When a player commits a savage tackle...

...should more be done than simply an automatic ban for a player following a red card? Should a proper investigation take place?

For example should there be any enquiry as to whether he was told by his manager to go out and be nasty, and the club or country fined? Or maybe not even an effort to extend blame, but perhaps the citing in rugby line could be followed so there is an investigation into the matter and a hearing?

One might argue that it's too much focus on one incident. But some players now are on contracts worth millions, so beyond the personal difficulty for the player, the consequences are serious in financial terms too.

Dempsey

It doesnt matter what C.Coleman told players to do. Players have their own code of conduct to follow on a football field, they have personal responsibility regardless of what someone else says to them.

Neil Taylor is solely responsible for his tackle on S.Coleman. There doesnt need to be a forensic investigation into what happened and why. He want to put the boot in, be aggressive, but got it all wrong and another player has pins in his leg now because of it. I think he should receive the maximum punishment for what he did and leave it at that

What I'm more pissed about is how Bale didnt get a red card. If the referee did his job at that moment in time, he see red, the welsh players stop the aggressive play and then the tackle on Coleman never happens.

GSPfan

I think there should be more done to stop the tackle first as no matter what punishment is dished out the injured player can't unbreak his leg.

I've discussed this in the United thread but I'd rather not see any tackle where a player slides/jumps into another players ankles or shins. I know Fifa will never ban slide tackles so I'd rather see red cards for every tackle even remotely dirty involving a sliding/jumping player.

Retrospective punishments would be very hard to prove.

TheCitizen

I think there should be an investigation into why Bale didn't get a red card. Was it because the ref was cognizant of his profile. I also think it's a disgrace that Chris Coleman and Wales have the cheek to challenge Bale's yellow card which should 've been a red. As for Taylor he should get an extra ban on top of the normal sanction that comes with a straight red. He should be banned for the remaining games in the qualifying competition. Wales need to be hit hard for what happened yesterday. They seem to think they 've been treated harshly. They're a disgrace.

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

I think he should receive the maximum punishment for what he did and leave it at that.

But as he received a straight red, presume he'll get the standard ban and the matter is over, no examination. In rugby, a player can be cited even if the red saw it and gave a foul, though not if he gives a red card.

It seems a bit...unsatisfactory. Not that football should necessarily follow rugby. But in workplaces, for example, if someone does something that costs millions, one would expect an examination of systems and structures and why it happened. It could include, for example, a review of the ref not taking action against Bale as TheCitizen mentioned.

Richard Hillman

Depends if the player is "that sort of player" :pac:


Incidentally a player in the Chinese league got a 6 month ban for this stamp on Axel Witsel

https://youtu.be/mCuMzNni0Pw

I reckon they must be protecting the expensive foreign players

Minderbinder

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Depends if the player is "that sort of player" :pac:


Incidentally a player in the Chinese league got a 6 month ban for this stamp on Axel Witsel

https://youtu.be/mCuMzNni0Pw

I reckon they must be protecting the expensive foreign players

I believe that guy had a lot of prior incidents and is basically a racist. I think his club banned him rather than the FA? Apparently he was ordered to issue an apology and laughed his way through it.


I think there obviously needs to be a much more severe punishment for incidents where players suffer horrible injuries. It doesn't matter for me whether there is intent or not. A players leg should not be that high going into a sliding tackle. Ever.

Neil Taylor should be banned for a significant length of time and certainly should be banned for all remaining games in the 2018 World Cup. How else are you going to get the message across?

If you don't send out a serious message then why wouldn't teams send out an inferior player to do damage? For example, it would have been absolutely worth our while to break Gareth Bale's leg knowing that he is the only reason Wales would be a threat. Maybe this sort of injury has to happen to one of the best players in the world for the football authorities to take action.

D0NNELLY

In the same way a player can appeal a red following a game, an opposing team should be able to appeal the leniency shown by the ref, with measures to control teams taking advantage of it.

TheCitizen

D0NNELLY wrote: »

In the same way a player can appeal a red following a game, an opposing team should be able to appeal the leniency shown by the ref, with measures to control teams taking advantage of it.

This is a good suggestion. I think Wales are getting off lightly after that game and I'm particularly pissed off with Chris Coleman and his "your boys' were as bad as "our boys" smartass remarks. Our players were physical and niggly and deserved yellow cards but they were not violently out of control liable to cause serious injury as Bale and Taylor were. If there was possible further sanction to come at least Chris Coleman would shut his trap and be properly contrite.

LeBash

Both Bale and Taylors tackle were brutal and both should be reds. In fairness to Bale, if John O'Shea didn't clear the ball, he was getting a goal and I personally see it as a slide in on ball rather than on player but still red as he hit the player.

Long left an elbow on Williams which shouldn't have gone unpunished as well. That was a red on the reply. Whelan left an elbow as well but to me it was being lifted in anticipation of Allen colliding with him but Allen pulled out and ended up getting the elbow (at least that's the way I saw it).

There is no defending Taylors tackle but the ref could have calmed things down by dishing a few yellows, having a chat and slowing the game over a couple of incidents. We see that in every Premiership game that gets a little out of hand where someone gets a pretty harsh yellow and a talking down and the ref gestures to calm down. That never happened and it allowed the aggression in the tackles continue.

Taylor should be looking at a lengthy ban, Bale a retrospective Red, Long the same and Whelan similarly should be at least looked it. The problem is with Taylors, that's a yellow in a lot of refs book if a player can get the standing leg off the ground where anything around the shin should be a red if the tackler is off their feet. Anybody who regularly watches football has seen that type tackle get a yellow far too often.

NIMAN

What about the offending player is out of the game until the injured player makes his comeback?

blueser

LeBash wrote: »

Both Bale and Taylors tackle were brutal and both should be reds. In fairness to Bale, if John O'Shea didn't clear the ball, he was getting a goal and I personally see it as a slide in on ball rather than on player but still red as he hit the player.

Long left an elbow on Williams which shouldn't have gone unpunished as well. That was a red on the reply. Whelan left an elbow as well but to me it was being lifted in anticipation of Allen colliding with him but Allen pulled out and ended up getting the elbow (at least that's the way I saw it).

There is no defending Taylors tackle but the ref could have calmed things down by dishing a few yellows, having a chat and slowing the game over a couple of incidents. We see that in every Premiership game that gets a little out of hand where someone gets a pretty harsh yellow and a talking down and the ref gestures to calm down. That never happened and it allowed the aggression in the tackles continue.

Taylor should be looking at a lengthy ban, Bale a retrospective Red, Long the same and Whelan similarly should be at least looked it. The problem is with Taylors, that's a yellow in a lot of refs book if a player can get the standing leg off the ground where anything around the shin should be a red if the tackler is off their feet. Anybody who regularly watches football has seen that type tackle get a yellow far too often.

Coleman (the Welsh version) came across as a bit of an a**ehole after the game, but I could (kind of) see where he was coming from with his "halo" comment. Both those elbows could (should?) have been red cards. Now, of course I'm not comparing elbows with that horrific "tackle" (loose definition of the term). The elbow won't do nearly as much damage as the studs up challenge, though Gary Mabbutt might argue with me there.

enzo roco

Deleted User wrote: »

...should more be done than simply an automatic ban for a player following a red card? Should a proper investigation take place?
.

No is the answer. There is no need for this thread at all.

Minderbinder wrote: »

Neil Taylor should be banned for a significant length of time and certainly should be banned for all remaining games in the 2018 World Cup. How else are you going to get the message across?

3-5 games will be the correct punishment.

Dempsey wrote: »

Neil Taylor is solely responsible for his tackle on S.Coleman. There doesnt need to be a forensic investigation into what happened and why. He want to put the boot in, be aggressive, but got it all wrong and another player has pins in his leg now because of it. I think he should receive the maximum punishment for what he did and leave it at that
.

This is correct.
Lets just move on. Hopefully Seamus coleman will be fit next season.

Richard Hillman

NIMAN wrote: »

What about the offending player is out of the game until the injured player makes his comeback?

Doesn't work. Just say you get the usual incident of where a striker challenges a defender in the air and the striker gets given a foul against him because he used a bit of strength within the jump. Upon landing, the defender does a cruciate ligament. Does the striker go out for 6 months? Despite the fact it was barely, if even a foul?

niallo27

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Doesn't work. Just say you get the usual incident of where a striker challenges a defender in the air and the striker gets given a foul against him because he used a bit of strength within the jump. Upon landing, the defender does a cruciate ligament. Does the striker go out for 6 months? Despite the fact it was barely, if even a foul?

Next fella that fouls sturridge won't play for years.

enzo roco

NIMAN wrote: »

What about the offending player is out of the game until the injured player makes his comeback?

Jaysus jumped up chrissy.
What are you on about????

How are you so butt hurt about this? You need to cop on.

If a welsh player got his leg broke by a Irish player, you wouldnt say that.

LeBash

blueser wrote: »

The elbow won't do nearly as much damage as the studs up challenge, though Gary Mabbutt might argue with me there.

Couldn't agree more. An elbow will shake a player up more often than leave an actual mark and I suppose the idea would be to try make an opponent intimidated. A high tackle on the shin is filth.

I'm not having a dig at the bloke but Gerrard got away with quite a few of them and 2 footed tackles in his career as an example of players not walking for it and how it is still happening in the game.

D0NNELLY

enzo roco wrote: »

Jaysus jumped up chrissy.
What are you on about????

How are you so butt hurt about this?

You need to cop on.

In fairness to him, it's just a debate point. You can disagree without being like that

enzo roco

D0NNELLY wrote: »

In fairness to him, it's just a debate point. You can disagree without being like that

Sorry for offending your mate.
But come on, how do you police, "banned until the injured player returns to play"????
Its a ridiculous statement.

NIMAN

Well excuse me.

LiamoSail

NIMAN wrote: »

What about the offending player is out of the game until the injured player makes his comeback?

Edit. Just seen I'm repeating what's already been said

NIMAN

I mean to apply it to vicious tackles or dangerous ones.

Shanotheslayer

NIMAN wrote: »

I mean to apply it to vicious tackles or dangerous ones.

What happens if somebody is jumping up for a header and elbows somebody by mistake? Elbows are dangerous, yet it's accidental.

You're going into way to many variables for this to actually work.

I don't think Taylor meant to harm Coleman. It was a bad bad tackle but I don't think there was malice imo.

It happens, don't think players should get longer bans because of a longer injury.

allthedoyles

Hurling but same thing . Gary Maguire just sent of for Dublin hurlers cos he pulled off Liam Blanchfield in a highly dangerous tackle .

sReq | uTeK

Jesus some of the over the top reactions here are crazy.

It was a horrific challenge and the outcome eve more so but calling for 6 months and him to miss the campaign is retarded.

If so then we should be petitioning for Bale to receive the same, his tackle was even more reckless it just didn't result in the same horrific outcome.

Whelan's elbow could have POTENTIALLY fractured Joe Allen's eye socket, should he received the same.

it was a sickening challenge, bit none more so than Bales, the only thing we should be discussing here is the pity that Seamus Coleman was unfortunate enough not to come out like John O Shea

I hope he recovers well and gets back to his best

noodler

enzo roco wrote: »

No is the answer. There is no need for this thread at all.




3-5 games will be the correct punishment.



This is correct.
Lets just move on. Hopefully Seamus coleman will be fit next season.

Aye, obviously this effects us more but it's not the first bad tackle and subsequent injury.

Some of the suggestions here for inquiries and additional punishments are bizarre.

Minderbinder

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Jesus some of the over the top reactions here are crazy.

It was a horrific challenge and the outcome eve more so but calling for 6 months and him to miss the campaign is retarded.

If so then we should be petitioning for Bale to receive the same, his tackle was even more reckless it just didn't result in the same horrific outcome.

Whelan's elbow could have POTENTIALLY fractured Joe Allen's eye socket, should he received the same.

it was a sickening challenge, bit none more so than Bales, the only thing we should be discussing here is the pity that Seamus Coleman was unfortunate enough not to come out like John O Shea

I hope he recovers well and gets back to his best

No that's not what anyone is saying. Gareth Bale and Neil Taylor both ran the risk of injuring an opponent. Taylor caused significant, possibly career ending damage. He should be dealt with extremely harshly. Bale got lucky, and shouldn't be punished beyond a red card.

People are basically saying that the outcome is not important and the punishment should be the same for a dangerous tackle regardless of the damage caused. That is absolute bull**** and it's the reason why these kind of tackles are still flying in on a weekly basis, because it's a maximum 4 or 5 game ban no matter what happens.

I'm fully aware that Taylor will not be punished beyond the current laws. But I would like to see real punishments being brought in to deter this kind of recklessness in the future, and to minimize the chance of a player in absolute shock, clutching his leg, the foot dangling, his face turned to white, being carted off in ambulance and his livelihood put in jeopardy.

Corholio

Minderbinder wrote: »

No that's not what anyone is saying. Gareth Bale and Neil Taylor both ran the risk of injuring an opponent. Taylor caused significant, possibly career ending damage. He should be dealt with extremely harshly. Bale got lucky, and shouldn't be punished beyond a red card.

People are basically saying that the outcome is not important and the punishment should be the same for a dangerous tackle regardless of the damage caused. That is absolute bull**** and it's the reason why these kind of tackles are still flying in on a weekly basis, because it's a maximum 4 or 5 game ban no matter what happens.

I'm fully aware that Taylor will not be punished beyond the current laws. But I would like to see real punishments being brought in to deter this kind of recklessness in the future, and to minimize the chance of a player in absolute shock, clutching his leg, the foot dangling, his face turned to white, being carted off in ambulance and his livelihood put in jeopardy.

'Dangerous' tackles though are a mine field though. There's been a few bad injuries happened where a player had made a tough but fair tackle and the player has got badly injured because of the many, many outcomes depending of angle of tackle, position of the players feet etc etc. There aren't that many extremely terrible tackles on a week to week basis, there can be bad injuries and there can be awful tackles, but both happenings and both results don't happen that often at all. Talk of investigations etc is quite a bit silly to be honest. People turn into psychics and already determine what a player 'meant' to do despite obviously having no clue at all.

Minderbinder

Corholio wrote: »

'Dangerous' tackles though are a mine field though. There's been a few bad injuries happened where a player had made a tough but fair tackle and the player has got badly injured because of the many, many outcomes depending of angle of tackle, position of the players feet etc etc. There aren't that many extremely terrible tackles on a week to week basis, there can be bad injuries and there can be awful tackles, but both happenings and both results don't happen that often at all. Talk of investigations etc is quite a bit silly to be honest. People turn into psychics and already determine what a player 'meant' to do despite obviously having no clue at all.

Intention doesn't matter. If it's a foul and the result is a broken leg then a 3 game ban is not enough. I'm not calling for investigations. I don't care what Taylor's intention was and I agree if we have to prove intent then nobody would ever get banned.

I'm absolutely sure if he could go back and do it again, he wouldn't do it. I'm not trying to further vilify the perpetrator but there does need to be a proper deterrent and a change in the mindset. People just accepting the rules and punishments as they are are burying their heads in the sand.

You don't have to always come up with every situation possible in order to argue that the rules are fine the way they are and they can't be changed. A foul that leads to a broken leg is an automatic three month ban from the game. What's wrong with that?

Corholio

Minderbinder wrote: »

Intention doesn't matter. If it's a foul and the result is a broken leg then a 3 game ban is not enough. I'm not calling for investigations. I don't care what Taylor's intention was and I agree if we have to prove intent then nobody would ever get banned.

I'm absolutely sure if he could go back and do it again, he wouldn't do it. I'm not trying to further vilify the perpetrator but there does need to be a proper deterrent and a change in the mindset. People just accepting the rules and punishments as they are are burying their heads in the sand.

You don't have to always come up with every situation possible in order to argue that the rules are fine the way they are and they can't be changed. A foul that leads to a broken leg is an automatic three month ban from the game. What's wrong with that?

But it could be a foul and just that, other factors could lead it to being a broken leg. Saying any foul that leads to a broken leg is an automatic 3 month ban is a bit mad imo. No other variables are being considered at all then. The rules can always be changed and manipulated and it's fine if it's for the good of the game, but just blanketing a 3 month fan for all fouls that lead to serious injury is dismissive of how many variables in tackles there actually is. Nobodies burying their head in the sand, nobody would be making any suggestions like this if the Coleman thing never happened, when was the last one before that? People react to situations and blanket everything with 'this should be changed' regardless of other factors.

Minderbinder

Corholio wrote: »

But it could be a foul and just that, other factors could lead it to being a broken leg. Saying any foul that leads to a broken leg is an automatic 3 month ban is a bit mad imo. No other variables are being considered at all then. The rules can always be changed and manipulated and it's fine if it's for the good of the game, but just blanketing a 3 month fan for all fouls that lead to serious injury is dismissive of how many variables in tackles there actually is. Nobodies burying their head in the sand, nobody would be making any suggestions like this if the Coleman thing never happened, when was the last one before that? People react to situations and blanket everything with 'this should be changed' regardless of other factors.

Obviously things happen that cause people to talk about them. I'm sure there was similar talk after the Ramsey injury. Does that make it less worthy of debate? Does that make my opinion less worthy because I wasn't talking about it last Thursday? I don't think that matters.

I'm saying if there was a three month ban for a foul that caused a broken leg to an opponent (just that one situation, regardless of intention) what would be wrong with that? Why is justice more important for those who cause injury than for those who are on the receiving end?

D0NNELLY

enzo roco wrote: »

Sorry for offending your mate.
But come on, how do you police, "banned until the injured player returns to play"????
Its a ridiculous statement.

What makes you think i know him? Never had any interaction with him.

Dots1982

Worth remembering that one of the worst "tackles" committed in football was from Jason mcateer versus Macedonia and Mick McCarthy came out and accused the Macedonian of "rolling around".

Some of the tackles Irish players committed in the Scotland game in the last campaign were shocking as well.

Irish fans would do well to remember that our players have plenty of previous for injuring opponents.

BorneTobyWilde

Players only care for money. They would not care about a 5 match ban, it's a well paid holiday. Maybe they should be hit financially in combination of their ban. Zero pay and 5 match ban in cases like this.

NIMAN

D0NNELLY wrote: »

What makes you think i know him? Never had any interaction with him.

Awright pal, we still meeting up for that drink later?

D0NNELLY

NIMAN wrote: »

Awright pal, we still meeting up for that drink later?

Sshhhh

On dismissing enquiries, it's worth remembering that hearings are held all the time for stuff like "bringing the game into disrepute". No career was ever ended by a manager having a go at a ref in his post match comments.

Corholio

Minderbinder wrote: »

Obviously things happen that cause people to talk about them. I'm sure there was similar talk after the Ramsey injury. Does that make it less worthy of debate? Does that make my opinion less worthy because I wasn't talking about it last Thursday? I don't think that matters.

I'm saying if there was a three month ban for a foul that caused a broken leg to an opponent (just that one situation, regardless of intention) what would be wrong with that? Why is justice more important for those who cause injury than for those who are on the receiving end?

Never said anything about your opinion, fully entitled to have that! My point was that rule wise it's a mine field on how you could have a blanket ban on a player where an injury was caused during a tackle, without considering the many variables of the tackle. I never said anything about justice!? You said automatic ban which leads to a broken leg. Every case should be judged upon, should be no automatic bans. It wasn't anything to do with your opinion before last Thursday, it was that these snap debates always crop up around isolated incidents about whether the whole 'thing' needs to be changed etc.

Corholio

Deleted User wrote: »

On dismissing enquiries, it's worth remembering that hearings are held all the time for stuff like "bringing the game into disrepute". No career was ever ended by a manager having a go at a ref in his post match comments.

That's stuff we know happened though and then a judgment is made, mostly because it's on tv. I don't see how you can have enquiries about whether a manager 'told' a team to go out and be dirty, unless there was form of extraordinary evidence which led to it. Two tackles, bad as they were, is not even close to that sort of evidence. Can't imagine how many games would be 'investigated' then.

Corholio

Corholio wrote: »

That's stuff we know happened though and then a judgment is made, mostly because it's on tv. I don't see how you can have enquiries about whether a manager 'told' a team to go out and be dirty, unless there was form of extraordinary evidence which led to it. Two tackles, bad as they were, is not even close to that sort of evidence. Can't imagine how many games would be 'investigated' then.

Oh no, it would not be an enquiry about the manager. It would be one for the player. But a player might for example defend himself by saying that a manager told them to be robust. Or whatever comes out, at least there could be a further analysis of the matter and harsher penalties.

The Talking Bread

I wouldn't even call Bale's a "tackle" . It was an utterly badly timed attempt to get the ball and obviously a deserved foul, so reckless it could have been red but he was trying to get the ball. I very much doubt a pre game Chris Coleman war cry was ringing through his head at that very moment.

Shanotheslayer

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I wouldn't even call Bale's a "tackle" . It was an utterly badly timed attempt to get the ball and obviously a deserved foul, so reckless it could have been red but he was trying to get the ball.

I agree 100% with this. My first thoughts on this was Bale saw the ball being crossed and was just throwing his leg at it, i don't think he even knew O'Shea was there.

Alas he caught him and it was bad

citytillidie

for those going on about the elbow from Whealen this is an elbow that can do damage and it was a charity game

https://twitter.com/djmcbreen/status/845798805823893504

enzo roco

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Players only care for money. They would not care about a 5 match ban, it's a well paid holiday. Maybe they should be hit financially in combination of their ban. Zero pay and 5 match ban in cases like this.

Thats just silly. Name one Irish player that only cares for money, and would rather go on holiday than play for Ireland.

Agent Coulson

Taylor should not be allowed to play international football again till Coleman has recovered from his injury and is back playing international football and then he gets his 3 match ban implemented for the red card.

The Talking Bread

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Taylor should not be allowed to play international football again till Coleman has recovered from his injury and is back playing international football and then he gets his 3 match ban implemented for the red card.

Well that "solution" sets a ridiculous precedent...............

Shanotheslayer

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Taylor should not be allowed to play international football again till Coleman has recovered from his injury and is back playing international football and then he gets his 3 match ban implemented for the red card.

Genuinely Lol'd

blueser

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Taylor should not be allowed to play international football again till Coleman has recovered from his injury and is back playing international football and then he gets his 3 match ban implemented for the red card.

Behave.

LeBash

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Players only care for money. They would not care about a 5 match ban, it's a well paid holiday. Maybe they should be hit financially in combination of their ban. Zero pay and 5 match ban in cases like this.

That's a bit ridiculous. If that was the case they wouldn't be bothered to turn up for an international or their club. Of course they care about playing.

The Talking Bread

International weekends turn some fans crazy!! The last few days have thrown up a bible of hysterical nonsense statements!

The Talking Bread

LeBash wrote: »

That's a bit ridiculous. If that was the case they wouldn't be bothered to turn up for an international or their club. Of course they care about playing.

You tell him!!






But yeah, I thought BorntobyWilde was being sarcastic there but quite funnily, he seems to believe that general view!