So it's a bad tackle with no intent = a few games banOriginally Posted by deecay
therefore
Missing a sitter = 2 game ban
goalkeeper lets it through his legs = 3 match ban
think that makes a mockery of your coment
Fair Play died Nov 18th 2009, Stade Francais.
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.
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.
Fair Play died Nov 18th 2009, Stade Francais.
A brute whos been sent off only twice in his career the last of which was nine years ago. I dont think so.
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.
In Trap we trust
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.
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 Trap we trust
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.
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.
In Trap we trust
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.
Last edited by Morbo; 24/02/2008 at 9:45 PM.
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.
In Trap we trust
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 bans
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.
In Trap we trust
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?
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.
Fair Play died Nov 18th 2009, Stade Francais.
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????
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 no judge of crowds ted but i'd say there's about seven million of them out there...
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 me
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?
Fair Play died Nov 18th 2009, Stade Francais.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks