What action would you take here?

Peyton Manning · 01-09-2009 2:05am #1

Axel Witsel of Standard Liege, thought to have a bright future ahead of him, made the following tackle this weekend (do not watch if you have a weak stomach, its probably the most horrendous thing Ive seen happen on a football pitch):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OapMvlhZOQ

What action would you take as a disciplinary authority?

anonymous_joe · 01-09-2009 2:15am

Season long ban

I saw the youtube pic and decided I could do without watching it.

But was it deliberate?

CHD · 01-09-2009 2:15am

5 game ban

8-10 games imo

dannydiamond · 01-09-2009 2:18am

3 game ban (as per red card)

Archimedes wrote: »

its probably the most horrendous thing Ive seen happen on a football pitch[/B]):

Really?
You've never seen this?

01-09-2009 2:19am

Season long ban

I dont think it was intentional but it was unbelievably reckless and stupid,personally I would ban him for the length of the guys injury.

This is also taking into account he shows no remorse and seems to be disgusted when sent off.

(Its not the worst I have seen,the one from the south african league is worse.)

Daysha · 01-09-2009 2:21am

Mother of god that was horrific. 10-12 game ban for me.

Peyton Manning · 01-09-2009 2:24am

5 game ban

dannydiamond wrote: »

Really?
You've never seen this?

Nope never seen that before. Thanks for the link.

Mr.Nice Guy · 01-09-2009 2:25am

I don't think there was any malice involved. The challenge was obviously a poor one but I don't think it warrants an excessive ban.

dannydiamond · 01-09-2009 2:29am

3 game ban (as per red card)

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't think there was any malice involved. The challenge was obviously a poor one but I don't think it warrants an excessive ban.

Agreed.

You can find 100 worse tackles on youtube tbh.

Peyton Manning · 01-09-2009 2:37am

5 game ban

dannydiamond wrote: »

Agreed.

You can find 100 worse tackles on youtube tbh.

Just to clear up, Im not saying the tackle is the most horrendous thing Ive seen, Im saying the end result is. Most of them (leg breaks) Ive seen have just happened to be unfortunate accidents like a tangle of legs, or a collision of legs (i.e. Luc Nilis), Ive rarely seen ones from a poorly timed stomp tackle like that, which I think makes it far worse.

dannydiamond · 01-09-2009 2:41am

3 game ban (as per red card)

Archimedes wrote: »

Just to clear up, Im not saying the tackle is the most horrendous thing Ive seen

lol, that's exactly what you said,

good night.:pac:

Peyton Manning · 01-09-2009 2:45am

5 game ban

dannydiamond wrote: »

lol, that's exactly what you said, good night.:pac:

Actually its not, but whatever, dont lose sleep over it. :rolleyes:

dannydiamond · 01-09-2009 2:48am

3 game ban (as per red card)

Archimedes wrote: »

, its probably the most horrendous thing Ive seen happen on a football pitch[/B]):

.

CHD · 01-09-2009 2:59am

5 game ban

Don't start with Danny imo.

jank · 01-09-2009 5:50am

5 game ban

Shades of Eduardo there. I would slap another 5 games onto his automatic 3 games for the red card. He showed his studs and it should be a reminder for those in the future, intent or not, reckless tackles will be punished if they result in serious injury of a player.

TBH I am waiting for an injury like this to happen to an english player you will then see some $hit storm in the press...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 01-09-2009 5:58am

Depends on whether he lets Eammon Dunphy write his autobiorgraphy or not.

On a (semi) serious note: a ban that lasts the same time as the injured player's rehabilitation. When the victim is able to return, the fouling player can return also. Just a thought. I've been awake all night so if this is a **** idea (which it probably is) then sorry.

Bandit12 · 01-09-2009 7:38am

Meh i've seen worse. 3 game ban.

01-09-2009 9:05am

3-5 games.

PDN · 01-09-2009 9:15am

Archimedes wrote: »

What action would you take as a disciplinary authority?

It depends what kind of disciplinary authority you're talking about.

If it was a sports disciplinary authority (eg his national FA) then 3 matches (ban).

If it was a civil disciplinary authority (eg a magistrate in court) then 6 months (jail) for GBH.

Mossy Monk · 01-09-2009 9:26am

5 game ban

10 game ban

dannydiamond wrote: »

Really?
You've never seen this?

Good song, **** video.

therecklessone · 01-09-2009 9:32am

jank wrote: »

TBH I am waiting for an injury like this to happen to an english player you will then see some $hit storm in the press...

Stop reading the English press so.

Back to the tackle, I'd give an 8-10 match ban. Talk of a ban lasting the length of the other players rehabilitation is ludicrous, what happens if he never returns? A life ban? And what happens to the bloke who commits worse but his victim is lucky and either jumps out of the way or recovers relatively quickly?

I would favour cumulative punishment though, so if a player continues to throw himself around I'd increase the ban lengths every time he came befre the authorities.

Draupnir · 01-09-2009 9:45am

Don't think this requires any kind of extreme ban, a poorly timed tackle by a winger/forward which is made a lot worse by the fact that the injured player is sliding in with his leg off the ground. Unfortunately, the force involved is affected by the positions of both players rather than intention from the player in red.

Terrible for the injured player though, looks like a 7 or 8 month lay off at least with a break like that.

_blank_ · 01-09-2009 9:52am

Ban for duration of victim's injury

You go into a tackle with studs up like that, you are intending on damaging the player. End of.

Lifetime ban, we don't need that kind of thuggery in the game.

stovelid · 01-09-2009 10:19am

5 game ban

Went for 10 games.

I'm trying not to be swayed by the end-result which was disgusting. It's terrible seeing somebody injured like that, but I'd be a hypocrite to look for a longer ban because a bad little part of me didn't mind it, say, when Keane got his revenge on Haaland.

And I realize that that was probably assuaged by the fact that that episode didn't result in serious injury.

PiE · 01-09-2009 10:21am

Or you could actually look at the video and see the ball was there to be blocked. 3-5 for recklessness but not intentional.

inforfun · 01-09-2009 10:34am

Ban for duration of victim's injury

These teams have a history.
The same two teams played a 2 match play off at the end of last season to decide who would be crowned champion.
During those 2 matches the players were already hitting and kicking eachother where and when they could.

When you go in a tackle like that, you are out there to injure your opponent.
Witsel probably didnt intend to almost chop off his opponents leg but he was for sure trying to injure him. He is definately not going for the ball there.

LuckyLloyd · 01-09-2009 11:04am

Setting bans in line with the length of injuries would be really bad policy, the worst type of results orientated thinking. As always, the punishment should be a function of the level of intent to injure behind the challenge, or how reckless the type of challenge was regardless of intent.

So, in this case I'd be in favour of a 6 - 8 game ban and a significant fine (like the equivalent of a month's salary minimum). The intent may not have been to harm his opponent, but as a professional he should be well aware that a jumping stamp towards the ball in that fashion can only do more harm than good. As such, the ban should be enough for him to rethink a similar challenge for the ball in future games.

Obviously, if he was to injure someone in such a fashion again following this ban, you may want to start thinking about season long+ punishments at that point.

Xavi6 · 01-09-2009 11:09am

Hmmmm I think the leg break made it seem much worse than it was. I mean, there are players that go in like that all the time at every level, and wrong as it is, very rarely does it result in such an horrific injury. If the guy had've limped off and been back on 2 minutes then less would be made of it.

Extended ban for the stupidity of such a dangerous tackle, but calls for a lifetime ban are way OTT imo.

_blank_ · 01-09-2009 11:16am

Ban for duration of victim's injury

Xavi6 wrote: »

Hmmmm I think the leg break made it seem much worse than it was. I mean, there are players that go in like that all the time at every level, and wrong as it is, very rarely does it result in such an horrific injury. If the guy had've limped off and been back on 2 minutes then less would be made of it.

Extended ban for the stupidity of such a dangerous tackle, but calls for a lifetime ban are way OTT imo.

The resultant injury is what makes it worse though.

999 times out of a thousand, the player gets up and walks away. And the tackle is called a "potential leg breaker" and calls are made to remove them from the game.

We need stricter, longer and more suitable bans for these idiots who go in with their studs showing like that, because now we are seeing why these tackles are called "potential leg breakers". That poor bastard has at least a year of hard recovery ahead of him. Not to mention the psychological strain. He'll never be the same again, yet the perp gets to have a rest for ten weeks or so? Is that right? Nope.

He meant to do damage, just as every player who goes in with an attack like that means to do damage.

The difference here is that the damage was done, to it's full extent. It usually isn't.

This is not the same as a bad challenge where the leg bends a bit and everyone winces and goes "ooooh, something needs to be done about that type of challenge, could have done some serious damage there". This incident is why people have been saying that.

Punishments are not strict enough as it is. Get this scum behaviour out of the game before another player is damaged like this.

It is not a normal part of the game, it is malicious and has no place in the sport.

He should be fúcked out for life.

He should actually be jailed tbh.

Otis Driftwood · 01-09-2009 11:16am

Xavi6 wrote: »

Hmmmm I think the leg break made it seem much worse than it was. I mean, there are players that go in like that all the time at every level, and wrong as it is, very rarely does it result in such an horrific injury. If the guy had've limped off and been back on 2 minutes then less would be made of it.

Extended ban for the stupidity of such a dangerous tackle, but calls for a lifetime ban are way OTT imo.

QFT.

01-09-2009 11:18am

Des wrote: »

You go into a tackle with studs up like that, you are intending on damaging the player. End of.

Lifetime ban, we don't need that kind of thuggery in the game.

Just a tad OTT.

_blank_ · 01-09-2009 11:20am

Ban for duration of victim's injury

rarnes1 wrote: »

Just a tad OTT.

What other reason would a player need to go into a tackle like that?

His actions after seeing the red card say enough to me.

Absolutely disgusting.

jank · 01-09-2009 11:27am

5 game ban

therecklessone wrote: »

Stop reading the English press so.

Oh just wait, outrage sells a lot of ink!

01-09-2009 11:33am

Des wrote: »

What other reason would a player need to go into a tackle like that?

His actions after seeing the red card say enough to me.

Absolutely disgusting.

It was a shocking tackle without question but a call for a lifetime ban is crazy.

What about Keanes tackle? that looks worse, look at the way he went into that without question intending to snap a leg. Were you calling for a lifeban for Keane? Thought not.

I've seen Gerrard do stupid dangerous tackles too in the earlier part of his career. We could name plenty of players who have made crazy tackles.

It's only highlighted when a player receives a leg break from one of these.

SlickRic · 01-09-2009 11:38am

5 game ban

thug.

you can see the intent as he goes in. ok, he didn't stamp from any great height so the action itself doesn't look as bad as some, but the intent is the exact same.

and as Des says, his reaction afterwards says it all. not a care in the f*cking world.

10-game ban minimum.

SlickRic · 01-09-2009 11:42am

5 game ban

rarnes1 wrote: »

I've seen Gerrard do stupid dangerous tackles too in the earlier part of his career. We could name plenty of players who have made crazy tackles.

completely agree.

but why not make an effort to stamp it out now?

talk of a lifetime ban is slightly OTT but severe disciplinary procedures need to start being inflicted on players so that this sort of tackle is no longer part of the game.

but if we don't mind continuously seeing the odd player break the odd player's leg, well then, so be it. let it continue.

01-09-2009 11:58am

SlickRic wrote: »

completely agree.

but why not make an effort to stamp it out now?

talk of a lifetime ban is slightly OTT but severe disciplinary procedures need to start being inflicted on players so that this sort of tackle is no longer part of the game.

but if we don't mind continuously seeing the odd player break the odd player's leg, well then, so be it. let it continue.

Nobody wants to see broken legs and I'd be in favour of more stiffer punishments without question.

How can you tell if every tackle was meant with intent though?

Obviously, some are clearly intended but some may not be as clear cut.

SlickRic · 01-09-2009 12:09pm

5 game ban

rarnes1 wrote: »

Nobody wants to see broken legs and I'd be in favour of more stiffer punishments without question.

How can you tell if every tackle was meant with intent though?

Obviously, some are clearly intended but some may not be as clear cut.

tbh it's very hard to know, which is obviously the problem when we start talking about trying to put in official procedures.

but i genuinely believe this one in particular was with intent.

you can see the eyes going into the tackle, then the lack of remorse afterwards.

LuckyLloyd · 01-09-2009 12:12pm

How long was Keane's ban for the Halland "tackle" btw?

slingerz · 01-09-2009 12:12pm

Draupnir wrote: »

Don't think this requires any kind of extreme ban, a poorly timed tackle by a winger/forward which is made a lot worse by the fact that the injured player is sliding in with his leg off the ground. Unfortunately, the force involved is affected by the positions of both players rather than intention from the player in red.

Terrible for the injured player though, looks like a 7 or 8 month lay off at least with a break like that.

I broke my leg like that in 2008 and its more like a 12 to 15 month injury depending on complications

Galvasean · 01-09-2009 12:17pm

5 game ban

3 match ban for straight red, plus an extra 5 for violent conduct and a 2 week wage fine.
I also think there should be some sort of additional suspended sentence hanging above his head, ie: do it again and you're banned for life.

therecklessone · 01-09-2009 12:27pm

jank wrote: »

Oh just wait, outrage sells a lot of ink!

I'm sure it does, but that is not restricted to the English press. I'm sure you're still smarting over the reaction to Eduardo, but have a think about the reaction in Italy to their exit from World Cup 2002, or the hype surrounding an international between the Dutch and Germans.

We are exposed to this reaction because we live on a diet of British media, and Anglo-centric Irish media.

It's the same as the "Platini hates English teams" mantra...

therecklessone · 01-09-2009 12:28pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How long was Keane's ban for the Halland "tackle" btw?

The standard 3 matches, wasn't it? Then a few extra games for how he dealt with it in the book.

Soby · 01-09-2009 12:30pm

Well thats me with done with my Breakfast:eek:

SlickRic · 01-09-2009 12:37pm

5 game ban

Soby wrote: »

Well thats me with done with my Breakfast:eek:

12.30 breakfast?

you bum, get a job

Soby · 01-09-2009 12:41pm

SlickRic wrote: »

12.30 breakfast?

you bum, get a job

I have one actually.Just on a nice day off:D..Ive been up since 8 i swear:p

LuckyLloyd · 01-09-2009 12:41pm

SlickRic wrote: »

12.30 breakfast?

you bum, get a job

Maybe he works nights?

Thanks TRO, have to say that is a laughable punishment when you think back to the incident. Keane should have been charged, never mind getting more than a standard ban.

Soby · 01-09-2009 12:50pm

SlickRic wrote: »

12.30 breakfast?

you bum, get a job

I have one actually.Just on a nice day off:D..Ive been up since 8 i swear:p

And from looking at it in real time it doesnt really seem that bad..Doubt there was too much intent

SlickRic · 01-09-2009 12:56pm

5 game ban

Soby wrote: »

I have one actually.Just on a nice day off:D..Ive been up since 8 i swear:p

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Maybe he works nights?

of course i knew these were all possibilites. just lightening the ol' forum up a bit!

i really believe it looks like there was intent. but sure we'll never know.

Bubs101 · 01-09-2009 1:06pm

Think this is a case of the injury making the tackle look alot worse than it was. My internet was slow loading up so I saw it in real time first with no replay and there is no way that is anywhere near one of the worst things I've seen. Was the slow motion that made it look horrendous. 3 match ban.

dannydiamond · 01-09-2009 1:11pm

3 game ban (as per red card)

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How long was Keane's ban for the Halland "tackle" btw?

Keane got a 5 match ban and a £150,000 fine.
Sickeningly lenient considering this was dealt with at an FA hearing.

What action would you take here?

What action would you take against Axel Witsel here? 70 votes

Comments