Eduardo

[NeilMcD]

id say you have a perfect grasp of reality alright - in your own little world..some of your statements are just plain ridiculous and borderline spa...

to say that steve bruce says its not a red card to prove your point is comical really...heres one for you - when was the last time you heard a manager admit after a game that his player deserved a red card???
well alex mcleish said "i don't think there was any intent or malice but it was a red card..taylor isnt a malicious type of player"
the whole thing here is that a player can be sent off for intent alone - but whether there was intent or not in this case is almost irrelevant in regard to the red card.. the tackle was wreckless,late and high with studs showing...
the only argument about intent coming into it will be when the FA decide the length of his ban - 3 games if judged no intent, maybe 4/5 if they think there was intent...
do us all a favour neil mcd and spend a long time reading about the rules of football again will you????

Just cause your name is Cartman on this do you really have to get your point across in the same way that the Cartoon Character you are named after does.

Also if you read my previous post I said that the quotes from Steve Bruce did not prove my point but they showed that even people who know about football and played the game at the highest level did not think it was a red card. In my view its not a a closed and **** case and I am of the opinion that it was a yellow card and not a red one.

I respect your opinion but I am not sure why you have to go to the levels of personal insult as its only a football forum after all. As Greenforever said, if Eduardo had not got injured nobody would even be talking about Taylors tackle.

[Morbo]

And my point is that all similar tackles should be punished equally. I mean if Eduardo jumped the tackle and wasnt hurt there would be no clamour for blood.

You can not take into account damage caused as the opposite is well no damage so it's ok?
No I'm not saying its ok if there was no damage done, it was still a red IMO whether or not he did damage, I just think that damage inflicted should be a factor in deciding the length of ban as it is not always obvious whether there was intent or not, granted this does introduce an element of luck for akward players who get lucky and don't cause a serious injury but I also think it would be a deterent to the type of player who deliberately tries to cause an injury but does a good job hiding his intent

[Greenforever]

No I'm not saying its ok if there was no damage done, it was still a red IMO whether or not he did damage, I just think that damage inflicted should be a factor in deciding the length of ban as it is not always obvious whether there was intent or not, granted this does introduce an element of luck for akward players who get lucky and don't cause a serious injury but I also think it would be a deterent to the type of player who deliberately tries to cause an injury but does a good job hiding his intent


you're contradiciting yourself, i doubt if Mr Taylor will feel any better or worse whatever the lenght of ban, I've yet to here one respected football person describe the tackle has malicious or with intent,

[Greenforever]

Having undergone surgery, Eduardo was transferred from Birmingham's Selly Oak Hospital to an unnamed London clinic on Sunday to begin his recovery process, but he was quick to underline that he bore no malice to Birmingham defender Martin Taylor, who was dismissed for the challenge that broke his leg. "As far as I remember Martin Taylor has still not been to see me but I was under sedation so who knows," he said. "If he does come, I will let him see me. I forgive him. I know it wasn't deliberate. These things happen."

"Eduardo" Quote taken from Uefa website - I think this should settle a few arguments

[Morbo]

Who is this Font Verdana chap and how exactly does his quotes settle a few arguments



you're contradiciting yourself, i doubt if Mr Taylor will feel any better or worse whatever the lenght of ban, I've yet to here one respected football person describe the tackle has malicious or with intent,

Where am I contradiciting myself there? Anyway I think this is one of those cases where only Taylor knows for sure if there was intent or not and no respected football person would describe a tackle as malicious unless they were sure it was

[cheifo]

Wenger made his comments after seeing one of his players with his foot hanging off.The people focusing on his remarks despite the retraction are too biased to see common sense.

[razor]

so build a bridge lads.Is Cobh really that bad?

[Greenforever]

Who is this Font Verdana chap and how exactly does his quotes settle a few arguments


Where am I contradiciting myself there? Anyway I think this is one of those cases where only Taylor knows for sure if there was intent or not and no respected football person would describe a tackle as malicious unless they were sure it was

If you actually read the post you would see it's taken off the official UEFA website, and its Eduardo that said the words, so surely if he's willing to accept it was not malicious that should be good enough for us

[NeilMcD]

Surely the Font Verdana was a joke but maybe I am giving Morbo a bit too much credit.

[Greenforever]

Surely the Font Verdana was a joke but maybe I am giving Morbo a bit too much credit.


probably was, just a bad day at the office:D

[Trainee]

Eduardos surgeon expects him to be back playing in 12 months

[deecay]

So it's a bad tackle with no intent = a few games ban

therefore

Missing a sitter = 2 game ban:D

goalkeeper lets it through his legs = 3 match ban:D

think that makes a mockery of your coment
I dont think in any of those incidents some goofball centre half breaks someones leg,no intent maybe,but he should still be severely punished

[jmurphyc]

For me, the referees are too lenient in England. I'm not saying this to have a dig at referees, but it just seems as though they aren't instructed properly. Players can go out onto the pitch knowing that they can go in with a high tackle and get away with it. If the rules were different, then managers would ensure that their players don't go in with dangerous tackles.

Hunt got away with a poor tackle earlier in the season, as did Kuyt. I'm sure there are plenty of others. The fact that players dive so much doesn't help as referees will often side with the defensive player when unsure.

Referees need to be instructed to send off players when they go in high, whether the tackle injures the player or not shouldn't matter. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that even if the player who goes in doesn't even make contact, he should still be sent off. That would put an end to injuries like this, because at the moment tackles like Taylor's will result in anything from no red card and no ban to a 6 game ban.

[Roadend]

For me, the referees are too lenient in England.

Are you having a laugh? Have you only started watching football since Sky took over? Referees are more strict than ever. You only have to look at the amount of nothing frees in every game and yellow cards for nothing tackles. You cannot breath on a player these days only for a free to be given.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Greenforever]

I dont think in any of those incidents some goofball centre half breaks someones leg,no intent maybe,but he should still be severely punished


accidents happen, so if a kid runs out in front of your car and you kill it, even though you didnt intend to you should be locked up?


no intent = no excess punishment

[jmurphyc]

Are you having a laugh? Have you only started watching football since Sky took over? Referees are more strict than ever. You only have to look at the amount of nothing frees in every game and yellow cards for nothing tackles. You cannot breath on a player these days only for a free to be given.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

For some things they're strict. They have started giving yellows for shirt pulling and stuff like that but they still don't punish tackles like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqF6y_j1zQ

that harshly enough. That Reading player could have been out for a long, long time. That should have been a red, as should Kuyt's against Everton which I couldn't find. There are tackles like this going unpunished all the time. If you haven't noticed this then you don't watch much football. :rolleyes:

[ramsfan]

that was a horror, nearly caught him in the rollers it was so high

[bellavistaman]

what about the comments underneath saying that tackle was no way worse than taylors, are they mad, the intent in hunts tackle was unreal, was a disgraceful tackle.

[Roadend]

For some things they're strict. They have started giving yellows for shirt pulling and stuff like that but they still don't punish tackles like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqF6y_j1zQ

that harshly enough. That Reading player could have been out for a long, long time. That should have been a red, as should Kuyt's against Everton which I couldn't find. There are tackles like this going unpunished all the time. If you haven't noticed this then you don't watch much football. :rolleyes:

So you say I don't watch football and yet aldo say Kuyt's non-challenge is a red. Good on you lad, any more pearls of wisdom?

[Macy]

In fairness I can fully understand Wengers anger, he has just lost a class player for the rest of the season(and who possibly will never be the same player again) and it wouldn't be the first time the opposition went out with the intention of kicking them off the pitch instead of playing
I must have imagined Wenger last week excusing one of his players going out to get an opposition player? Or is that okay because Gallas didn't cause serious injury even though he deliberately went for the player, but Taylor did cause injury with a clumsy challenge? Or is Wenger just a total hypocrite?

[jmurphyc]

So you say I don't watch football and yet aldo say Kuyt's non-challenge is a red. Good on you lad, any more pearls of wisdom?

You think that was a non-challenge??? Now I understand why you think that referees are too lenient with observations like that. Had Phil Neville not managed to jump away from Kuyt flying in then he could have been out for a long, long time. Kuyt's challenge was about as high as Phil Neville's knees and you're saying it's a non-challenge?

[Roadend]

You've never played football have you, it was a non-challenge full stop. Its people like you that are ruining football.

[jmurphyc]

You've never played football have you, it was a non-challenge full stop. Its people like you that are ruining football.

What's that supposed to mean? He went in with intent and could have broken someone's leg, it doesn't matter that Neville managed to get out of the way.It's people who go into challenges like maniacs that are ruining football. Do you think that football should come before the player's well being?

[Roadend]

You are only proving my point, i.e. you've never played football and you don't know what you are talking about but you like to pop out of the woodwork at a time like this a cry bloody murder. Retreat to your box for everyone's sake.

[jmurphyc]

You are only proving my point, i.e. you've never played football and you don't know what you are talking about but you like to pop out of the woodwork at a time like this a cry bloody murder. Retreat to your box for everyone's sake.

What? How have I proved your point? You don't seem to really have much of one at the moment and aren't answering my questions, just insulting me. Of course I've played football. I'd say pretty much everyone that posts on a football forum has. What on earth is the rest of that gibberish you're talking about though? I'm making a valid point. All I'm saying is that potentially dangerous tackles shouldn't go unpunished. Martin Taylor didn't seem to go in with intent but it was a very high tackle and these tackles can seriously injure players. Let me get this straight, you're telling me I'm ruining football because I'm saying that tackles that could end player's careers should get a red card?

[Roadend]

By going to ground at all there is the potential to break someones leg(taylor) so should all slide tackles be outlawed. By blocking a shot/clearence you have the potential to break a leg(Irwin) should all blocking be outlawed. By taking a direct free you have the ability to break an ankle(Riise) should direct frees be outlawed. Get a grip. Football has almost become non-contact as it is and because of a mixture of circumstances means one mis-timed tackle has resulted in a broken leg you have people like yourself clamouring for them to be outlawed. Nonsense.

[jmurphyc]

By going to ground at all there is the potential to break someones leg(taylor) so should all slide tackles be outlawed. By blocking a shot/clearence you have the potential to break a leg(Irwin) should all blocking be outlawed. By taking a direct free you have the ability to break an ankle(Riise) should direct frees be outlawed. Get a grip. Football has almost become non-contact as it is and because of a mixture of circumstances means one mis-timed tackle has resulted in a broken leg you have people like yourself clamouring for them to be outlawed. Nonsense.

I'm not clamouring for sliding tackles to be outlawed. Can you point out to me where I mentioned this?

I too am upset that games are getting stopped a lot these days, but that is down to players diving. I didn't ask for all tackles to be outlawed, just high ones. There is no need to go in high when the ball is on the ground. These tackles are the only ones that I said should be outlawed. They are much more likely of causing damage to a player than your ridiculous examples.

I can only assume that my referring to Kuyt's challenge in the Everton game riled you due to you probably being a Liverpool fan judging by your previous posts.

[Armando]

By going to ground at all there is the potential to break someones leg(taylor) so should all slide tackles be outlawed. By blocking a shot/clearence you have the potential to break a leg(Irwin) should all blocking be outlawed. By taking a direct free you have the ability to break an ankle(Riise) should direct frees be outlawed. Get a grip. Football has almost become non-contact as it is and because of a mixture of circumstances means one mis-timed tackle has resulted in a broken leg you have people like yourself clamouring for them to be outlawed. Nonsense.

Are you saying Kuyts challenge was slide tackle:confused:

[inexile]

martin taylors tackle was not [B]very[B] high, it was a mistimed (fractionally) slightly high challenge and there did not appear to be any malice in the challenge, even if you look at it in real time from the original angle it does not look very bad, it just looks like one of a hundred mistimed challenges that occur in every game.

[Morbo]

I must have imagined Wenger last week excusing one of his players going out to get an opposition player? Or is that okay because Gallas didn't cause serious injury even though he deliberately went for the player, but Taylor did cause injury with a clumsy challenge? Or is Wenger just a total hypocrite?
Yes you must have imagined it alright, I remember Eboue going in dirty alright, sure you're not just confusing the two?

[Rovers fan]

Still the worst offence in the Premiership yet goes to Michael Ball (?) on Mendes at Manchester City. Easily forgotten in such outrage like today

dont think thatchers tackle will be easily forgotten, it was horrific.

[feo123]

its annoying aswell though that petrov will get the same ban as taylor for what he done last night, i wouldnt even call it a kick at the everton player, smaller than the slightest of contacts with him and he gets 3 games just like taylor. not saying taylor deserves more than 3 games btw, but just seems a bit silly, maybe im wrong

[Greenforever]

its annoying aswell though that petrov will get the same ban as taylor for what he done last night, i wouldnt even call it a kick at the everton player, smaller than the slightest of contacts with him and he gets 3 games just like taylor. not saying taylor deserves more than 3 games btw, but just seems a bit silly, maybe im wrong


Agreed, a 1 match ban for a straight red should be the normal and any extra bans only based only on a disciplinary hearing.

Also it may be an idea to have a citing commissioner similar to Rugby who could deal with offences missed by the referee.

[Macy]

Yes you must have imagined it alright, I remember Eboue going in dirty alright, sure you're not just confusing the two?
No, Gallas kicked Nani - Wenger said it was all Nani's fault for being too skillful, the FA saw nothing.

[shakermaker1982]

Feel very sorry for the lad - I have been away for the past few days but heard it was a nasty break and hope he makes a speedy recovery. I don't think the tackle was premeditated though, a mistimed clumsy tackle and not worthy of a life ban.

Haha about Gallas. Can someone tell me how he escaped further action after he kicked out at Nani which was premeditated?

[cheifo]

Gallas needs to kop on.Even as an Arsenal fan I have to admit Fergie is better at keeping players in line.Arsenal have to beat Villa at the weekend or their season could fall apart.This season Man U have come a cropper when you least expect them too(Bolton,Man City,West Ham etc) but I cant see Fulham getting anything.

[NeilMcD]

Makele's tackle today was worse that Taylors should he be banned for 9 months too.

[dfx-]

dont think thatchers tackle will be easily forgotten, it was horrific.

h5yp-7Y2HR8

Nah not bad really...

[NeilMcD]

absolute thuggery, I am not one for this type of comment but I would nearly think he should have been charged for that. It was a disgrace. I don't ever understand it. Where does the motivation to do that come from. I can understand a lash out or possibly Keanes twisted revenge but that was just insane.

[Morbo]

Yeah I remember that challenge, pure scumbag, what length ban did he get for that again?

[jmurphyc]

IMO another shocking challenge yesterday on an Arsenal player. Mido kicked Clichy in the head. It looked accidental, and probably was, but it really irritated me that on MOTD Shearer mentioned that it was one of 3 bad calls by the referee yesterday. If you kick a player in the head, irrespective of the circumstances, you surely can't expect anything less than a red card. How anyone else can say differently astounds me.

[mypost]

That was an accident. His foot was way high, but there was no intent.

Compare that to the Bardsley tackle made in the Sunderland-Everton game the other week. It was a replica of the Eduardo tackle, and only got a yellow card. The player's leg didn't break, but very easily could have.

[jmurphyc]

That was an accident. His foot was way high, but there was no intent.

Compare that to the Bardsley tackle made in the Sunderland-Everton game the other week. It was a replica of the Eduardo tackle, and only got a yellow card. The player's leg didn't break, but very easily could have.

I agree that there was no intent and it was accidental, but I still feel he should be sent off and get a three game ban, no more. It was a very dangerous challenge and I just feel Shearer was completely wrong in suggesting that the referee made the wrong decision. If the referee had ignored it he possibly would have said the opposite. Just my opinion, of course.

[drinkfeckarse]

but it really irritated me that on MOTD Shearer mentioned that it was one of 3 bad calls by the referee yesterday. If you kick a player in the head, irrespective of the circumstances, you surely can't expect anything less than a red card. How anyone else can say differently astounds me.

Well he would say that. He booted Neil Lennon right in the mush in what was as close to assault as I've seen on a football pitch but the bigwigs at the FA were too scared to punish him.

[shakermaker1982]

I thought it was a tad harsh. Yellow card for me. Good to see the Arsenal players screaming at the ref again.

[Kingdom]

I agree that there was no intent and it was accidental, but I still feel he should be sent off and get a three game ban, no more. It was a very dangerous challenge and I just feel Shearer was completely wrong in suggesting that the referee made the wrong decision. If the referee had ignored it he possibly would have said the opposite. Just my opinion, of course.

Are you for real? Seriously. There was absolutely no intent, I doubt he knew Clichy was there. Clichy was aware Mido was challenging for the ball as the play was completely in front of him, he should have protected himself better.
Clichy is a smaller lad, Mido is a hulk, he was entitled to go for the ball.

[jmurphyc]

Are you for real? Seriously. There was absolutely no intent, I doubt he knew Clichy was there. Clichy was aware Mido was challenging for the ball as the play was completely in front of him, he should have protected himself better.
Clichy is a smaller lad, Mido is a hulk, he was entitled to go for the ball.

I'll say this again: If you kick a player in the head, irrespective of the circumstances, you surely can't expect anything less than a red card. How anyone else can say differently astounds me. I'm not suggesting that Mido's challenge was criminal, just that he should get the regular punishment.

If you were playing football and someone challenged you like that, how would you feel about it?

[Kingdom]

I'll say this again: If you kick a player in the head, irrespective of the circumstances, you surely can't expect anything less than a red card. How anyone else can say differently astounds me. I'm not suggesting that Mido's challenge was criminal, just that he should get the regular punishment.

If you were playing football and someone challenged you like that, how would you feel about it?

That is where I'm coming from. I'm challenging the statement that Mido kicked Clichy in the head. You see plenty of small centre forwards jump into the air to trap a ball midflight and cushion it to the ground. That is what Mido was doing. CLichy also dips his body down to head the ball. I'm a centre half, I put myself into stupid situations to win the ball. What happens happens. Personally I thought Clichy was a fool to head the ball.