Danny Guthrie should be banned for three months

Charlie

pesireland wrote: »

Danny should get a 6 month ban imo, i thought been brought up at liverpool he would have known better than that, and not only did he have one go at him, he had two.

What, like hanging around upstanding citizens like Jamie 'I did him' Carragher? Get off your high horse.

6 months would be a ridiculous. 6 game ban would be there or thereabouts right.

_blank_

Lad playing for Boardeaux a couple of years ago broke his cheekbone, played on in that match, played and scored int he next match, went to hospital the next week and was told he'd broken it.

Another fella broke his wrist and played on, and another guy broke both hands and played on.

Mr Alan

both his hands!? wtf?! you running some sort of fight club des?!!?!?

Charlie

Mr Alan wrote: »

both his hands!? wtf?! you running some sort of fight club des?!!?!?

TBH, it sounds like some sort of epic game of soggy biscuit.

yahoo_moe

Tauren wrote: »

why is it unfair? Guthrie tried to injure a player and suceeded in doing so, putting him out for 3 months. Why should his ban not reflect the intent?

Read what I said again:

yahoo_moe wrote:

His ban (and all others like it) should reflect the fact that he went in to injure a player but it's not about the length of time the victim is or isn't out for. There are way too many variables and personal judgments - what if a player's playing half-injured already?

That's like saying that a handball on the line that stops an equaliser that would win the title or avoid relegation should be punished more than one that stops a consolation goal. But you can't do those kind of things - it'd be unworkable and unfair.

You said the ban should reflect "the injury that resulted" but I don't agree - it should not be based on the amount of time the victim's out for as there are too many variables involved.

Guy:Incognito

I broke my back, neck, 3 legs (I'm that hard) both arms and smashed my pelvis. Didnt get it sorted till the end of the season cos I didnt want to miss any matches.

Charlie

Lee Ryder in his blog for The Chronicle makes some interesting points.

As much as sympathy must go out to broken leg victim Craig Fagan - Danny Guthrie will still need some consoling from within the shattered Newcastle United camp after learning the Hull City player's season in the big time has been decimated.

Make no mistake nobody can condone Guthrie's actions, but it doesn't mean that people shouldn't understand why it happened.

Clearly a young player who had ran his socks off for the cause amidst a difficult backdrop lost the plot in the closing stages before lashing out at Fagan.

At the time nobody thought Fagan had broken his leg and regardless of what people say down in Hull, it was far from a horror tackle.

It was dirty and it was bad and it was late, but not horrific - and no matter what anyone says, you have to doubt that it was in Guthrie's mind when he set off he was intending to unleash a leg breaker.

The red mist simply descended on Guthrie and he lost the plot all together.

Indeed when an introvert figure like Guthrie loses it, it clearly highlights that all is far from well within the Toon camp after Keegan's departure - which is deeply worrying considering there is a long season ahead.

And while Fagan has everybody's sympathy, Guthrie's challenge wasn't too unlike Fagan's attempts to chop down Michael Owen earlier in the game in the centre circle.

Owen was clearly livid with Fagan's tackle from behind in which there was no intent to win the ball.

And Fagan was clearly mouthing "calm down" on TV monitors a number for times to the usually cool and calm skipper in an obvious attempt to rattle Owen on what was already a testing day.

Guthrie - who now faces a lengthy ban - has since apologised for the tackle but at a time when the pressure at Newcastle is clearly showing on the players, the worrying factor is that there is a lack of leadership at the club and lack of a key figure to put an arm around the player.

Given that Guthrie was the only player that Keegan signed without the assistance of Dennis Wise and Co, it was perhaps somewhat ironic that the player fell into the frustration trap and has ended up attracting a wave of negative publicity - which was the last thing anybody at United wanted.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Guy:Incognito

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yawn. He lost the rag for a second and kicked a player. Jesus footballs already being turned into a non contact sport and makng things like this international inceidents isnt helping.

I think we will all survive Guthries murder attempt and get on with our lives.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Charlie

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it wasn't, it was just trying to put some perspective on the whole situation, before people get carried away and start blaming Guthrie for the collapse of the economy.

riflehunter77

The fact is Guthrie lost the rag not once but twice in the space of a few seconds this should not be happening in the modern game. Im all in favour of a physical game and got to admit I like it when you see some crunching tackles fly in. We have so much play acting and diving around the place these days its a disgrace. But the tackles must be fair not hacking a guy down from behind. Well thats my two cents

Fanny Cradock

MOG7 wrote: »

I thought the same thing, he got up and went for Guthrie even, but supposedly its only a fracture, probably just in the moment it didn't hurt as much. Boggles my mind to though.

A fractured bone is the same as a broken bone.

PHB

Guthrie had no other intend than to hurt the player. As such, imo, any player who just goes to hurt the player should be banned 6 matches or the length of time the player is out, whichever is longer. Definate intent and serious foul play is imo assualt and such should be seriously tackled.
.

mayordenis

It's not as bad or horrific as the stamps and lunges we see every week,
That kind of kick while I'm not condoning it is not comparable to the stamp we saw on opening weekend from I think it was Faye, or Essien on Hamann about 2 years ago, they are sick and need to be removed.
This was a simple but forceful kick but you honestly wouldn't expect it to end in a broken leg it, I would think people would be seriously jumping the gun to say he intended to break his leg.

Charlie

PHB wrote: »

Guthrie had no other intend than to hurt the player. As such, imo, any player who just goes to hurt the player should be banned 6 matches or the length of time the player is out, whichever is longer. Definate intent and serious foul play is imo assualt and such should be seriously tackled.
.

6 match ban, yes. Measuring severity of injury and punishment, no. Someone could clock someone with an uppercut midgame, and that player might be fine for the next match. Whilst someone might time a tackle late, and end someones carear. There are too many variances in play.

Mitch Connor

charlie mchugh wrote: »

6 match ban, yes. Measuring severity of injury and punishment, no. Someone could clock someone with an uppercut midgame, and that player might be fine for the next match. Whilst someone might time a tackle late, and end someones carear. There are too many variances in play.

timing a tackle wrong is not a deliberate attempt to injure a player.

Mr Alan

so wat if someone times a tackle really badly, and it looks like it was just malicious, when in actual fact it wasnt? 6months? a year?

go and ****e.

Guthrie should get 3-6 games.

copacetic

Tauren wrote: »

timing a tackle wrong is not a deliberate attempt to injure a player.

timing it wrong? hit kicked him halfway up the leg 2 yards from where the ball was, and the ball was never anywhere near the area he kicked.

He never had any itention of trying to get the ball he was attempting to kick Fagan as hard as possible and he did.

jaykay74

Mr Alan wrote: »

Guthrie should get 3-6 games.

3 games would be very lenient. should be minimum 6. I would think he deserves 6-8 games.

It shouldn't bear any relation to the length of injury (as others have said) as it doesn't make sense.

Mitch Connor

copacetic wrote: »

timing it wrong? hit kicked him halfway up the leg 2 yards from where the ball was, and the ball was never anywhere near the area he kicked.

He never had any itention of trying to get the ball he was attempting to kick Fagan as hard as possible and he did.

try reading my post AND the post i was replying to.

jaykay74

Rubbish decision.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7619485.stm

Guthrie avoids further punishment



The Football Association says Newcastle midfielder Danny Guthrie will receive no further punishment for breaking the leg of Hull's Craig Fagan.

Guthrie will now serve a three-match ban for being sent off in Saturday's Premier League match at St James' Park.
Guthrie, 22, has apologised for taking a wild kick at Fagan and insisted the incident was "out of character".
However, the FA had the power to increase any ban given the ex-Liverpool player was guilty of violent play.
More to follow.

Guy:Incognito

Just a quick yes or no from people. If Vidic's challanege on Alonso had resulted in say a broken shoulder from hitting the ground, or concussion (both of which could easily have haooened), should Vidic had been banned for months? (this is justmost recent bad challaenge in my head, its transeferrable ot lots of other challanges too)

jaykay74

Stekelly wrote: »

Just a quick yes or no from people. If Vidic's challanege on Alonso had resulted in say a broken shoulder from hitting the ground, or concussion (both of which could easily have haooened), should Vidic had been banned for months? (this is justmost recent bad challaenge in my head, its transeferrable ot lots of other challanges too)

The ban shouldn't bear any relation to the length of injury as it doesn't make sense.

Mr Alan

guthrie kicks out, and gets a straight red and three game ban.

fair enough imo.

Guy:Incognito

jaykay74 wrote: »

The ban shouldn't bear any relation to the length of injury as it doesn't make sense.

I never said it should. I'm firmly planted in the "stop blowing things out of proportion" camp. My question was aimed at people calling for Guthries head.

jaykay74

Mr Alan wrote: »

guthrie kicks out, and gets a straight red and three game ban.

fair enough imo.

Replace Guthries name with Rooney which could easily happen during the season hothead that he is especially when things are going wrong. We'll see if you are happy with 3 game ban then.

It was reckless. He did it twice in a few seconds. The ball wasn't involved. The message is don't get sent off for a light slap on the face or a non contact headbutt. If you are going to get a 3 game ban then get stuck in and really hurt the guy which was the intention here.

copacetic

Tauren wrote: »

try reading my post AND the post i was replying to.

I'd prefer to jump to conclusions and land on my high horse thank you very muchly!

copacetic

Stekelly wrote: »

Just a quick yes or no from people. If Vidic's challanege on Alonso had resulted in say a broken shoulder from hitting the ground, or concussion (both of which could easily have haooened), should Vidic had been banned for months? (this is justmost recent bad challaenge in my head, its transeferrable ot lots of other challanges too)

No, but it shoud have been a straight red and he should be on a longer ban than he is.

mayordenis

basically if I wanted to hurt someone on a football pitch a kick like guthrie's isn't what I would do,
it was a case of leaving out anger in a way that generally isn't as appauling he just went a little overboard, 3 games is fair.

Mr Alan

jaykay74 wrote: »

Replace Guthries name with Rooney which could easily happen during the season hothead that he is especially when things are going wrong. We'll see if you are happy with 3 game ban then.

It was reckless. He did it twice in a few seconds. The ball wasn't involved. The message is don't get sent off for a light slap on the face or a non contact headbutt. If you are going to get a 3 game ban then get stuck in and really hurt the guy which was the intention here.

my opinion would be the same if it was Rooney. Stop trying to paint me as some sort of double standard lunatic when i very much amn't. I really dislike Newcastle as a club and would have no issue saying if i thought Guthrie should get more of a ban, he no longer has any connection to Liverpool.

jaykay74

Mr Alan wrote: »

my opinion would be the same if it was Rooney. Stop trying to paint me as some sort of double standard lunatic when i very much amn't. I really dislike Newcastle as a club and would have no issue saying if i thought Guthrie should get more of a ban, he no longer has any connection to Liverpool.

Just a jokey throwaway comment. not meant to be taken seriously.....

/don't engage lunatic, walk slowly away/

Mr Alan

that made me lol thanks

Charlie

Have to say I am a little surprised at this, a I thought the FA would react to the hysteria and overreaction. Can't say I am not happy though, as we are struggling to get 11 men onto the team sheet at the moment.