Massadio Haïdara

[Mick]

Amazing news, even though he did escape serious injury I hope there is no mental scares left after this.

 

Why would he have mental scars?  It was a shit tackle, probably one of the worst I've seen but he'd have to be fairly weak if it leaves him with mental scars.  I have little doubt that he'll remember it but it shouldn't be any worse than that because of the lack of long term damage like a broken bone or damaged ligaments.

[Optimistic Nut]

Amazing news, even though he did escape serious injury I hope there is no mental scares left after this.

 

Why would he have mental scars?  It was a s*** tackle, probably one of the worst I've seen but he'd have to be fairly weak if it leaves him with mental scars.  I have little doubt that he'll remember it but it shouldn't be any worse than that because of the lack of long term damage like a broken bone or damaged ligaments.

 

Rightly or wrongly though, English football still has a reputation in Europe of being kick and rush, long ball and being a bit hard hitting. A kid who's been here barely 2 months has just been on the end of something which hardly disproves it so he's naturally going to be a bit wary.

[Ted Maul]

Amazing news, even though he did escape serious injury I hope there is no mental scares left after this.

 

Why would he have mental scars?  It was a shit tackle, probably one of the worst I've seen but he'd have to be fairly weak if it leaves him with mental scars.  I have little doubt that he'll remember it but it shouldn't be any worse than that because of the lack of long term damage like a broken bone or damaged ligaments.

 

The kid more or less said it himself in the interview.

[Tiresias]

A dentist once failed to properly anaesthetise my teeth before drilling twice in a row, this led me to avoid going back for ages (which resulted in horrendous toothache in the end and then a horrendous infection when they took it out). Lesson learnt for me but I bet he winces a bit in advance of tackles coming in for a while.

[bulivye]

so is nothing really going to be done about this!?  i just saw a headline somewhere that NUFC aren't gonna sue, or summat...   

[Neil]

Thought there was no way he'd be back this season. Great stuff.

 

Bottom line is he looks a good player with a very promising future. Hopefully not going to be rushed back, though.[/genericinjuryrelatedcomment]

[bulivye]

the silence from Mcmanaman & wigan is deafening.  the lad still ought to apologise--yes i know it would merely be PR theatre, but still he must be made to jump through the hoops...

[JH]

the silence from Mcmanaman & wigan is deafening.  the lad still ought to apologise--yes i know it would merely be PR theatre, but still he must be made to jump through the hoops...

 

For what though? It wasn't a foul or a 'dangerous challenge' in the eyes of the FA so technically he has nothing to apologise for.

[Guest palnese]

the silence from Mcmanaman & wigan is deafening.  the lad still ought to apologise--yes i know it would merely be PR theatre, but still he must be made to jump through the hoops...

 

For what though? It wasn't a foul or a 'dangerous challenge' in the eyes of the FA so technically he has nothing to apologise for.

 

Of course it was a dangerous challenge in the eyes of the FA, but they have their silly rule, and they stood by it. The lino, or whoever it was, saw the challenge - no retrospective punishment.

[morla84]

Keep hearing pundits say stuff like "I bet Mcmanaman wishes he had been banned as it would have avoided a lot of the media storm against him." What a load of shite, he could have easily avoided it by apologizing on camera/on twitter/in person straight away, and showing a bit of concern for the lad instead of letting his chairman make things 10 times worse

[Dave]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/9950572/Rule-change-for-FA-after-shock-over-Callum-McManaman-challenge-on-Massadio-Haidara-went-unpunished.html

Rule change for FA after shock over Callum McManaman challenge on Massadio Haidara went unpunished

 

The Football Association hopes to change the rules that prevented them from charging Wigan Athletic’s Callum McManaman for his horrific tackle on Newcastle United’s Massadio Haidara.

 

 

The FA’s current regulations meant McManaman escaped retrospective action last week despite clear evidence of how dangerous the tackle was.

 

The FA will now raise the issue with the other 'stakeholders’ involved in setting disciplinary guidelines – the Premier League, Football League, Professional Footballers Association, League Managers Association and the match officials’ body, PGMOL – at the end of the season.

 

They want the definition of what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” widened, having agonised for two days last week over whether McManaman could be charged under the present restricted framework.

 

The FA are stunned at the stance taken this week by some of the 'stakeholders’ – specifically the PFA and Premier League – who expressed surprise that McManaman was not charged. The two organisations had opposed a rule change last summer.

 

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore claimed that McManaman could be charged under the present framework – which the FA dispute – while PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor and chairman Clarke Carlisle were also critical.

 

Some 'stakeholders’ also blocked a similar discussion on 'simulation’, or diving, which the FA wanted to examine – insisting they were happy with the present interpretation. The subject will also come back on the agenda in the summer.

 

It is understood that the FA did want to charge McManaman but could not do so because after consulting with referees and former players, the consensus was that the 21-year-old midfielder should have received a red card and a three-match ban.

 

Crucially, under the current interpretation of the rules – which the FA wanted to change last summer – that would not constitute an “exceptional circumstance” and so could not have been acted upon. This was fundamental to the decision not to charge McManaman.

 

One of the match officials at the DW Stadium also informed the FA that he had witnessed “a coming together” of the players that went unpunished by referee Mark Halsey.

 

Normally, that would have meant the end of the matter but, in this case, the FA then sought advice from the PFA, LMA and referees to see whether it could be dealt with as an “exceptional circumstance” – as happened in 2006 when Ben Thatcher received an eight-match ban for elbowing Pedro Mendes.

 

Halsey is believed to have stated in his match report that not only did he not see the McManaman incident, but if he had done he would have red-carded the player. He is also thought to have urged for retroactive action to be taken and has been left distraught by the criticism he has faced.

 

The present approach has been in place since Fifa relaxed its rules over reviewing incidents that had not been seen by the officials at the time. The main reason was to punish violent conduct – such as a punch or use of an elbow – that the television cameras were spotting but sometimes the referee was not.

 

The FA’s rules allow the match official the opportunity to revisit an incident that was missed, and be given the chance to decide what action would have been taken had the infringement been seen at the time.

 

Although the rules appear to suggest that the FA can only revisit a tackle if it has not been seen by any of the officials, it can be dealt with if it is worthy of more than a three-match ban.

 

The FA are frustrated by the events of the past few days and want to make a change at the end of this season because the rules cannot, for obvious reasons of consistency, be altered during a campaign.

 

However they are resistant to the idea, raised last week by the PFA, of a Monday morning committee to review incidents, believing that it would not only be unwieldy but impractical.

 

For example, if it involved former players or managers then their affiliation to a former club could be raised by critics to castigate them.

[madras]

Although the rules appear to suggest that the FA can only revisit a tackle if it has not been seen by any of the officials, it can be dealt with if it is worthy of more than a three-match ban.

 

never knew that bit and that is the next bit that needs looked at. 3 games for violent conduct is not enough (providing you distinguish between the mcmanaman sort of tackle and a player putting his hand in someones face).

[Tiresias]

It's absurd that a predictable scenario like this is what it took for them to 'reconsider' the rules. While the rules could let such a tackle go unpunished they were always ridiculous

[merlin]

Whilst I am delighted that Haidara has escaped serious injury - much against the odds, he must have been a cat in a previous life - I am disappointed in both Wigan and the FA ; the former for trying to justify what was clearly one of the worst tackles seen in the PL and the latter for twisting and turning about rule interpretation.

 

If everyone concerned, including Halsey, was so distraught about not punishing the incident, then I am sure justice could and should have been done. There are far too many occurrences these days of lawyers twisting the spirit of the Law into the letter of the Law, simply to suit their own purposes.

 

Whelan and Co are a disgrace - normally, I don't wish any side ill-will, but in this case I fervently wish relegation - and a permanent place - in the Championship for this lousy little club and their small-town, small minded and bitter fans...unless they drop further in the league. I feel this way not because of the tackle itself but because of their gloating, smug and 3 - monkey type reaction to what could have been a career-threatening injury but for the grace of God.

 

Pity the FA can't deduct 3 points for the Wigan denials/rections which have brought the game into disrepute.

[Cajun]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/9950572/Rule-change-for-FA-after-shock-over-Callum-McManaman-challenge-on-Massadio-Haidara-went-unpunished.html

Rule change for FA after shock over Callum McManaman challenge on Massadio Haidara went unpunished

 

The Football Association hopes to change the rules that prevented them from charging Wigan Athletic’s Callum McManaman for his horrific tackle on Newcastle United’s Massadio Haidara.

 

 

The FA’s current regulations meant McManaman escaped retrospective action last week despite clear evidence of how dangerous the tackle was.

 

The FA will now raise the issue with the other 'stakeholders’ involved in setting disciplinary guidelines – the Premier League, Football League, Professional Footballers Association, League Managers Association and the match officials’ body, PGMOL – at the end of the season.

 

They want the definition of what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” widened, having agonised for two days last week over whether McManaman could be charged under the present restricted framework.

 

The FA are stunned at the stance taken this week by some of the 'stakeholders’ – specifically the PFA and Premier League – who expressed surprise that McManaman was not charged. The two organisations had opposed a rule change last summer.

 

Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore claimed that McManaman could be charged under the present framework – which the FA dispute – while PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor and chairman Clarke Carlisle were also critical.

 

Some 'stakeholders’ also blocked a similar discussion on 'simulation’, or diving, which the FA wanted to examine – insisting they were happy with the present interpretation. The subject will also come back on the agenda in the summer.

 

It is understood that the FA did want to charge McManaman but could not do so because after consulting with referees and former players, the consensus was that the 21-year-old midfielder should have received a red card and a three-match ban.

 

Crucially, under the current interpretation of the rules – which the FA wanted to change last summer – that would not constitute an “exceptional circumstance” and so could not have been acted upon. This was fundamental to the decision not to charge McManaman.

 

One of the match officials at the DW Stadium also informed the FA that he had witnessed “a coming together” of the players that went unpunished by referee Mark Halsey.

 

Normally, that would have meant the end of the matter but, in this case, the FA then sought advice from the PFA, LMA and referees to see whether it could be dealt with as an “exceptional circumstance” – as happened in 2006 when Ben Thatcher received an eight-match ban for elbowing Pedro Mendes.

 

Halsey is believed to have stated in his match report that not only did he not see the McManaman incident, but if he had done he would have red-carded the player. He is also thought to have urged for retroactive action to be taken and has been left distraught by the criticism he has faced.

 

The present approach has been in place since Fifa relaxed its rules over reviewing incidents that had not been seen by the officials at the time. The main reason was to punish violent conduct – such as a punch or use of an elbow – that the television cameras were spotting but sometimes the referee was not.

 

The FA’s rules allow the match official the opportunity to revisit an incident that was missed, and be given the chance to decide what action would have been taken had the infringement been seen at the time.

 

Although the rules appear to suggest that the FA can only revisit a tackle if it has not been seen by any of the officials, it can be dealt with if it is worthy of more than a three-match ban.

 

The FA are frustrated by the events of the past few days and want to make a change at the end of this season because the rules cannot, for obvious reasons of consistency, be altered during a campaign.

 

However they are resistant to the idea, raised last week by the PFA, of a Monday morning committee to review incidents, believing that it would not only be unwieldy but impractical.

 

For example, if it involved former players or managers then their affiliation to a former club could be raised by critics to castigate them.

 

Not sure how this challenge didn't clearly fall into the "exceptional circumstances" rule. Most people who has seen it (fans, pundits, ex officials, previous employees of he FA etc..) have commented it on being on of the worst challenges they have seen. How is that not exceptional circumstances?

 

It's a little annoying how the FA has gone into "woe is us, we need help here, we are restricted by the rules we probably created in the first place" mode.

 

I don't know why things like this seem so difficult. If they charged the lad under the exceptional circumstances rule no-one could challenge it without looking like a complete moron.

[mattypnufc]

Anyone seen this?

 

http://www.wiganer.net/news/tmnw/classless_newcastle_left_to_recoil_after_some_bruising_788879/index.shtml

 

 

[Fenham Mag]

Anyone seen this?

 

http://www.wiganer.net/news/tmnw/classless_newcastle_left_to_recoil_after_some_bruising_788879/index.shtml

 

 

 

Football is the second sport in Wigan and it shows in that tripe.

[Interpolic]

Thought that was the official Wigan website for a minute.  Total WUM whoever it is, not worth the time of day.

[Guest reefatoon]

 

Christ, that's straight from the school of Dave Whelan bullshitting that.  Bitter little bastards.

[Guest firetotheworks]

The FA wont have wanted to ban McManaman. The outcry from everyone will have made them need to rewrite it as them having their hands tied, when that clearly isn't the case. It's a slight moral victory imo, it'll just never be painted that way in the public eye.

 

[huss9]

ha ha, classless? us?

 

http://www.wiganer.net/news/tmnw/classless_newcastle_left_to_recoil_after_some_bruising_788879/index.shtml

 

 

 

 

Classless Newcastle left to recoil after some bruising

 

By Paul Farrington

Updated Sunday, 24th March 2013

Views: 2914

Wigan Athletic RSS Feed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alan Pardew and John Carver were left in a state of embarrassment this week as Massaido Haidara's injury was revealed to be some bruising.

 

The 20 year old French full back was on the end of a hard tackle from Latics winger Callum McManaman. The ensuing incidents were escalated by Newcastle, and in particular manager Alan Pardew and his assistant John Carver.

 

The duo created a scene that led to Carver being sent to the stands by referee Mark Halsey with Pardew's comments after the game particularly damning and disrespectful.

 

Now news has emerged that Haidara will be out for just three weeks with a bruised knee.

 

Perhaps it would be wise for the FA to take retrospective action against the Newcastle boss and send him to the same school of class that Latics boss Roberto Martinez exhuded in deadling with the same incident.

 

After threats of legal action from Newcastle it will be interesting to see just what they attempt to chase the Latics with.

 

Meanwhile a group of Newcastle supporters invaded the pitch of Wigan Cosmos who were playing their Saturday league game on a pitch nearby the DW Stadium.

 

The Newcastle supporters continued to cause significant damage to the goals posts and associated equipment before the rabble moved on to their next target.

 

This is truly an incident where retrospective action from the FA is called for.

 

 

 

[54]

I don't think any words could describe how bad that article is.

[Dave]

with Pardew's comments after the game particularly damning and disrespectful

 

Totally wrong. Ignore.

[Jack Flash]

The disability is strong with this one.

[S.S.R.]

Based on his logic, I can punch him in the face and as long as I don't fracture his jaw, he has no right to complain.

 

"But officer, I didn't kill anyone while I was doing 90mph and pissed...."