by SWA » 19 Mar 2013 16:31
by ZacNaloen » 19 Mar 2013 16:41
by windermere_royal » 19 Mar 2013 17:40
by barelylubedcock » 20 Mar 2013 09:27
GreaterTorontoRoyal
Seems clean to me
by Sanguine » 20 Mar 2013 09:47
by soggy biscuit » 20 Mar 2013 10:25
Sanguine And on the current rules – isn’t it an anomaly that the FA will intervene to reverse a red card, when the referee has ‘seen the incident’ but not to retrospectively punish players when the referee has deemed the challenge fair.
by TBM » 20 Mar 2013 11:26
by Sanguine » 20 Mar 2013 11:39
TBM John Barnes made a (fairly) good point last night, on TalkSport
Something along the lines of where do you draw the line at re-referring games?....do it for this challenge and then it opens it up for say the likes of Stockport v Macclesfield to send in videos of a challenge in one of their games and so on and so on....they will be forever re-referring games for challenges. Different if it was an off the ball incident (elbow/punch/kick etc) but not for a tackle.
by TBM » 20 Mar 2013 11:46
SanguineTBM John Barnes made a (fairly) good point last night, on TalkSport
Something along the lines of where do you draw the line at re-referring games?....do it for this challenge and then it opens it up for say the likes of Stockport v Macclesfield to send in videos of a challenge in one of their games and so on and so on....they will be forever re-referring games for challenges. Different if it was an off the ball incident (elbow/punch/kick etc) but not for a tackle.
They already have rules in place dissuading clubs from making 'frivolous' appeals, a similar rule would do in the case of Barnes' point, surely?
by Alexander Litvinenko » 20 Mar 2013 12:09
by soggy biscuit » 20 Mar 2013 12:17
by TBM » 20 Mar 2013 12:19
soggy biscuit Do think a lot more has been made of this than was needed, but then I guess that is the SSN / Talksport age of sports coverage. Nothing else to talk about so they focus on making something huge so as to cover the minutes easier.
It's a contact sport that is played at a very fast pace, accidents will happen from time to time
by soggy biscuit » 20 Mar 2013 12:30
by handbags_harris » 20 Mar 2013 13:08
by TBM » 20 Mar 2013 13:12
handbags_harris Struggling here to understand how anybody can't see the McManaman tackle as anything other than reckless. He's gone in all guns blazing with no thought whatsoever for the safety of his opponent and regardless of whether the ball was there to be won or not (the height of the ball suggests it was winnable but not with the sort of challenge Mcmanaman used) has ended up planting his studs on the leg causing potentially serious injury. So, he's used excessive force, his feet are high, and the studs are up. Reckless, plain and simple, regardless of any other supposedly mitigating circumstances.
by Alexander Litvinenko » 20 Mar 2013 14:48
handbags_harris Struggling here to understand how anybody can't see the McManaman tackle as anything other than reckless. He's gone in all guns blazing with no thought whatsoever for the safety of his opponent and regardless of whether the ball was there to be won or not (the height of the ball suggests it was winnable but not with the sort of challenge Mcmanaman used) has ended up planting his studs on the leg causing potentially serious injury. So, he's used excessive force, his feet are high, and the studs are up. Reckless, plain and simple, regardless of any other supposedly mitigating circumstances.
by From Despair To Where? » 20 Mar 2013 20:42
soggy biscuit True. When they actually had something to talk about they ignored it as the drama trains wheels were in motion over this tackle.
If this incident had happened 15 years ago I feel it would have been highlighted on the MOTD highlights that night then forgotten about. Only reason it carried on being discussed was because nowadays there is something in place (parts of the media) where it is within their interest to keep it being discussed.
Maybe I am as guilty as anyone else there though
by handbags_harris » 21 Mar 2013 21:23
TBMhandbags_harris Struggling here to understand how anybody can't see the McManaman tackle as anything other than reckless. He's gone in all guns blazing with no thought whatsoever for the safety of his opponent and regardless of whether the ball was there to be won or not (the height of the ball suggests it was winnable but not with the sort of challenge Mcmanaman used) has ended up planting his studs on the leg causing potentially serious injury. So, he's used excessive force, his feet are high, and the studs are up. Reckless, plain and simple, regardless of any other supposedly mitigating circumstances.
Yeah but nobody ever goes into a tackle having thought about it first?.........if you did that, then the opposition would have already gone past you. It was high, it was late but he didn't think "i'm going to injure him in this challenge, i'm going to plant my stud on to his knee cap"
by bcubed » 21 Mar 2013 22:46
handbags_harrisTBMhandbags_harris Struggling here to understand how anybody can't see the McManaman tackle as anything other than reckless. He's gone in all guns blazing with no thought whatsoever for the safety of his opponent and regardless of whether the ball was there to be won or not (the height of the ball suggests it was winnable but not with the sort of challenge Mcmanaman used) has ended up planting his studs on the leg causing potentially serious injury. So, he's used excessive force, his feet are high, and the studs are up. Reckless, plain and simple, regardless of any other supposedly mitigating circumstances.
Yeah but nobody ever goes into a tackle having thought about it first?.........if you did that, then the opposition would have already gone past you. It was high, it was late but he didn't think "i'm going to injure him in this challenge, i'm going to plant my stud on to his knee cap"
It's not about deliberately thinking about the challenge you're about to make at all, and I think you know that. Football is as much about instinct as anything else, but no player in the game in this day and age can have an instinct to challenge in this manner now, surely? I'm not saying the planting of the studs on the knee were deliberate, but the level of force used was pre-meditated, a kind of "I'm not backing out of this regardless of the consequences" type challenge. The problem lies with people within the game at all levels, including players and managers, who think it is acceptable to go in as hard as McManaman did when the rulebook clearly states that the use of excessive force is not allowed. McManaman had absolutely no need to go in the way he did, and for me there are absolutely no excuses for his actions. Until that level of force is actively coached out of players then we will have this issue cropping up again and again.
by Alexander Litvinenko » 22 Mar 2013 09:07
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 100 guests