QuoteWell said botnet!
Originally Posted by osarusan
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!
Well said botnet!
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
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.
Someone has got to think of the Victims Paul
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.
Last edited by geysir; 08/05/2014 at 5:21 PM. Reason: reducing the comma count
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 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/foot...%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.
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 08/05/2014 at 8:36 PM.
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/worl...8/law12-en.pdf
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?
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.
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.
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
"O'Neill Slams 'THUG' Meyler"
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
If meylers tackle is unintentional did he apologise to janujaz straight away?
Not as far as I know. He just played on, possibly not knowing Januzaj was hurt.
Not knowing he stood on his leg or anything?
No idea, he seemed not to notice at the time.
His foot was resting on his leg.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks