Wigan chairman and relegation

blueser

Liam O wrote: »

You were warned for calling him a twat, he's just an old rich guy who the media sometimes use as a rent-a-quote when it's been a slow news week.

And he's never been shy of obliging the media on that score.

thebaz

Liam O wrote: »

You were warned for calling him a twat,

hardly that offensive - anyway I'll sign off now

Corholio

I thought it was an absolutely shocking challenge, putting your foot in like that, with the force, is just asking to break someones leg. If Haidara's leg was planted, instead of slightly over to one side, I'd have feared for him.

Whelan's defence does and doesn't surprise me. It does in the fact that he broke his leg in the past, and it the doesn't in the fact that he can be an egomaniac, blindly defending everything to do with his club.

DM360

Gbear wrote: »

That he got the ball isn't really relevant. If the tackle is that bad it doesn't come into it.
Even without intent and even if he made perfect contact with the ball it's reckless and extremely dangerous. It's not a ten match ban but it should be a 3 match ban.

Bizarre notion floating around here that you can do whatever you like on the field of play so long as your heart is in the right place. That's bollocks. A tackle like that is a potential season-ender for the victim and a player has a duty to their fellow professionals to not endanger them like that.
If that's the sort of tackle they're going to make then they can't be trusted to make tackles.

But would you give him a harsher ban if he had intended to injure the other player?

I think intent matters when you're looking at an extension of the standard 3-match ban. Had McManaman gone out to do harm he would be deserving of a much longer ban in my opinion. Of course it's a red, and a 3 match ban, I mentioned that. Likewise, that fact that he made contact with the ball first is also an indication that the challenge was lacking of any malice.

EdenHazard

Corholio wrote: »

I thought it was an absolutely shocking challenge, putting your foot in like that, with the force, is just asking to break someones leg. If Haidara's leg was planted, instead of slightly over to one side, I'd have feared for him.

Whelan's defence does and doesn't surprise me. It does in the fact that he broke his leg in the past, and it the doesn't in the fact that he can be an egomaniac, blindly defending everything to do with his club.

Oh ye, he's the only person involved with a particular club who defends everything in relation to it. :rolleyes: He's hardly gonna come out and call a player of his club a thug for what happened.

Rekop dog

Personally would give the kid the benefit of the doubt in terms of malicious intention. Was very reckless though.

blueser

DM360 wrote: »

But would you give him a harsher ban if he had intended to injure the other player?

I think intent matters when you're looking at an extension of the standard 3-match ban. Had McManaman gone out to do harm he would be deserving of a much longer ban in my opinion. Of course it's a red, and a 3 match ban, I mentioned that. Likewise, that fact that he made contact with the ball first is also an indication that the challenge was lacking of any malice.

As I posted earlier, the lad has previous form for this type of tackle;

http://mcfcreservesandacademy.co.uk/wigan-homeeds1011/

Now once, I can understand. Anyone can be accidentally reckless once. But twice?

DM360

blueser wrote: »

As I posted earlier, the lad has previous form for this type of tackle;

http://mcfcreservesandacademy.co.uk/wigan-homeeds1011/

Now once, I can understand. Anyone can be accidentally reckless once. But twice?

Can't say I saw that particular reserves match.

So an article written by someone involved in City, says it "might" have deserved a red card? No record of any serious injury other than being stretchered off and the tackle may not be similar at all to the Haidara one.

To be honest that reference doesn't offer a huge amount other than McManaman has made a poor tackle before.

I wouldn't count one previous poor tackle two years ago as a "form" for reckless tackling. Nor would I say it's enough to say he went in with malice.

The_Kew_Tour

eagle eye wrote: »

Just out of interest when it is ok to have your studs up? When is it ok to go flying in?

I ask because I remember you claiming Nani should not have gotten a red in the Madrid game where his his foot was very high and his studs were up.

I can't believe people actually think these incidents are even related.

KERSPLAT!

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I can't believe people actually think these incidents are even related.

Completely different. Nani eyes on the ball and trying to control it. I believe it was a foul but not a red card, maybe a yellow. McManaman, a terrible, reckless tackle but, IMO, there was no malice. He tried to clear the ball but miss timed it terribly. Deserved a red and 3 match ban, but thats enough

blueser

DM360 wrote: »

Can't say I saw that particular reserves match.

So an article written by someone involved in City, says it "might" have deserved a red card? No record of any serious injury other than being stretchered off and the tackle may not be similar at all to the Haidara one.

To be honest that reference doesn't offer a huge amount other than McManaman has made a poor tackle before.

I wouldn't count one previous poor tackle two years ago as a "form" for reckless tackling. Nor would I say it's enough to say he went in with malice.

Fine; you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I just find it odd that, having done a ''similar'' tackle earlier in his career (malicious or not; only he knows), he doesn't seem to have learned to control himself in the intervening two years.

Corholio

EdenHazard wrote: »

Oh ye, he's the only person involved with a particular club who defends everything in relation to it. :rolleyes: He's hardly gonna come out and call a player of his club a thug for what happened.

What are you on about?

Being the only one or not the only one has nothing to do with it. He could have said nothing, or been diplomatic. The fact he said it was 'clean as a whistle' was outrageous. You'll also notice I used word 'blindly', a lot of chairmen can defend their club without being stupid like Whelan is from time to time.

eagle eye

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I can't believe people actually think these incidents are even related.

The relationship is that in both incidents it seems fair to say that the player was going for the ball and not the man. Also in both incidents the player was reckless and also in both incidents the player had his leg raised and studs up.

The_Kew_Tour

eagle eye wrote: »

The relationship is that in both incidents it seems fair to say that the player was going for the ball and not the man. Also in both incidents the player was reckless and also in both incidents the player had his leg raised and studs up.

But they are still worlds apart in terms of what they were and could of been for opposition player.

I dont think the lad was trying to hurt player, but he could of done huge damage to Newcastle player. It was a reckless challenge.

I understand that Whelan was trying to defend his player, but his wording could have been much better at very least.

Moneymaker

'Taken from the match report for the Manchester City v Wigan Athletic U21 league game on March 1st, 2011:

John Guidetti scored a late winner as City's Elite Development Squad returned to winning ways against Wigan.

However, the gloss was taken off the victory when former Barcelona youngster Gai Assulin was stretchered off in the 90th-minute following a reckless tackle by Latics' Callum McManaman which led to his second yellow and resulting red card.

As yet, there is no update on Assulin, who left the pitch in a leg brace, or the extent of his injury.'

carlop

The tackle is very reckless and definitely worthy of a red card. He'll get a ban for it and rightfully so.

I can understand Whelan and Martinez trying to defend their player, but I don't think they truly believe what they're saying.

osarusan

I think it is difficult to include 'malice' in the criteria used to determine the punishment given for any tackle. How is a referee supposed to reach a conclusion on whether a player intended to break another player's leg, or whether it happened by accident? What difference does it make to the player with his leg broken?

If you fly into a tackle that could cause serious injury to an opponent, you should be punished for it. Malice doesn't come into it, in my opinion.

gnfnrhead

Reckless challenge. Red card and three match ban. That should be the end of it.

Could have been much worse but thankfully it wasnt.

dfx-

It reminds me of the Del Potro red card for tackling Messi at Stamford Bridge. He too was clearly aiming for the ball too but Messi got there first and was taken out by what looked clumsy and nasty

Nuri Sahin

dfx- wrote: »

It reminds me of the Del Potro red card for tackling Messi at Stamford Bridge. He too was clearly aiming for the ball too but Messi got there first and was taken out by what looked clumsy and nasty

Del Horno

dfx-

Close enough

Al Capwned

Super-Rush wrote: »

It was a terribly bad mistimed tackle.

I don't think he would have meant to hurt him.

Over exuberance on his behalf.

Should he be punished? No, because i think he genuinely went for the ball and not for the man.

For me its an awkward looking tackle that went wrong.

Rekop dog wrote: »

Personally would give the kid the benefit of the doubt in terms of malicious intention. Was very reckless though.

While I pretty much agree with you, as well as those posters that mentioned a lack of malice or intent, I would imagine the referee's report would mention 'unnecessary force/brutality' (think thats the term used in the Laws)

Cant see anything other than a 3 match ban for him.

SantryRed

It was reckless but with no malice, should have been sent off but wasn't.

3 match ban and get on with it.

Did the ref really not see it or is he copping out after watching it on tv again?

Will I Amnt

SantryRed wrote: »

It was reckless but with no malice, should have been sent off but wasn't.

3 match ban and get on with it.

Did the ref really not see it or is he copping out after watching it on tv again?

A player ran across his line of sight at the moment of impact. Sky showed it yesterday and to be fair the ref couldn't have seen it.

As you say, 3 match ban is all it should be. It was a reckless tackle, that can't be denied.

SlickRic

only in the SF will you get people defending the tackle, with arguments then ensuing, with a bit of Nani thrown in.

the easiest thing in the world would just be for us all to unite in taking the píss out of Dave "Look...I'm on TV" Whelan.

if that can't unite us, i don't know what can tbh.

wobblyknees

I think some people need to brush up on the 17 laws of the game.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2012_e.pdf

Mr Alan

Dave Whelan is a joke. He has always been a joke. He will always be a joke.

SlickRic

monkey9

You'll last long around here.

Will I Amnt

No action being taken :eek:
At least one of the officials seen it apparently.

SlickRic

cambo2008 wrote: »

No action being taken :eek:
At least one of the officials seen it apparently.

like Whelan said.

perfectly fair challenge.

KERSPLAT!

Ridiculous! As I said above I don't believe there was intent but for the sheer recklessness of the challenge it deserves a 3 match ban. It actually would have been better for the lad IMO, a lot of fans will be hating on him now, maybe more than if he got a ban, atleast then he'd have gotten some sort of punishment

That_Guy

What an unbelievable non decision. Still, nothing surprises with me the FA these days.

geeky

Jesus wept. Not surprised at Whelan but Mancini didn't even try to defend the lad much. May not have been malicious, but it was reckless in the extreme.

Every time I see it back, I wince.

GavRedKing

The FA will always shy away from making the difficult decisions they have done through the years.

The really have to change the stance on the ref's report, if a ref and his assistances are shown the challenge again and asked what would they do differently maybe the FA woulld act then.

It's not to hold the ref's accountable for every little decision but every now and again a nasty incident where a ref has "seen" something and failed to act to accordingly also goes unpunished by the FA.

Every now and again a ref gets it wrong, they're only human at the end of the day, he looks to have played the ball but in the follow through hes seriously endangered the other player, he should have been sent off.

smileyj1987

Why do Sky sports even give Dave Whelan air time . Pat dolan and dave Whelan should be banned off the television .

blueser

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Why do Sky sports even give Dave Whelan air time . Pat dolan and dave Whelan should be banned off the television .

Can't stand the bow-locks, to be honest. His manager, on the other hand, seems a decent bloke.

smileyj1987

blueser wrote: »

Can't stand the bow-locks, to be honest. His manager, on the other hand, seems a decent bloke.

I agree with you on that I think Martinez is a cracking manager and I would go for a pint with him in a heartbeat . I would love to see Martinez get a job at a team that isn't in a relegation scrap every year . I think he would do very well and have them playing nice football too .

thebaz

That_Guy wrote: »

What an unbelievable non decision. Still, nothing surprises with me the FA these days.

such a joke , if mcmennamin had uttered certain expletives, he would have received a lengthy ban , but break a leg is ok - the FA and FIFA are so out of touch of the game I loved - still hope Wigan go down


can understand the ref not seeing it, but what were the 4th official and linesmen doing ?

KERSPLAT!

thebaz wrote: »

such a joke , if mcmennamin had uttered certain expletives, he would have received a lengthy ban , but break a leg is ok - the FA and FIFA are so out of touch of the game I loved - still hope Wigan go down


can understand the ref not seeing it, but what were the 4th official and linesmen doing ?

Didn't realise the players leg was broken, that's terrible!

thebaz

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

Didn't realise the players leg was broken, that's terrible!

they can't diagnose due to swelling , but it was a leg breaker tackle

KERSPLAT!

So his leg isn't broken? So what do you mean by "break a leg is ok" sure you don't know if it's broken?

initial signs are, though, that the damage may not be as bad as first feared

http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/18/mcmanaman-tackle-haidara-fa

Hopefully it's nothing serious

thebaz

Princess Petulia Pissy Pants wrote: »

So his leg isn't broken? So what do you mean by "break a leg is ok" sure you don't know if it's broken?

it was a leg breaking tackle - regardless of whether leg was broken or not

Liam O

thebaz wrote: »

it was a leg breaking tackle - regardless of whether leg was broken or not

M5

I'm hearing the injury is not as bad as first feared and there is a good chance Haidara will play again this season

SlickRic

M5 wrote: »

there is a good chance Haidara will play again this season

lucky boy.

the FA need to change their rules on retrospective action. it's beyond a joke, and this sort of incident only highlights it all the more.

apparently they didn't take action because one official claims to have seen it.

fúcking hell.

i hope that "official" is suspended without pay for a while at the very least.

Al Capwned

GavRedKing wrote: »

The FA will always shy away from making the difficult decisions they have done through the years.

The really have to change the stance on the ref's report, if a ref and his assistances are shown the challenge again and asked what would they do differently maybe the FA woulld act then.

It's not to hold the ref's accountable for every little decision but every now and again a nasty incident where a ref has "seen" something and failed to act to accordingly also goes unpunished by the FA.

Every now and again a ref gets it wrong, they're only human at the end of the day, he looks to have played the ball but in the follow through hes seriously endangered the other player, he should have been sent off.

The bolded part - couldn't agree more.

I dont think any fair minded person would complain if the player had been given a retrospective 3 match ban.
However the problem is in the FA ruling - at least one official seen it, but did not have a great view of it (not sure of exact wording). I think in this case the referees should be able to say "If I'd seen that properly, I would have sent the player off", and the FA should hand out the appropriate 3 game ban.

It's the FA's rules (and most likely their legal advisors) that's at fault here, not the people that made decision (as they are bound to the rules), not Dave Whelan, and not Callum McManaman.

I hope he's not vilified because of this. It was a shocking bad tackle with excessive force and everyone knows that, including I'd wager, McManaman himself.

Oh also, people hoping for Wigan to be relegated because of this? Really???

Corholio

Al Capwned wrote: »

It's the FA's rules (and most likely their legal advisors) that's at fault here, not the people that made decision (as they are bound to the rules), not Dave Whelan, and not Callum McManaman.

I hope he's not vilified because of this. It was a shocking bad tackle with excessive force and everyone knows that, including I'd wager, McManaman himself.

People aren't blaming Whelan for the tackle or the rules, they're blaming him for his idiotic comments. Not the people that made the decision as they are bound to the rules? I don't know what rule covers a knee high studs up challenge, but I've never heard of it. The officials messed up, The F.A. messed up, McManaman severely messed up for the horrific challenge and Whelan messed up for, his now frequent, idiotic comments.

Al Capwned

Corholio wrote: »

People aren't blaming Whelan for the tackle or the rules, they're blaming him for his idiotic comments. Not the people that made the decision as they are bound to the rules? I don't know what rule covers a knee high studs up challenge, but I've never heard of it. The officials messed up, The F.A. messed up, McManaman severely messed up for the horrific challenge and Whelan messed up for, his now frequent, idiotic comments.

1. The rule I'm referring to is that if any official has seen an incident, either in whole or in part, then the FA can take no retrspective action.

2. The FA didn't mess up - they can just act on the rules that are in place. ie the one above.

The mess up is in the rule. As i've said before, imo the referee should be able to say to the FA that he would have given a red if he'd seen it, regardless of whether or not any other member of the officiating team had any view of it.

M5

Haidara out for 3 weeks, no major damage caused by Mcmanaman