hleb and the FA

thebaz

i see the authoroties are coming down heavy on Hleb , for his little slap last saturday . I despise career threatening lunges , but FFS a small slap , Murty is a professional athlete , and as is the way in Football , drama time .. the same incident in rugby , GAA , or God forbid Aussie rules , wouldn't get a mention -- football used to be a real mans game.

Noelie

as per the rules he probably should have been sent off. they are clear that if you raise a hand you get sent off.

compared to Taylors tackle on Eduardo it's a nothing tackle but both will end up with the same punishment. not fiar but that's the way the rules are.

citytillidie

Or if you play for Middlesbrough get an extra game for appealing it

Peyton Manning

citytillidie wrote: »

Or if you play for Middlesbrough get an extra game for appealing it

Yes because the FA are notorious in their anti-Middlesbrough bias

Mad_Max

Glad the FA are doing something about it. Even his reaction after it cheesed me off. Maybe he wont be so smug with a nice ban/fine.

jank

Yes lets ban this type of behaviour and let Leg breaking tackles off as "just part of the game"
Hleb is anything but smug by the way.

Mitch Connor

Noelie wrote: »

as per the rules he probably should have been sent off. they are clear that if you raise a hand you get sent off.

compared to Taylors tackle on Eduardo it's a nothing tackle but both will end up with the same punishment. not fiar but that's the way the rules are.

How many games was Diaby banned for? His tackle was just as bad as Taylors, Diaby was just lucky not to do more damage.

jank

Tauren wrote: »

How many games was Diaby banned for? His tackle was just as bad as Taylors, Diaby was just lucky not to do more damage.

I agree, he should have been banned for a longer period. Just because he plays for Arsenal i will still critise this behaviour.
But does that make it right? Get off the fence!

Interesting you picked Diaby. He was the victim of a leg breaker against sunderland not too long ago. He was out of the game a year! The guy just recieved a yellow card afaik:eek:

Mitch Connor

jank wrote: »

I agree, he should have been banned for a longer period. Just because he plays for Arsenal i will still critise this behaviour.
But does that make it right? Get off the fence!

Interesting you picked Diaby. He was the victim of a leg breaker against sunderland not too long ago. He was out of the game a year! The guy just recieved a yellow card afaik:eek:

My honest belief is that it is the intent of the tackle that is important. Taylor was unlucky imo - i don't think he ment to injure Eduardo, and his record over the years shows that he is not an aggresive and dangerous player. 'Tackles' like Keane's on Haaland, or Thatcher on Mendes are the real horror tackles. deliverate attempts to damage an opposing player. I would also have no time for the two footed lunges we see every so often from players like Micheal Brown (two deliverate attempts to injury people at the start of last season or the previous one - one on Giggs)

jank

My honest belief is that it is the intent of the tackle that is important

A drunk driver never intends to kill somone, but it happens. Just because he doesnt mean it, it should be ok? If you go in hard with the studs up then you should be red carded.

deisedevil

jank wrote: »

A drunk driver never intends to kill somone, but it happens. Just because he doesnt mean it, it should be ok? If you go in hard with the studs up then you should be red carded.

Thats just ridiculous. A player going in to contest the ball is not the same as a drunk getting into a car. Neither means to do harm but the player is doing nothing illegal by making a genuine attempt to contest the ball, if he misses the ball and catches a leg that's just part of the game of football and always has been. Drunk driving is against the LAW, tackling isn't.

L'prof

Tauren wrote: »

My honest belief is that it is the intent of the tackle that is important.

I agree that that's important, but the after mass of the tackle is also important whether intent is there or not!

Mitch Connor

jasonorr wrote: »

I agree that that's important, but the after mass of the tackle is also important whether intent is there or not!

it is important - but i would not be in the group of people saying Taylor should have been banned for a year because his tackle broke Eduardo's leg. It was a poor tackle, it was a dangerous tackle, but i do not believe it was deliberately dangerous - that is why i felt a red card and a 3 game ban wsa correct. Taylor was trying to win the ball imo, not injure a player. It is when the player is deliberately trying to injure his opponent or the tackle is utterly reckless (two footed lunges) that i think stronger punishments should be handed out (Keane, Brown, Thatcher, Gerrard, Essien).

BaZmO*

Tauren wrote: »

My honest belief is that it is the intent of the tackle that is important.

But that's the thing, it's too difficult to prove intent. There's such a fine line between "last ditch-fairplay to him-got the ball-then the man" tackling and absolutely pole-axing someone.

jank wrote: »

A drunk driver never intends to kill somone, but it happens. Just because he doesnt mean it, it should be ok? If you go in hard with the studs up then you should be red carded.

Absolutely ridiculous comparison. :rolleyes:
As has been pointed out, drink driving is against the law so as soon soon as you get into the car and start the engine you are breaking the law. Tackling is not against the rules in football, but reckless dangerous tackling is. It's the differntiating between what's reckless/dangerous and what's just a missed timed/clumsy tackle that's the hardest part.

Mitch Connor

jank wrote: »

A drunk driver never intends to kill somone, but it happens. Just because he doesnt mean it, it should be ok? If you go in hard with the studs up then you should be red carded.

Good argument. Well thought out.

A drunk driver is being reckless and dangerous, deliberately so.

I haven't said it should not be a red card, i am simply saying i do not belive he should have been banned for a year like some people have said since the incident. Poor tackles can have terrible results, but if every tackle was perfect there would never be any free kicks. We have to accept that at the speed the game is played, there are going to be poor or mistimed tackles. Sure, punish these with red cards as appropriate but save the massive punishments for the players who are deliberately reckless or deliberately try to injure an opponent.

L'prof

Tauren wrote: »

it is important - but i would not be in the group of people saying Taylor should have been banned for a year because his tackle broke Eduardo's leg. It was a poor tackle, it was a dangerous tackle, but i do not believe it was deliberately dangerous - that is why i felt a red card and a 3 game ban wsa correct. Taylor was trying to win the ball imo, not injure a player. It is when the player is deliberately trying to injure his opponent or the tackle is utterly reckless (two footed lunges) that i think stronger punishments should be handed out (Keane, Brown, Thatcher, Gerrard, Essien).

I support Arsenal and I think a 3 game ban was fair as it was unintentional, but some people are of the opinion that it was only a yellow card offence, which is ridiculous imo! Anyway, I thought you were saying something else earlier!

jank

Absolutely ridiculous comparison

I think you missed the point. Its not a comparison, its an anology.

Also as mentioned, how does one prove intent? Its almost impossible.

Think of it like the spear tackle in rugby. You can tackle hard in rugby but its fair. In a tackle if you raise your opponent off the ground YOU are responsibile for his safety in bringing him back to ground. If you dont you can recieve a good few months on the sidelines.

In soccer, if you go in hard, then YOU are responsible of doing this safely. If your studs are showing then it is NOT safe, then YOU are responsible. its not that hard to understand!!

Tauren is being sensationilst by suggestion that im jumping on the "ban taylor for a year" brigade, or there is a possy of people campaigning for this. This is both unture.

You can do a search but i never suggested that.

What i do have issue with is that a grily slap carries the same punishment (sometimes more) for a leg breaking tackle that could ends someone careers, which by the way is the main reason for this thread.

I dont think anybody can say that makes sense!!

Mitch Connor

jank wrote: »

Tauren is being sensationilst by suggestion that im jumping on the "ban taylor for a year" brigade, or there is a possy of people campaigning for this. This is both unture.

You can do a search but i never suggested that.

Wenger said it. A lot of arsenal fans agreed. I think Sepp Blatter said something similar. A few pundits also said it. Never said you said it yourself.

jank

Wenger said it

Immediately retracted.

A lot of arsenal fans agreed

Hmmm, like who now? Some 12 year old on a football365 forum?

I think Sepp Blatter said something similar

He never said that he should be banned for a year, he mentioned that such tackles should be outlawed. These are 2 different things

A few pundits also said it

Like who? MOTD said the tackle was barely a red card.

PHB

I do think the whole red card does not allow for sufficient bans for certain things. I actually don't think Taylor did a particuarly bad tackle, but stuff like Keanes tackle on Hijland (cant remember how to spell his name) surely deserves at least a 10 match ban possibly more!

Any aggressive tackle on the standing leg should result in at least a 5 match ban imo.

BaZmO*

jank wrote: »

I think you missed the point. Its not a comparison, its an anology.

Comparison/Analogy - Tomayto/Tomaato
Still ridiculous.

jank wrote: »

In soccer, if you go in hard, then YOU are responsible of doing this safely. If your studs are showing then it is NOT safe, then YOU are responsible. its not that hard to understand!!

So what are you saying, totally outlaw all tackling? Tag Soccer perhaps?

jank wrote: »

Tauren is being sensationilst....

Although in fairness you started it with your Drink Driving analogy. (Did I use the right word there?)

NotWormBoy

BaZmO* wrote: »

So what are you saying, totally outlaw all tackling? Tag Soccer perhaps?

Talk about putting words in someone's mouth.

deisedevil

BaZmO* wrote: »

So what are you saying, totally outlaw all tackling? Tag Soccer perhaps?

He said tackling with studs showing should be dealt with harsher and while I disagree with the "analogy" I totally agree that tackles where player has studs faced towards ball/leg should be dealt with harshly, these are the tackles that could potentially break a bone, not much chance of bad injury if ball is touched away with top of foot or side of foot but leg straight and studs facing is very wreckless.

Mad_Max

Is every single incident that the FA acts on going to be turned into an edwardo argument. That incident was dealt with by the referee on the day and the FA cant retroactively punish. The ref done all he could.

The discussion is about Hleb and his punching (slapping maybe) of a player that DIDNT get caught by the referee, otherwise he would have been sent off.

He's got a 3 match ban which is right. He would have got the same punishment if the ref seen it, nothing more nothing less.

deisedevil

Mad_Max wrote: »

Is every single incident that the FA acts on going to be turned into an edwardo argument. That incident was dealt with by the referee on the day and the FA cant retroactively punish. The ref done all he could.

The discussion is about Hleb and his punching (slapping maybe) of a player that DIDNT get caught by the referee, otherwise he would have been sent off.

He's got a 3 match ban which is right. He would have got the same punishment if the ref seen it, nothing more nothing less.

+1

Spot on.

Pepe LeFrits

Players tackling with intent should get very, very long bans. Like Rio-missed-a-drugs-test long.

Players tackling recklessly, but without intent (Taylor on Eduardo falls into this category, for example) should get long bans, but nothing like a year or the duration of the injury or any of that nonsense. Something like 6 to 10 games would be fair.

Players tackling responsibly (but erroneously) should be subject to the standard suspensions.

Differentiating between the three is obviously difficult but that should be what the disciplinary panel is for. (As opposed to spending its time extending Jeremie Aliadiere's ban for caressing Javier Mascherano.)

OhNoYouDidn't

thebaz wrote: »

i see the authoroties are coming down heavy on Hleb , for his little slap last saturday . I despise career threatening lunges , but FFS a small slap , Murty is a professional athlete , and as is the way in Football , drama time .. the same incident in rugby , GAA , or God forbid Aussie rules , wouldn't get a mention -- football used to be a real mans game.

Are you arguing we should have the same attitude to violence as those savages?

Raise your hands like Hleb did in rugby you will go for months.

jank

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you arguing we should have the same attitude to violence as those savages?

Raise your hands like Hleb did in rugby you will go for months.

LOL You obviously do watch a lot of rugby! For one the other guy would just laugh at you, and the rest of the team would join in and probably your team mates too for good meassure.

In soccer, if you go in hard, then YOU are responsible of doing this safely. If your studs are showing then it is NOT safe, then YOU are responsible. its not that hard to understand!!

So what are you saying, totally outlaw all tackling? Tag Soccer perhaps?

Is this the game where i say red, you say blue?

Very few have actually come out and said that the status que is ridiculous. Which is the whole point of the thread, a girly open handed slap will have the same punishment as a non-intentional but highly reckless tackle will recieve the same ban.

I think pepe has it spot on tbh.

Mad_Max

jank wrote: »

Very few have actually come out and said that the status que is ridiculous. Which is the whole point of the thread, a girly open handed slap will have the same punishment as a non-intentional but highly reckless tackle will recieve the same ban.

I think pepe has it spot on tbh.

The problem is how do the FA legislate for different circumstances in their rules. They have a set of rules that say no raising of hands, no two-footers etc etc and they all carry them mandatory 3 match ban. How can the rules say well a non-intentional but highly reckless tackle we'll have to have a better look at.

The rules are there and in most cases they get enforced. Its not perfect but thats the game and i'm saying this as someone who has had two full (seperate) seasons taken away by bad tackles.

jank

The problem is how do the FA legislate for different circumstances in their rules. They have a set of rules that say no raising of hands, no two-footers etc etc and they all carry them mandatory 3 match ban. How can the rules say well a non-intentional but highly reckless tackle we'll have to have a better look at

Hiding behind the rule book is a cop out tbh. Where there is a will there is a way.

We are still waiting for goal line technology etc etc. Its amazing for such a global sport that change takes forever! It is damaging the game.

Mad_Max

jank wrote: »

Hiding behind the rule book is a cop out tbh. Where there is a will there is a way.

We are still waiting for goal line technology etc etc. Its amazing for such a global sport that change takes forever! It is damaging the game.

Its not a cop out, what do you do scrap all the rules and make all decisions on a case by case basis. If the FA start to retroactively punish players after a ref has made a decision refs will be undermined for good and no-one can seriously want that.

Not sure what goal-line and changing the game has to do with this argument. Personally I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why the game should be changed. Maybe you can make one

jank

Mad_Max wrote: »

Its not a cop out, what do you do scrap all the rules and make all decisions on a case by case basis. If the FA start to retroactively punish players after a ref has made a decision refs will be undermined for good and no-one can seriously want that.

Not at all. No one is saying we should trow out the baby with the bath water.

However are we to accept the fact the the FA's hands are tied even though they administrate over the game and oversee the rules in england?
You are essentially saying that there is nothing they can do. So thats that! The status quo is fine.

Mad_Max wrote: »

Not sure what goal-line and changing the game has to do with this argument. Personally I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why the game should be changed. Maybe you can make one

Its about FIFA, UEFA, The FA, The Premier League all wanting a say in who things are run. The scourge of the modern game is diving yet none of the above seriously wants to tackle the issue. My point is that we will probably be talking about the same issue(s) in 15 years time when action should have been taken years ago.

Mad_Max

jank wrote: »

Not at all. No one is saying we should trow out the baby with the bath water.

However are we to accept the fact the the FA's hands are tied even though they administrate over the game and oversee the rules in england?
You are essentially saying that there is nothing they can do. So thats that! The status quo is fine.

No, I did say it wasn't perfect. What I'm saying is that if the FA start saying ah the ref got this wrong, that should have been a red and bam theres some extra suspensions for you then where would it stop?

To take a incident I really don't want to rehash, the Eduardo incident. If the FA go and say jaysus that was a horrible tackle your out for a x monhts, then you are never going to have consistency. E.g. Taylors tackle would get a few months or so but remember Essiens horror tackle a few years back, it didn't break anything so that only gets a month maybe.

Its a can of worms that imo would make things worse. I couldn't imagine clubs would want it either for that reason.

Again its not perfect but I don't think it ever can be.

jank

Well nothing is perfect, but the FA should legislate for these such instances but they dont. They are more worried about protecting the Ref's rather then the players in most intances.

Oh and in case you think im ref bashing, dissent either verbal or physical against offical's should be punished. Just to even things up!:p

Mad_Max

lol. Was thinking maybe clattenburg was onto something at the weekend, maybe refs should be allowed push players around too Maybe that'd cut out some of the nonsense

thebaz

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you arguing we should have the same attitude to violence as those savages?

Raise your hands like Hleb did in rugby you will go for months.

I doubt most GAA or rugby players would fall over like murty , nor would most amateur soccer players -- they'd have a bit of manly pride , he's a proffesional athlete , football is suppsed to be a physical game , just hate the wimpish attitude of many supposed professionals , and then the do gooders at the FA , jump in like the Clampers