So it's a bad tackle with no intent = a few games banQuote:
Originally Posted by deecay
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
Printable View
So it's a bad tackle with no intent = a few games banQuote:
Originally Posted by deecay
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
He seems to have a huge grin on his face, as though he's happy with his days work at the abattoir. I think he's a brute and will get booed for the next year of his career, and rightly so - and I don't support any team in the premier league before someone goes down the "you're biased" line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
And they say photos dont lie... I dont think thats a big grin on his face... I'd say i's more like shock
I dont know the man but listening to respected people who do he would appear to be a real gent.
The only football person who called for blood was Wenger and he's retracted his initial stance and rightly so.
A brute whos been sent off only twice in his career the last of which was nine years ago. I dont think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
Huge grin on his face.
Abattoir
Brute,.
Jesus get a grip talk about OTT remarks. I think you should work for the Sun with talent like that.
I am trying to imagine what Fergies reaction would have been had it been a UTD player.Wenger retracted his comments which were understandable at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by shanman2
What has Fergie got to do with it. You are now blaming Ferguson for an imagined crime in your head. Wengers comments were bang out of order and he rightly took them back but in a half arsed way in my view. He should have apoligised to Taylor also.
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, not that I'm saying Taylors tackle was intentional, I think its impossible to know for sure what his intent was. People shouldn't be complaining about a red though, he will miss 3 games while Eduardo will miss at least 6 months and will probably never quite reach his full potential beacause of it, intentional or not, the punishment for a clumsy challenge should be suspension for the same lenght of time that that player will miss though injury
The problem with that is that challenges as bad as that and worse happen regularly in the Premiership. Taylor's challenge shouldn't be treated any different to those just because it caused a serious injury.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo
This thing about the ban being the same time as the injury is madness. We have all seen terrible terrible tackles that did not do any injury. You only have to look at Stephen Hunts this year, and Carsley on Hunt and Alan Shearer on Neil Lennon. There are many many more when we have had terrible tackles.
David Busst was injured from a collision with Denis Irwin. Should Irwin have had to retire along with Busst. Terrible tackles do not always result in terrible injuries and terrible injuries are no always the result of terrible tackles.
I disagree, I think the resulting injury should be taken into account when deciding a punishment. Does someone who was drink driving and killed someone get the same punishment as someone who was equally over the limit but got lucky and didn't kill anyone? Just like murder gets a harsher sentance than attempted murder. Maybe I was a bit OTT saying they should be banned for the same lenght as the injury but a clumsy tackle that results in a bad injury deserves a harsher penalty than an equally clumbsy one that doesn't result in one IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge
Football decisions do not work the same way as a court of law and rightly so. This goes back to what I was saying before about tackling. Anybody that has played football will know that you can get seriouis injuries from total freak accidents and other times get away with not getting injury when a player goes out to do you. Therefore your idea of punishing the player who causes the injury for the length of time of the injury is madness.
By that logic players in the lower leagues would have to retire more as the smaller clubs could not afford top level medical care and if it was brought to the Leinster Senior League then players would be banned for life as a player would not return from Eduardos injury if he was just an amateur. Your idea is madness and unworkable and has not been though out in full and seems to me like a knee jerk reaction to a terrible injury.
I never claimed that all players who cause injuries should receive the same lenght of punishment, just the clumsy ones where its only a matter of time before they cause a serious injury, which I admitted was a bit over the top(I once had my ankle broke by a bad tackle which probably influenced me) but I do think a clumsy tackle that results in a bad injury deserves a harsher punishment, of course I accept there are freak accidents which result from legitimate tackles and no I don't think they deserve punishment but I see no harm in punishing badly timed tackles that result in very bad injuries with longer bansQuote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo
You edit happened after my post so I think its unfair for you to try and pull me up on something and to point out that you admitted it was over the top, when you did that edit after my post.
What? Not trying to pull you up on anything, yes I edited my post but not to but in the OTT bit, I had actually made a few spelling mistakes
So did you never mistime a tackle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo
I think it is fair to say that in every game (no matter what level) you are going to get a few mistimed tackles, either the attacker is too fast, or changes direction or the tackler hesitates or whatever, if all were to be banned for misitimed tackles where would we be??
If Eduardo was nor injured this thread would never have got as many replies.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
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????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
Exactly. Taylor didn't set out to break his leg. Fact is eduardo was just too quick and suffered as a result. Eduardo was also standing on one leg at the time and therefore his entire bodyweight was being supported on that leg, so when contact was made, his leg would have broken much easier than had he been standing on both legs?
I'm not claiming every mistimed tackle should result in a long ban, I'm just saying the FA should take into account the damage it caused along with the fact that the tackle was reckless, mistimed and high with studs showing when deciding what length of ban to dish out as a 3 match ban hardly seems appropriate to meQuote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo
You can not take into account damage caused as the opposite is well no damage so it's ok?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
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.
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 intentQuote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo
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,
[FONT=Verdana]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." [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]"Eduardo" [/FONT][FONT=Verdana]Quote taken from Uefa website - I think this should settle a few arguments[/FONT]
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 wasQuote:
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,
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.
Is Cobh really that bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by bellavistaman
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 usQuote:
Originally Posted by Morbo
Surely the Font Verdana was a joke but maybe I am giving Morbo a bit too much credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
probably was, just a bad day at the office:D
Eduardos surgeon expects him to be back playing in 12 months
I dont think in any of those incidents some goofball centre half breaks someones leg,no intent maybe,but he should still be severely punishedQuote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmurphyc
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecay
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
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 likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Roadend
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:
that was a horror, nearly caught him in the rollers it was so high
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmurphyc
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbo