why does the Daily Mail headline in the link above tell us he will escape "further" action? There was no action taken in the first place. I see he was booked during the game, but that was unrelated, right at the beginning of the second half.

[Charlie Darwin]

'Further action' is one of those football inanities that people say without really thinking through. They, of course, mean any action.

[tricky_colour]

He left his foot it too long for it to be an accident

It was his right foot I think.

[geysir]

Like Charlie, I'd only seen the GIF. I wasn't up-to-speed with the relevant rules and was putting my unquestioning faith in the knowledge of these hopeless other guys, so I have to put my thinking of Meyler as being lucky to escape a ban down to that unfortunate combination of circumstances. Shame on the rest of you!
Excuses excuses, 'i only saw a bit of this' 'a bit of that' 'I was misled by my more ignorant fellow board members.' :)

That's why Meyler looked super cool and didn't betray a morsel of guilt, he didn't even look back at the prostrate helpless figure of Januzaj, who was wailing like the spineless Oscar Pistorius. Meyler had it all sussed, he didn't even have to say sorry. As soon as the ref blew his whistle for a foul against Januzaj, he knew he was in the clear. He knew the ref saw exactly what went down and would not be budging an inch from that line.

[tetsujin1979]

By the way, why does the Daily Mail headline in the link above tell us he will escape "further" action? There was no action taken in the first place. I see he was booked during the game, but that was unrelated, right at the beginning of the second half.
because that would involve journalistic integrity and factual reporting.

[osarusan]

Initial action - checking the referee's match report and talking to the referee (who, after watching the replays, said he'd have treated if differently if he'd seen it better, but, crucially, said he had seen the incident).

No further action - decision reached as a result of findings the initial action.

[geysir]

So the retrospective rule is, if the ref is under the impression that he saw the incident properly from his angle of vision at the time, then no further action is taken, even when faced with proof (which he accepts) that he didn't actually see the entirety of the incident, and even when that proof (in his opinion) highlights a dastardly deed.

That's a good retrospective rule.

[osarusan]

So the retrospective rule is, if the ref is under the impression that he saw the incident properly from his angle of vision at the time, then no further action is taken, even when faced with proof (which he accepts) that he didn't actually see the entirety of the incident, and even when that proof (in his opinion) highlights a dastardly deed.

That's a good retrospective rule.
No further action can be taken, I think the rule is. It's part of the whole 'protect the integrity of the ref by not allowing too many decisions to be questioned' thing that FIFA see as so sacred.

I can understand the logic behind the rule in the face of aninevitable slew of appeals over minor errors otherwise, but this highlights how the rule itself can be stupid too.

[back of the net]

No further action can be taken, I think the rule is. It's part of the whole 'protect the integrity of the ref by not allowing too many decisions to be questioned' thing that FIFA see as so sacred.

I can understand the logic behind the rule in the face of aninevitable slew of appeals over minor errors otherwise, but this highlights how the rule itself can be stupid too.


Such a ridiculous rule in fairness - id hate to see meyler miss the final but players cant go around doing that sort of thing - whatever about protecting the refs integrity, what about the player who was the victim of the stamp!

[paul_oshea]

Well said botnet!

[Stuttgart88]

Is everyone still convinced it was deliberate? I'm not. I think it looked terrible though.

I also think Nigel Owens was completely wrong to penalise, let alone yellow card, Butch James in the H Cup semi final, despite Stuart Barnes's agreement in commentary box and TMO replays seemingly confirming the infringement. It looked like he flicked the ball out of play with his forearm, deliberately. But a closer look led me to believe that the ball, that had just popped out after a collision, was going to land on James's forearm and he inadvertently knocked it out of play while trying to get his arm into position to catch it.

My point: things aren't always as they seem.

There was no reason for Meyler to stamp on him and it would be wholly out of character. My explanation several posts back holds water, I believe.

[back of the net]

Well said botnet!


Someone has got to think of the Victims Paul

[geysir]

Is everyone still convinced it was deliberate? I'm not. I think it looked terrible though.

I also think Nigel Owens was completely wrong to penalise, let alone yellow card, Butch James in the H Cup semi final, despite Stuart Barnes's agreement in commentary box and TMO replays seemingly confirming the infringement. It looked like he flicked the ball out of play with his forearm, deliberately. But a closer look led me to believe that the ball, that had just popped out after a collision, was going to land on James's forearm and he inadvertently knocked it out of play while trying to get his arm into position to catch it.

My point: things aren't always as they seem.

There was no reason for Meyler to stamp on him and it would be wholly out of character. My explanation several posts back holds water, I believe.
I support your defence of Meyler
I'm not convinced at all that he meant it, granted the slow motion doesn't look good but I'd want to see it in normal play. It's almost as if Meyler isn't at all aware that his foot is where it is (the Spike Milligan defence).
Intent is everything here, carelessness doesn't play a part. it's either intended or it was a natural coming together.
My take on it is similar to yours, is that there is a strong enough case for reasonable doubt, that when Januzaj fell to the ground he stuck out his left leg to clear the ball, just as Meyler's leg was coming down on top. Meyler could not avoid the contact, subsequently Meyler tried to lessen the weight of the contact and that's what causes him to make that little movement.
Meyler was totally focussed on the ball and and didn't give Januzaj a moments's thought after the contact, his body language is innocent, why? because his conscience was clear.
That's reasonable doubt.

[DannyInvincible]

Intent is everything here, carelessness doesn't play a part. it's either intended or it was a natural coming together.

Is the question of intent relevant? I'm not convinced he meant it either, but careless or reckless conduct can be punishable, even when no intent is evident. It looked sluggish, but he still had a duty of care to Januzaj.

[Stuttgart88]

I think carelessness is included in the definition of a foul in football, so the issue of intent isn't really relevant. But duty of care is a funny one and I'm not sure it's in the rules or the refs' guidelines / interpretations. Carelessness should capture everything, no?

But even if duty of care was the defining criterion, I don't see how Meyler failed to exercise a duty if care. It was an accidental but nasty clash of foot on bone. It seems a real theme in rugby in recent weeks had been the punishment fitting the consequence rather than the crime. The worse the player's landing, the worse the tackler's offence is deemed. It's an easy but fairly capricious trap to fall into.

Edit: here are the rules

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013en%5fneutral.pdf

Section 12, p36: it's a foul if a player is careless, reckless or using excessive force in various types of attempted tackle. I'd say that Geysir and I are arguing that it really wasn't any of these, it was just a very bad looking accident.

[DannyInvincible]

As you point out, conduct deemed to be demonstrating carelessness, recklessness or the use of excessive force will constitute a foul. Interpretative assistance and guidelines for appropriate action are outlined here: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/28/law12-en.pdf


“Careless” means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution.
• No further disciplinary sanction is needed if a foul is judged to be careless

“Reckless” means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent.
• A player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned

“Using excessive force” means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent.
• A player who uses excessive force must be sent off

If carelessness (lack of care) or reckless disregard defines a foul, the corollary of that is surely an obligation upon players to be careful or mindful of their opponents' welfare in their conduct, which would be a duty of care, in other words.

I wouldn't necessarily say Meyler was reckless, although possibly careless. It could be argued he was in danger of injuring Januzaj, mind. In fact, wasn't Ryan Giggs talking about damage done to Januzaj's leg, albeit a superficial cut from knee to ankle?

[geysir]

Is the question of intent relevant? I'm not convinced he meant it either, but careless or reckless conduct can be punishable, even when no intent is evident. It looked sluggish, but he still had a duty of care to Januzaj.
I'm referring to just this incident, and in this incident intent is everything. If there is no intent by Meyler to stamp then it's a total accident.
Its a black and white incident, its either a stamp or an accident, not like other incidents where intent is low but carelessness is high and indictable.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm referring to just this incident, and in this incident intent is everything. If there is no intent by Meyler to stamp then it's a total accident.
Its a black and white incident, its either a stamp or an accident, not like other incidents where intent is low but carelessness is high and indictable.

You mean you're referring to the morality rather than the (footballing) legality of his conduct? I'd pronounce him morally innocent but legally suspect or negligent. Not quite guilty as sin. :)

[osarusan]

Is intent mentioned in football's laws?

How does a referee determine intent? I thought it had been replaced by levels of carelessness, recklessness, or danger, which are observable.

[geysir]

Is intent mentioned in football's laws?

How does a referee determine intent? I thought it had been replaced by levels of carelessness, recklessness, or danger, which are observable.

The opinion of the ref is required to interpret situations and intent is an observable factor that is used to differentiate between certain categories of seriousness of foul play.
There is observable evidence for a ref to decide that there was intent or observable evidence that there was no intent or observable evidence that there is reasonable doubt.

An off the cuff example where a ref would consider intent as a factor.
Player kicks the ball into a player lying on the ground, ref's decision unsporting reckless or dangerous play.
Compare to a player who unavoidably makes contact with the ball, which rebounds off his foot and strikes a player lying on the ground, ref's decision - incident not even careless.
So the ref looking at the second incident, would evaluate intent and determine that there was no intent, it was just one of those things.

In my opinion in such an incident, intent is most important factor to determine and a ref can determine a level of intent by observing the incident.
But maybe in some peoples' opinion the penalty should be the same for both incidents, because the impact was the same for the player on the ground and how can we expect a ref to observe the evidence of the incident and come to a decision.

In other areas of the rules, the word deliberate is used. Deliberate is similar to intent.

[back of the net]

Just reading martin o neills view on the stamp....he thinks meyler was very fortunate to get away with it. Says if the ref had seen it from the other angle he would have done something about it and meyler was very lucky it was left as it was

[Charlie Darwin]

"O'Neill Slams 'THUG' Meyler"

[back of the net]

Haha charlie.....but in fairness to u I did read it in his interview with the Sun.....so ur prob not that far off with ur Headline

[paul_oshea]

If meylers tackle is unintentional did he apologise to janujaz straight away?

[Charlie Darwin]

Not as far as I know. He just played on, possibly not knowing Januzaj was hurt.

[paul_oshea]

Not knowing he stood on his leg or anything?

[Charlie Darwin]

No idea, he seemed not to notice at the time.

[tricky_colour]

Not knowing he stood on his leg or anything?

His foot was resting on his leg.

[osarusan]

If meylers tackle is unintentional did he apologise to janujaz straight away?

The gif from earlier seems to show him flicking up his arm after Janusaj shouts and keels over. The meaning of that (if any) open to interpretation, but at the time I thought it might be something along the lines of "ah, p!ss off" as if he was convinced that Janusaj was just feigning injury/pain.

[tetsujin1979]

His foot was resting on his leg. like that whole Lourdes thing?

[DannyInvincible]

The opinion of the ref is required to interpret situations and intent is an observable factor that is used to differentiate between certain categories of seriousness of foul play.
There is observable evidence for a ref to decide that there was intent or observable evidence that there was no intent or observable evidence that there is reasonable doubt.

An off the cuff example where a ref would consider intent as a factor.
Player kicks the ball into a player lying on the ground, ref's decision unsporting reckless or dangerous play.
Compare to a player who unavoidably makes contact with the ball, which rebounds off his foot and strikes a player lying on the ground, ref's decision - incident not even careless.
So the ref looking at the second incident, would evaluate intent and determine that there was no intent, it was just one of those things.

In my opinion in such an incident, intent is most important factor to determine and a ref can determine a level of intent by observing the incident.
But maybe in some peoples' opinion the penalty should be the same for both incidents, because the impact was the same for the player on the ground and how can we expect a ref to observe the evidence of the incident and come to a decision.

In other areas of the rules, the word deliberate is used. Deliberate is similar to intent.

Besides it being quite comical, how would you judge this one from last night's play-off semi-final between QPR and Wigan?:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw7xmyivqXY

[Stuttgart88]

I saw it live. Completely accidental. Zamora knew it too.

[DannyInvincible]

Did the ref or linesman see it? Could it be argued Carson was completely reckless in his wild swing of the leg towards Zamora?

[geysir]

Besides it being quite comical, how would you judge this one from last night's play-off semi-final between QPR and Wigan?:
2 birds with the one stone. Vents anger and happens to clobber an opposition player.

[Stuttgart88]

Did the ref or linesman see it? Could it be argued Carson was completely reckless in his wild swing of the leg towards Zamora?
You can argue anything. We usually do around here.

Yes, it could be said that it was careless not being aware that Zamora was also going for the ball. In fairness to Carson, he could have hurt himself badly. Volleying a guy's shin with the top of your foot can hurt. It think that proves it was an accident.

Still, it reminds me of when my kids spill their food everywhere, claiming it was an accident. I usually respond it wasn't an accident it was careless!

[tricky_colour]

like that whole Lourdes thing?


Exactly like the Lourdes thing! ;)

[tricky_colour]

Besides it being quite comical, how would you judge this one from last night's play-off semi-final between QPR and Wigan?:




Definite accident I'd say, if anything the keeper was probably more likely to hurt himself.

[osarusan]

Could it be argued Carson was completely reckless in his wild swing of the leg towards Zamora?

you probably could. I remember Nani getting sent off against Madrid (?) for catching a player in the groin/stomach with studs when he jumped to try and control a ball. I think the reason was that, regardless of intent (there wasn't any) it was reckless and/or dangerous and worthy of a red card.

[DannyInvincible]

Definite accident I'd say, if anything the keeper was probably more likely to hurt himself.

I know it was an accident - it's clear there was no intent to connect with the out-of-view Zamora - but that's not a criterion used to evaluate whether or not an offence has occurred. Careless, reckless or excessively forceful "accidents" are punishable.

Rather thank looking at, or for, possible intent on the part of an offending player, given the wording of the rules, I would imagine refs are more likely to ask themselves, "Could this player have been reasonably expected to take better care (of his conduct/opponent) in the circumstances?"

In work at the minute, so not able to check thoroughly, but do the laws of the game actually mention "deliberate" conduct or that conduct need be deliberate in order for it to warrant punishment, and if so, where and in relation to what? Isn't the question of whether or not conduct was deliberate relevant to hand-ball situations (only)?

[geysir]

I know it was an accident - it's clear there was no intent to connect with the out-of-view Zamora - but that's not a criterion used to evaluate whether or not an offence has occurred. Careless, reckless or excessively forceful "accidents" are punishable.

Rather thank looking at, or for, possible intent on the part of an offending player, given the wording of the rules, I would imagine refs are more likely to ask themselves, "Could this player have been reasonably expected to take better care (of his conduct/opponent) in the circumstances?"

In work at the minute, so not able to check thoroughly, but do the laws of the game actually mention "deliberate" conduct or that conduct need be deliberate in order for it to warrant punishment, and if so, where and in relation to what? Isn't the question of whether or not conduct was deliberate relevant to hand-ball situations (only)?
Whether or not an action is deliberate, is most certainly a criteria used to determine between categories of foul and even whether it's a foul in the first place.
But when there's no intent, then what a ref uses to discriminate between careless and reckless has to be something else, hasn't it?
It's left up to the ref to determine what's reckless and what's careless, based on the evidence of what he sees.
That's how one ref sees the Nani incident as a red card and the Darren Gibson flying boot into another players shoulder was just deemed careless by another.
In your example, the ball is also out of play, it's a slam dunk incident worthy of no action by the ref.

[DannyInvincible]

Whether or not an action is deliberate, is most certainly a criteria used to determine between categories of foul and even whether it's a foul in the first place.
But when there's no intent, then what a ref uses to discriminate between careless and reckless has to be something else, hasn't it?
It's left up to the ref to determine what's reckless and what's careless, based on the evidence of what he sees.
That's how one ref sees the Nani incident as a red card and the Darren Gibson flying boot into another players shoulder was just deemed careless by another.
In your example, the ball is also out of play, it's a slam dunk incident worthy of no action by the ref.

The rules mention nothing about intent or deliberate conduct (other than in hand-ball situations) being crucial though, as far as I can see.

Rather than looking at whether or not there was intent as a primary indicator for a possible foul, or the possible seriousness of a foul, the ref can distinguish between careless, reckless and excessively forceful conduct with the aid of the guidelines I mentioned in post #768 (http://foot.ie/threads/129966-David-Meyler?p=1751673&viewfull=1#post1751673).

Both conduct that is intentional and conduct that is accidental fall under the umbrella of careless, reckless or excessively forceful behaviour, so there is no need for the former distinction in the rules. Even a substituted player can be penalised for foul play, so there's no reason to assume Carson would have been exempt because the ball was out-of-play either.

Here's the take of sports lawyer and referee Kevin Carpenter: http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/kevin-carpenter/item/fouls-and-intent-in-the-not-so-beautiful-game


Law 12 'Fouls and Misconduct' (and the interpretative notes accompanying that Law) governs serious foul play. Here is how the offences and sanctions for serious foul play fit together using the words lifted directly from the Laws of the Game to avoid any room for doubt or conjecture:



A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following...offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
A player or substituted player is sent off if he commits...serious foul play.

Kicks or attempts to kick an opponent;
Tackles an opponent.

"Careless" means that the player has shown a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or that he acted without precaution – no further disciplinary sanction needed.
"Reckless" means that the player has acted with complete disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, his opponent – a player who plays in a reckless manner must be cautioned.
"Using excessive force" means that the player has far exceeded the necessary use of force and is in danger of injuring his opponent – a player who uses excessive force must be sent off.
A player is guilty of serious foul play if he uses excessive force or brutality against an opponent when challenging for the ball when it is in play.
A tackle that endangers the safety of an opponent must be sanctioned as serious foul play.



The entirety of the Law set out above only states how the player acts, not how he/she intended to act. This is done for a very good reason. Intention is inherently subjective and therefore it is impossible for a referee, or his/her assistants, to say with any degree of certainty on the field of play what a player intended to do. Not to mention red cards for serious foul play act as a deterrent and to set an example to all those who play the game at any level what is acceptable behaviour whilst the ball is in play.

The pace of play also has to be considered, especially in the upper echelons of the game such as the Champions League and Premier League. People acknowledge that referees have a very difficult job, in that they only have a split second to make a decision (although the best seem to have that extra second to replay the incident in their mind), and yet those same people contradict themselves in wanting referees to also make a judgment call on a player's state of mind. This is simply not possible and goes to show that a significant proportion of stakeholders in football are inherently biased contradictory hypocrites.

The only part of Law 12, and indeed the Laws of the Game at all, which does involve an element of intention is handball which is said to have to be "deliberate". Week-in week-out we see what problems this causes, especially in and around the penalty area.

[geysir]

The rules mention nothing about intent or deliberate conduct (other than in hand-ball situations) being crucial though, as far as I can see.

Rather than looking at whether or not there was intent as a primary indicator for a possible foul, or the possible seriousness of a foul, the ref can distinguish between careless, reckless and excessively forceful conduct with the aid of the guidelines I mentioned in post #768 (http://foot.ie/threads/129966-David-Meyler?p=1751673&viewfull=1#post1751673).

Both conduct that is intentional and conduct that is accidental fall under the umbrella of careless, reckless or excessively forceful behaviour, so there is no need for the former distinction in the rules. Even a substituted player can be penalised for foul play, so there's no reason to assume Carson would have been exempt because the ball was out-of-play either.

Here's the take of sports lawyer and referee Kevin Carpenter: http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/kevin-carpenter/item/fouls-and-intent-in-the-not-so-beautiful-game

Deliberate is mentioned clearly in 2 rules, fouls and misconducts, apart from the many mentions of deliberate with handball.

The deliberate pass back to the goalie who picks the ball up. The ref has to read the situation and determine deliberation action as distinct from a miss hit
The goalie is penalised for the handball but the ref determined that it was the pass back that was deliberate and made the handling by the goalie a criminal act.
And a player who deliberately leaves the field of play, but that's straightforward to observe.

You are getting caught in knots.
I wrote

'Determining intent is most certainly a criteria used to determine between categories of foul and even whether it's a foul in the first place.'

It's not used all the time, no frigging way but it is certainly used in circumstances which call for it, even if it's not mentioned in the rules as a factor used by the ref.
I gave an example of how a ref can determine the seriousness of an act of unsporting behaviour, a player kicking the ball into the body of a prostrate player or an accidental rebound of the ball from one player's foot into a player lying prostrate.
Once intent is not observed and is ruled out, then a ref measures the seriousness of the offence using other factors.
And no matter what the foul, even a little push against a players face, if a ref first off sees it was a deliberate action then it is treated more seriously.

[Stuttgart88]

I'm not a biased contradictory hypocrite.

[tricky_colour]

I know it was an accident - it's clear there was no intent to connect with the out-of-view Zamora - but that's not a criterion used to evaluate whether or not an offence has occurred. Careless, reckless or excessively forceful "accidents" are punishable.

Rather thank looking at, or for, possible intent on the part of an offending player, given the wording of the rules, I would imagine refs are more likely to ask themselves, "Could this player have been reasonably expected to take better care (of his conduct/opponent) in the circumstances?"

In work at the minute, so not able to check thoroughly, but do the laws of the game actually mention "deliberate" conduct or that conduct need be deliberate in order for it to warrant punishment, and if so, where and in relation to what? Isn't the question of whether or not conduct was deliberate relevant to hand-ball situations (only)?

I'd agree there may be a case that the attempted clearance was reckless, but I would be reluctant to punish the keeper for it.

I am not sure of the laws myself but I have seen players penalised for kicking a high ball and nearly taking a players head off
by accident because they didn't look to see it was safe. This is a bit different with the ball being low, less likely to cause
a bad injury.
It's a bit of a difficult one to call but my natural instinct would be to not punish the keeper but as I said not sure of the rules
and not sure which rule to look up, so I could be wrong.

[DannyInvincible]

Deliberate is mentioned clearly in 2 rules, fouls and misconducts, apart from the many mentions of deliberate with handball.

The deliberate pass back to the goalie who picks the ball up. The ref has to read the situation and determine deliberation action as distinct from a miss hit
The goalie is penalised for the handball but the ref determined that it was the pass back that was deliberate and made the handling by the goalie a criminal act.
And a player who deliberately leaves the field of play, but that's straightforward to observe.

OK, well let me shift the goal-posts slightly. :p

The test for intent or deliberate action is specifically mentioned only in relation to hand-balls, back-passes and leaving the field of play. Those categories of foul/misconduct and the rules covering them aren't really relevant to this discussion though. In terms of conduct involving physical contact between players, as in the Meyler and Carson examples, it's not (as far as the rules are concerned or at least as far I can see) the factor that distinguishes between a foul and permissible conduct. For that category of conduct, it is given no explicit mention at all, neither in the rules nor the accompanying guidelines for interpretation, even when distinction is required to determine the seriousness of a foul. Is that generally acknowledged or am I missing something? The test for determining seriousness is based on whether the conduct was considered careless, physical or excessively forceful.


You are getting caught in knots.
I wrote

'Determining intent is most certainly a criteria used to determine between categories of foul and even whether it's a foul in the first place.'

It's not used all the time, no frigging way but it is certainly used in circumstances which call for it, even if it's not mentioned in the rules as a factor used by the ref.
I gave an example of how a ref can determine the seriousness of an act of unsporting behaviour, a player kicking the ball into the body of a prostrate player or an accidental rebound of the ball from one player's foot into a player lying prostrate.
Once intent is not observed and is ruled out, then a ref measures the seriousness of the offence using other factors.

Is the ref strictly "observing" intent though or is he/she really observing whether or not the offending player could reasonably have taken more care or steps to ensure there was no threat of harm to an opponent?


And no matter what the foul, even a little push against a players face, if a ref first off sees it was a deliberate action then it is treated more seriously.

Indeed, that thought struck me there. A player dispensing a light (non-harmful) slap to the cheek of an opponent will invariably be punished with a red card. Do the rules expressly cover for this or is there a degree of refs taking matters into their own hands by applying a personal interpretation based on how they believe the rules of game should be or are expected to be executed?

[Stuttgart88]

Meyler has been reading www.foot.ie.

In today's Times there is a big feature on his injury troubles and how his perseverence culminating in a FA Cup final is a great story. They focus on the stamping incident and he cites tiredness because it aws 90th minute and then descibes how he had strated to put his foot down before Janujaj stuck his leg out and his foot planted.

Danny and I should be his publicists!

[Stuttgart88]

Meyler reveals ambition to represent England:)

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidMeyler7/tweets

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/ireland/2014/12/05/6787022/meyler-and-quinn-to-be-offered-new-hull-city-deals

Meyler set to be offered a new contract. Meyler & Quinn should retain their places in the team for the visit of West Brom according to Bruce, which may be bad news for Brady.