Henry (Bartons Tormentor)

[Guest Heneage]

It's typical, pick the easy target, which in this case is Joey Barton. Because Henry is still new to this league his terrible nigh dangerous tackles will be ignored, or just put down as 'unfortunate but something we don't want the game to lose'.

 

Essien however a bit like Fabregas is one of the media's babes, almost like he's too good to be dirty. I've said already yes Barton's punch was idiotic, and he deserves a 3 game ban, but compare that with a double footed lunge/tackle which can potentially end a players career for 6 months plus, I'd say the latter is far worse.

[madras]

  On 12/11/2010 at 01:04, Nixon said:

It's typical, pick the easy target, which in this case is Joey Barton. Because Henry is still new to this league his terrible nigh dangerous tackles will be ignored, or just put down as 'unfortunate but something we don't want the game to lose'.

 

Essien however a bit like Fabregas is one of the media's babes, almost like he's too good to be dirty. I've said already yes Barton's punch was idiotic, and he deserves a 3 game ban, but compare that with a double footed lunge/tackle which can potentially end a players career for 6 months plus, I'd say the latter is far worse.

take the B&W glasses off man, one was a tackle so they can always claim he was going for the ball, one was a punch off the ball, which one will make the headlines ?

[Guest Heneage]

  On 12/11/2010 at 01:06, madras said:

  Quote

It's typical, pick the easy target, which in this case is Joey Barton. Because Henry is still new to this league his terrible nigh dangerous tackles will be ignored, or just put down as 'unfortunate but something we don't want the game to lose'.

 

Essien however a bit like Fabregas is one of the media's babes, almost like he's too good to be dirty. I've said already yes Barton's punch was idiotic, and he deserves a 3 game ban, but compare that with a double footed lunge/tackle which can potentially end a players career for 6 months plus, I'd say the latter is far worse.

take the B&W glasses off man, one was a tackle so they can always claim he was going for the ball, one was a punch off the ball, which one will make the headlines ?

But that's exactly my point, that's what's wrong with the media, they deem a punch to the ribs worse than a potential leg break, they've got no sense of perspective. We all know double footed tackles are instant red cards, they aren't allowed yet players still do them.

 

It was the same with De Jong it was all about 'was it foul' not about the young player who's just lost nearly a year of his career because of some retard.

[madras]

  On 12/11/2010 at 01:14, Nixon said:

  Quote

  Quote

It's typical, pick the easy target, which in this case is Joey Barton. Because Henry is still new to this league his terrible nigh dangerous tackles will be ignored, or just put down as 'unfortunate but something we don't want the game to lose'.

 

Essien however a bit like Fabregas is one of the media's babes, almost like he's too good to be dirty. I've said already yes Barton's punch was idiotic, and he deserves a 3 game ban, but compare that with a double footed lunge/tackle which can potentially end a players career for 6 months plus, I'd say the latter is far worse.

take the B&W glasses off man, one was a tackle so they can always claim he was going for the ball, one was a punch off the ball, which one will make the headlines ?

But that's exactly my point, that's what's wrong with the media, they deem a punch to the ribs worse than a potential leg break, they've got no sense of perspective. We all know double footed tackles are instant red cards, they aren't allowed yet players still do them.

 

It was the same with De Jong it was all about 'was it foul' not about the young player who's just lost nearly a year of his career because of some retard.

a leg break from a tackle is part of the game (personally i think it was deliberate...maybe not to break his leg but to hurt him and scare him early) a punch isn't.

[Guest Heneage]

Double footed tackles aren't part of the game.

[madras]

  On 12/11/2010 at 01:24, Nixon said:

Double footed tackles aren't part of the game.

but they are. as seen by some, an attempt at going for the ball (if you get my drift).

[Hanshithispantz]

A double footed leg breaking challenge is not part of the game, it's just disguised as so. however we seen with the alonso fiasco that if barton even discuised his 'assaults' behind "part of the game" he still gets absolutely crusified by every man and his dog.

[Hughesy]

  On 12/11/2010 at 01:24, Nixon said:

Double footed tackles aren't part of the game.

 

This exactly.  People can't just pass off dangerous and reckless tackles as part of the game.  It really annoys me when you get fans and pros banging on about how it's a man's game and it should be physical.  Yes, it should be physical, but putting in leg breaking tackles isn't tough or manly.  It's cowardly and the referees should do something about.  Show a few more red cards and it will stop soon enough.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There is very little difference between a dangerous two-footed tackle and a punch in the chest IMO. Both are acts of violent conduct, designed to hurt someone and driven by frustration.

 

If anything, the tackle is worse, as it has the potential to much more seriously injure the victim.

[Doctor Zaius]

  On 12/11/2010 at 10:59, Ian W said:

There is very little difference between a dangerous two-footed tackle and a punch in the chest IMO. Both are acts of violent conduct, designed to hurt someone and driven by frustration.

 

If anything, the tackle is worse, as it has the potential to much more seriously injure the victim.

 

Nope. One is violent conduct, one is serious foul play isnt it?

 

One can break a players leg effectively ending a career, another is a punch to the chest.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

  On 12/11/2010 at 11:09, Doctor Zaius said:

  Quote

There is very little difference between a dangerous two-footed tackle and a punch in the chest IMO. Both are acts of violent conduct, designed to hurt someone and driven by frustration.

 

If anything, the tackle is worse, as it has the potential to much more seriously injure the victim.

 

Nope. One is violent conduct, one is serious foul play isnt it?

 

One can break a players leg effectively ending a career, another is a punch to the chest.

 

I didn't really mean whether they were technically both "violent conduct" under the laws, I meant that they were both acts of violence and any distinction between them is morally dubious.

[Skirge]

Its this "off the ball incident" that makes the difference..  and that a punch is not a tackle its a violent act that is not within the context of the game.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

  On 12/11/2010 at 11:15, Skirge said:

Its this "off the ball incident" that makes the difference..  and that a punch is not a tackle its a violent act that is not within the context of the game.

 

I don't think that means much in reality.

 

What's the difference between a player who loses his temper or gets frustrated and flies into a dangerous tackle, and one who gives someone a dig in the ribs?

 

I know I would rather have Barton punch me fairly lightly in the chest than Nigel de Jong shatter my leg in two places, for example.

[Skirge]

  On 12/11/2010 at 11:34, Ian W said:

  Quote

Its this "off the ball incident" that makes the difference..  and that a punch is not a tackle its a violent act that is not within the context of the game.

 

I don't think that means much in reality.

 

What's the difference between a player who loses his temper or gets frustrated and flies into a dangerous tackle, and one who gives someone a dig in the ribs?

 

I know I would rather have Barton punch me fairly lightly in the chest than Nigel de Jong shatter my leg in two places, for example.

 

Indeed but its all about intention and proving it, you fly into a tackle with the intention to hurt someone its very hard to prove that was the case. You punch someone then your intention is only to hurt, you can say you went for the ball.

[SEA Mag]

volenti non fit injuria

 

All sportsmen, especially for contact sports going into games voluntarily consenting to risk in injuries, so tackles, no matter how cynical will always not be viewed in the same light as punching / slapping /spitting at somebody straight out.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

  On 12/11/2010 at 13:30, SEA Mag said:

volenti non fit injuria

 

All sportsmen, especially for contact sports going into games voluntarily consenting to risk in injuries, so tackles, no matter how cynical will always not be viewed in the same light as punching / slapping /spitting at somebody straight out.

 

Yes, players expect injuries when they go on the pitch, but they also expect the game to be played relatively fairly and without deliberate attempts to injure.

 

If I was a builder and I pushed my mate of a roof, I couldn't just say "aye well he knew the risks of being a builder". It would be attempted murder.

 

Slightly extreme example, but you see what I'm saying!

[SEA Mag]

  On 12/11/2010 at 14:19, Ian W said:

  Quote

volenti non fit injuria

 

All sportsmen, especially for contact sports going into games voluntarily consenting to risk in injuries, so tackles, no matter how cynical will always not be viewed in the same light as punching / slapping /spitting at somebody straight out.

 

Yes, players expect injuries when they go on the pitch, but they also expect the game to be played relatively fairly and without deliberate attempts to injure.

 

If I was a builder and I pushed my mate of a roof, I couldn't just say "aye well he knew the risks of being a builder". It would be attempted murder.

 

Slightly extreme example, but you see what I'm saying!

 

I do understand, I'm not condoning De Jong-like tackles btw. I hate it as much as you do that HBA is lost to a senseless 2 footed lunge and the culprit gets away scot-free while Barton gets a 3 match suspension for ribbing the Blackburn twat. Just that it's the letter of the law.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Is "violent conduct" not a matter of opinion though? I don't know the letter of the law, but is it impossible for anything to be violent if it uses the feet and resembles a tackle?

[SEA Mag]

It obviously is, but it is very much a grey area, as we can see in the case of HBA, where the referee actually sees the foul but deems it not a foul.

 

However, if a referee sees a player punch another player, he would have no choice but to send him off.