Yorkie Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 What exactly would legal action entail? A retrospective 3-game ban would suffice imo. It was a tackle that warranted a straight red card. It's a difficult one because whilst these tackles are an awful part of the game - I'd be reluctant to see any further encouragement of the sport losing its physicality. Incidents like the 11-game ban in France sets a precedent and I'm not sure that sort of thing is good for the game, regardless of the severity of the challenge/ensuing injury. There is a lack of physicality in the top leagues these days - to a point where simulation (be it 'going down easily' or a plain dive) happens numerous times in every single game. Unless it could be proven, beyond question, that there was genuine malice in a challenge - anything beyond the 3-game suspension is harsh imo. EDIT: Mind you, it's a pity they can't reprimand Whelan for his bullshit sarcasm after the game. Not only is he condoning leg-breaking challenges, he's belittling his own club (as well as ours). If that's not 'bringing the game into disrepute', I'm not sure what is. Couldn't disagree more. There's no physicality in that tackle and 3-game ban is basically nothing. There are ways to fight diving but I fail to see how not giving proper bans would be one way. Beyond my concerns regarding 'losing physicality', how do you scale the severity of one tackle against another (and thus influencing the punishment)? Do you consider the height of the challenge? The speed of which he made the tackle? The severity of any injury it might cause? Like I say, the only thing that should influence the punishment and force an extended ban, is a clear suggestion of malice and intent imo. Like Thatcher against Pedro Mendes, for eg. I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but by the letter of the law - McManaman's foul was dangerous play and should have been a straight red/3-game ban. I don't think he went in with the intention of injuring Haidara. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 fucks sake, you don't sue the player for the tackle you sue the FA not being professional enough to ensure the laws of the game are being competently enforced Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 fucks sake, you don't sue the player for the tackle you sue the FA not being professional enough to ensure the laws of the game are being competently enforced That's fair enough and I would agree - the standard of officiating in this division ranges from bad to appalling and it should be addressed. I'm on about the guy getting a longer ban, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Has anyone been successful for suing an opponent for a tackle? I do know Keane got sued but that was because he admitted he deliberately went to injure him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man Has he not learned to speak yet, like? I know he's a scouser, but that seems far fetched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Yet Russian and French FA's have banned players for a considerable length of time for similar dangerous tackles in recent weeks. Our FA could do the same, there is nothing in the rule book that says they can't. They're inept cowards, plain and simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I'm with Yorkie like, you cannot prove that he went into the challenge wanting to "do the player" so you're only really punishing the player for awful technique in his tackle, there isn't any proof to suggest otherwise. Repeat offenders should be out for longer though, certainly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icemanblue Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Has anyone been successful for suing an opponent for a tackle? I do know Keane got sued but that was because he admitted he deliberately went to injure him. We settled out of court for Nolan's on Anichebe, apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steggy Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Has anyone been successful for suing an opponent for a tackle? I do know Keane got sued but that was because he admitted he deliberately went to injure him. Yes. Two more i can think of but there names escape me. Possibly a wolves player, Muscat? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 fucks sake, you don't sue the player for the tackle you sue the FA not being professional enough to ensure the laws of the game are being competently enforced That's fair enough and I would agree - the standard of officiating in this division ranges from bad to appalling. I'm on about the guy getting a longer ban, though. same principle, it all falls on the FA to ensure the mechanisms are in place to enforce the rules of the game them doing so provides tacit protection for players because the rules should be there to protect players from being snapped in half...they have a duty of care to the people who play in their league it's equivalent of a government sending an army into battle without proper equipment or whatever i can only assume that the FA has never been challenged as they're a private organisation? if so it won't be long, eventually the penny will fall with someone when they're faced with the loss of millions due to these fat wankers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man Not sure if being funny? Didn't know being a thug and coward had age restrictons. He's 22 in a month. Hardly a kid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man Not sure if being funny? Didn't know being a thug and coward had age restrictons. He's 22 in a month. Hardly a kid. k i'll bite, none of you know he's a fucking thug...he's played virtually no games so i personally have to believe the likes of martinez who say he's "not that type of lad" i also believe pardew when he says cabaye is "not that type of lad" because frankly cabaye has made equally poor challenges and i didn't see the fucker on telly being all contrite about it, let's not mention tiote eh? these are seasoned professionals mind you, not kids he's 21/22 and is just breaking into the premier league, probably doesn't have his media badge yet and may be at home shitting himself crying at sky or he may be in the pub laughing his tits off, but i don't know either way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 His age means nowt, our player is younger than him. Wouldn't matter if he was 25, 30, 35 you take the tackle on its merits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Tiote has arguably put in 1 genuinely bad challenge in his time here tbf, he'll rough people up but he's not dangerous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 His age means nowt, our player is younger than him. Wouldn't matter if he was 25, 30, 35 you take the tackle on its merits. is that to me? i'm not on about the tackle, i'm on about the fact he's being criticised for not having a press conference in the albert hall Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 What exactly would legal action entail? A retrospective 3-game ban would suffice imo. It was a tackle that warranted a straight red card. It's a difficult one because whilst these tackles are an awful part of the game - I'd be reluctant to see any further encouragement of the sport losing its physicality. Incidents like the 11-game ban in France sets a precedent and I'm not sure that sort of thing is good for the game, regardless of the severity of the challenge/ensuing injury. There is a lack of physicality in the top leagues these days - to a point where simulation (be it 'going down easily' or a plain dive) happens numerous times in every single game. Unless it could be proven, beyond question, that there was genuine malice in a challenge - anything beyond the 3-game suspension is harsh imo. EDIT: Mind you, it's a pity they can't reprimand Whelan for his bullshit sarcasm after the game. Not only is he condoning leg-breaking challenges, he's belittling his own club (as well as ours). If that's not 'bringing the game into disrepute', I'm not sure what is. Couldn't disagree more. There's no physicality in that tackle and 3-game ban is basically nothing. There are ways to fight diving but I fail to see how not giving proper bans would be one way. Beyond my concerns regarding 'losing physicality', how do you scale the severity of one tackle against another (and thus influencing the punishment)? Do you consider the height of the challenge? The speed of which he made the tackle? The severity of any injury it might cause? Like I say, the only thing that should influence the punishment and force an extended ban, is a clear suggestion of malice and intent imo. Like Thatcher against Pedro Mendes, for eg. I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but by the letter of the law - McManaman's foul was dangerous play and should have been a straight red/3-game ban. I don't think he went in with the intention of injuring Haidara. I have no idea about the scale, but other sports are able to give players bans on a sliding scale. Malice and intent shouldn't play that big part in any decision. You just can't go into a tackle like McManaman even if it is without any intent to injure the opposition player. I just found the 3-game ban for everything to be really archaic. I'll requote a text which I found on ESPN comments on one article. Football can learn from rugby arguments are generally tedious, but when it comes to the disciplinary system, the FA really should look at rugby's example. A citing officer examines all the games and acts independently of the referees. That means he can charge players for incidents missed by the match officials and also players involved in foul play spotted by the ref but perhaps not dealt with sufficiently harshly. Players subsequently found guilty at a disciplinary hearing are punished using a sliding scale that reflects the severity of the offence, the circumstances and any past history of misconduct. A player found guilty of stamping could be banned for two weeks if it was a minor incident, but the suspension might be 16 weeks if it was more serious and resulted in an injury. The disciplinary committee can also rule a sending off was sufficient punishment and that no suspension is necessary. No system is perfect and there are still controversies in rugby, but at least it means there is a chance of the punishment fitting the crime. A couple of years ago a French rugby player was banned for 100 weeks for eye gouging - in English football he'd have received the same three-match ban as a player who slapped someone. And again I mention the way NHL releases a 5-minute video using slow motion replays to tell what the player did wrong and what things affect the length of the ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 What exactly would legal action entail? A retrospective 3-game ban would suffice imo. It was a tackle that warranted a straight red card. It's a difficult one because whilst these tackles are an awful part of the game - I'd be reluctant to see any further encouragement of the sport losing its physicality. Incidents like the 11-game ban in France sets a precedent and I'm not sure that sort of thing is good for the game, regardless of the severity of the challenge/ensuing injury. There is a lack of physicality in the top leagues these days - to a point where simulation (be it 'going down easily' or a plain dive) happens numerous times in every single game. Unless it could be proven, beyond question, that there was genuine malice in a challenge - anything beyond the 3-game suspension is harsh imo. EDIT: Mind you, it's a pity they can't reprimand Whelan for his bullshit sarcasm after the game. Not only is he condoning leg-breaking challenges, he's belittling his own club (as well as ours). If that's not 'bringing the game into disrepute', I'm not sure what is. Couldn't disagree more. There's no physicality in that tackle and 3-game ban is basically nothing. There are ways to fight diving but I fail to see how not giving proper bans would be one way. Beyond my concerns regarding 'losing physicality', how do you scale the severity of one tackle against another (and thus influencing the punishment)? Do you consider the height of the challenge? The speed of which he made the tackle? The severity of any injury it might cause? Like I say, the only thing that should influence the punishment and force an extended ban, is a clear suggestion of malice and intent imo. Like Thatcher against Pedro Mendes, for eg. I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but by the letter of the law - McManaman's foul was dangerous play and should have been a straight red/3-game ban. I don't think he went in with the intention of injuring Haidara. I find it pretty unbelievable that he found his studs half way up a planted leg without an intention of 'sticking one on'. I've not even come close to doing that in all the years I've played (despite increasingly shit reaction times and control). Whether it ran through his head what level of injury his 'welcome to the English league' would cause doesn't matter a jot. I'd say that the intent was there, and that needs to be stamped on. The only way to do that and make an example for others, is for the FA to impose a longer than standard ban. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxfree Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 McManaman hasn't said a word yet? Thug and coward. he's 21 years old man Not sure if being funny? Didn't know being a thug and coward had age restrictons. He's 22 in a month. Hardly a kid. k i'll bite, none of you know he's a f***ing thug...he's played virtually no games so i personally have to believe the likes of martinez who say he's "not that type of lad" i also believe pardew when he says cabaye is "not that type of lad" because frankly cabaye has made equally poor challenges and i didn't see the f***er on telly being all contrite about it, let's not mention tiote eh? these are seasoned professionals mind you, not kids he's 21/22 and is just breaking into the premier league, probably doesn't have his media badge yet and may be at home shitting himself crying at sky or he may be in the pub laughing his tits off, but i don't know either way I tend to believe my own eyes more than an over-protecting manager. Like they're not lying enough as it is. His twitter account, Assulin and Haidara tells me he's a grade A c***. Age and "just breaking in to PL" is just poor excuses. He is what he is. At 22 he's liable for his own self. He deserves all the abuse he gets, the horrible little thug. Hope it really gets to him. Edit: I don't think anyone is demanding a press conference in Albert Hall. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheGreatBeardo Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Yet Russian and French FA's have banned players for a considerable length of time for similar dangerous tackles in recent weeks. Our FA could do the same, there is nothing in the rule book that says they can't. They're inept cowards, plain and simple. Could this be something which makes leagal action against the FA more likely? If other national FA's can be shown to be trying to deal with the problem while the english FA just carries on with it's absurd policy of no retrospective action for incidents spotted by their incompetent referees, and a minimal ban for teams fortunate enough that the referee was so incompetent that he failed to spot the incident all together, it surely makes the case for negligence on the behalf of the FA more plausible. I guess you would probably have to be able to show that countries in which bad tackles were properly punished actually succeed in lowering the number of serious injuries by doing so, which might not be easy to prove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 His age means nowt, our player is younger than him. Wouldn't matter if he was 25, 30, 35 you take the tackle on its merits. is that to me? i'm not on about the tackle, i'm on about the fact he's being criticised for not having a press conference in the albert hall Nah it wasn't at you mate, it was just me ranting out loud. I just noticed the theme seems to be "he was only a young lad", i dont mean on here, i mean in general. I'm still peed off at what Whelan was saying, ignore me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 His age means nowt, our player is younger than him. Wouldn't matter if he was 25, 30, 35 you take the tackle on its merits. is that to me? i'm not on about the tackle, i'm on about the fact he's being criticised for not having a press conference in the albert hall Why? he's a fully grown man. I did plenty of things at that age, took my punishment, fronted it up. he's not ten years old like aye, you went in front of the national media to apologise for the wrong you did then? jesus man, if nothing else his club are telling him to hide away and shut up because no good can come of it however it's good to know the nation is full of such responsible and mature adults at age 21/22 given the judgements thrown around on here, should stand us in good stead as a nation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now