Benwell Lad Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 let's be honest here. legal action is the only thing that will ever drive the game towards where it needs to go...the legal action would need to be by a club against the FA imo and if a precedent gets set they'd have to put something in motion to mitigate themselves being fucked over again as it stands they're too staid and set in their ways I think any legal action would be along the line of compensation for lost earnings/medical fees/injury caused by a reckless and violent action, and be taken against the alleged offender. They'd have a pretty strong case based on what any sane person can see with their own two eyes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morla84 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Could they not sue for negligence causing personal injury or something? Even if he didn't mean to hurt him he still recklessly threw himself towards his knee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 What exactly would legal action entail? well, bear in mind how many millions of pounds are invested in football by clubs each season...to have a governing body that more or less courts ineptitude on a weekly basis isn't something that should stand imo and i'm sure it could be challenged the FA aren't the ones who make the challenges but they're the ones who put refs on the pitch who crumble under pressure, miss blatant key decisions during games and more or less do whatever the established rich football power broker teams want them to do wide open imo.... in fact if legal action isn't a goer get fat mike to organise a walk off of clubs from the FA until they implement change in the game, that type of shit football is a fucking joke man, it's still stuck in the decade it was invented Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Ah shit, didn't know McManaman had deleted his twitter account. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
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