When a player commits a savage tackle...

noodler

The Talking Bread wrote: »

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

It really has, some advocate inquires into the manager's instructions and others think Ireland played possession football!

Crazy ****.

noodler

https://buzz.ie/neil-taylor-could-face-an-extended-fifa-ban/

This is a more appropriate way of dealing with the incident.

Shanotheslayer

noodler wrote: »

https://buzz.ie/neil-taylor-could-face-an-extended-fifa-ban/

This is a more appropriate way of dealing with the incident.

No it's not.

If it didn't break his leg and badly injured him for a week or two would you still be looking for the same ban?

noodler

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

No it's not.

If it didn't break his leg and badly injured him for a week or two would you still be looking for the same ban?

I agree with you on the issues of only looking at the outcome.

I'm sure if a Committee does look at it, they will consider the act itself, whether there was any genuine attempt to play the ball, how high the studs were, how many feet etc.

I am not pre-empting the outcome of any potential hearing.

Arghus

Bit of an overreaction from some on here. Bad tackle, deserved red, extremely bad luck for all involved that Seamus Coleman got his leg snapped, but it can happen in the game and you just have to deal with it. If there had been a broken leg for a Welsh player in the match we wouldn't even be talking about it.

The Talking Bread

Would Delle Ali be liable for such a club ban also? His intent was far more premeditated and arguably was a worse tackle but the player he inflicted it on got extremely lucky. His was just as much a career ender of a tackle and far more malicious in my opinion. Intent is just as bad. Is it the player you are punishing for the foul or is it some retribution for the actual injury ?

The Talking Bread

Arghus wrote: »

Bit of an overreaction from some on here. Bad tackle, deserved red, extremely bad luck for all involved that Seamus Coleman got his leg snapped, but it can happen in the game and you just have to deal with it. If there had been a broken leg for a Welsh player in the match we wouldn't even be talking about it.

Of course we would! That tackle has been headline news in even English tv media outlets and soccer sites and general social media all weekend! It isn't just a few people on Boards.ie that are discussing it.??

And, no, a tackle like that is not something that happens in the game and you have to deal with it. Thankfully they are very rare occurrences and it is thankfully especially rare that horrific injuries like Colemans are inflicted.

Shanotheslayer

noodler wrote: »

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

No it's not.

If it didn't break his leg and badly injured him for a week or two would you still be looking for the same ban?

I agree with you on the issues of only looking at the outcome.

I'm sure if a Committee does look at it, they will consider the act itself, whether there was any genuine attempt to play the ball, how high the studs were, how many feet etc.

I am not pre-empting the outcome of any potential hearing.

Do you think he didn't play the ball? I haven't seen many say there looked to be intent.
How high Studs where? What happens if there's an overhead kick and it breaks somebody's jaw? So many scenarios and variables it just won't happen.

noodler

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Do you think he didn't play the ball? I haven't seen many say there looked to be intent.
How high Studs where? What happens if there's an overhead kick and it breaks somebody's jaw? So many scenarios and variables it just won't happen.

I just listed a number of potential things they can look at which aren't the outcome (i.e. Broken leg).

There seems to be widespread consensus amongst the media, British anyway, that he had very little chance of winning the ball.

But really, I am just listing the various things a potential committee could look at, not that he necessarily deserves an additional four game ban.

enzo roco

Im outraged.
Delaney should ask the garda to arrest Taylor.

And maybe we should ask fifa to allow us be team 33 in the world cup???
Thats the least they could do.

LiamoSail

[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.

I think that Swedish refs career was after Mourinho acted like Mourinho in a post match interview. He retired after getting death threats and all iirc

Arghus

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Of course we would! That tackle has been headline news in even English tv media outlets and soccer sites and general social media all weekend! It isn't just a few people on Boards.ie that are discussing it.??

And, no, a tackle like that is not something that happens in the game and you have to deal with it. Thankfully they are very rare occurrences and it is thankfully especially rare that horrific injuries like Colemans are inflicted.

The headlines have mainly been about Coleman's broken leg, not the tackle itself per se. I think everyone accepts it was an awful challenge, but you do see them a lot in the game. I think calling for extra punishment for Taylor is ridiculous.

If there had hypothetically been a Welsh broken leg in the game, I highly doubt there would be a thread stretching to 60 plus replies about it. There were a lot of people crowing in the build up to the game about how someone should be in with a reducer on Bale first chance they get. Seems hypocritical to me then to wring our hands about a hasty tackle that went badly - very badly - against one of our players.

chicorytip

The technique of proper tackling is clearly no longer being taught. It is a skill in itself. Taylor, had he been properly coached, ought to have won that challenge cleanly without ever running the risk of hurting his opponent.

BorneTobyWilde

What would hurt a PLAYER MORE, missing a few games , or having his wages stopped for the duration of his 5 game ban. I think the money would be more pressing for today's player.

Minderbinder

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

noodler wrote: »

https://buzz.ie/neil-taylor-could-face-an-extended-fifa-ban/

This is a more appropriate way of dealing with the incident.

No it's not.

If it didn't break his leg and badly injured him for a week or two would you still be looking for the same ban?

No, but the fact is it did break his leg. Why are people having such a hard time differentiating between a dangerous tackle that doesn't cause damage and one that does? Is it that hard a concept that punishment should be some way in line with the damage caused?

If I shot a bullet into the air I wouldn't be convicted of murder. But if it went into someone's head I would be. Why in football land is the weight of crime and punishment so unbalanced?

Why must players like Ramsey and Coleman pay the only price and suffer bad luck alone?

People are saying Taylor is unlucky are talking absolute rubbish. He's the luckiest man in the world that he's playing in a sport that he can cripple an opponent by pure recklessness and line out again next week while the victim begins the long, uncertain road of recovery.

Corholio

Minderbinder wrote: »

If I shot a bullet into the air I wouldn't be convicted of murder. But if it went into someone's head I would be. Why in football land is the weight of crime and punishment so unbalanced?

Why must players like Ramsey and Coleman pay the only price and suffer bad luck alone?

People are saying Taylor is unlucky are talking absolute rubbish. He's the luckiest man in the world that he's playing in a sport that he can cripple an opponent by pure recklessness and line out again next week while the victim begins the long, uncertain road of recovery.

Are you playing in a game where bullets are shot into the air on a constant basis? That's the only way that strangely bizarre comparison works. What other sports could he be playing that there is some form of 'equal' punishment compared to the injury? There's a reason there isn't any.

gitzy16v

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

If it didn't break his leg and badly injured him for a week or two would you still be looking for the same ban?

Dya kno what we probably wouldn't...BUT...We should...These are highly paid professional footballers and Seamus Coleman may have his livelihood stripped away because of one man's recklessness...players know if they miss it "I'm probably gonna catch him"...in this day and age that reckless behaviour is a sackable offence in any other line of work...Taylor needs to get a bit more than 3 match ban for a straight red card.
It's an argument how much extra punishment is deserved though.

As an Arsenal fan I remember the reaction around Aaron Ramseys injury,to be honest there was plenty of other teams fans giving Shawcross plenty of grief so I'm sure it's not just Irish giving out about the player who injured Coleman.

Shanotheslayer

Minderbinder wrote: »

No, but the fact is it did break his leg. Why are people having such a hard time differentiating between a dangerous tackle that doesn't cause damage and one that does? Is it that hard a concept that punishment should be some way in line with the damage caused?


Why must players like Ramsey and Coleman pay the only price and suffer bad luck alone?

People are saying Taylor is unlucky are talking absolute rubbish. He's the luckiest man in the world that he's playing in a sport that he can cripple an opponent by pure recklessness and line out again next week while the victim begins the long, uncertain road of recovery.

Youre talking some sh!te comparing bullets with football for a start.

Nobody is having a hard time differentiating between a dangerous tackle that doesn't cause damage and one that does. The point is that if for example Taylor stud on his ankle and broke that and Coleman was out for months is that a dangerous tackle? Is it just unlucky? Broken ankle leaves somebody out for months! Oh the mass hysteria! It's bad luck it happens.

Also, Taylor isn't walking out next week.

Stop being so butthurt. I'm an Everton and an Ireland fan I think i've more right to cry than anyone that we're losing our captain and the clubs best defender, but sure look, these things happen.

ceegee

Minderbinder wrote: »

No, but the fact is it did break his leg. Why are people having such a hard time differentiating between a dangerous tackle that doesn't cause damage and one that does? Is it that hard a concept that punishment should be some way in line with the damage caused?

If I shot a bullet into the air I wouldn't be convicted of murder. But if it went into someone's head I would be. Why in football land is the weight of crime and punishment so unbalanced?

Why must players like Ramsey and Coleman pay the only price and suffer bad luck alone?

People are saying Taylor is unlucky are talking absolute rubbish. He's the luckiest man in the world that he's playing in a sport that he can cripple an opponent by pure recklessness and line out again next week while the victim begins the long, uncertain road of recovery.

Regarding your bullet argument, the law definitely does take intent into account.
If you accidentally shoot and kill your friend while hunting the punishment will be less severe than if you deliberately tried to execute someone but missed.
Likewise, driver error causing death will be treated more leniently than deliberately running someone over and them surviving.

The Talking Bread

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What would hurt a PLAYER MORE, missing a few games , or having his wages stopped for the duration of his 5 game ban. I think the money would be more pressing for today's player.

The club pays the player? Do you honestly think FIFA could fine him the equivalent of up to 2 months wages? The club would be thrown in front of an Employment Tribunal quicker than it takes Randolph to punt the ball forward if they interfered.

Should Bale get his wages docked also?

Jesus, your obsession with the money aspect is ridiculous.

You really need to stop and think things through!!

The Talking Bread

Minderbinder wrote: »

No, but the fact is it did break his leg. Why are people having such a hard time differentiating between a dangerous tackle that doesn't cause damage and one that does? Is it that hard a concept that punishment should be some way in line with the damage caused?

If I shot a bullet into the air I wouldn't be convicted of murder. But if it went into someone's head I would be. Why in football land is the weight of crime and punishment so unbalanced?

Why must players like Ramsey and Coleman pay the only price and suffer bad luck alone?

People are saying Taylor is unlucky are talking absolute rubbish. He's the luckiest man in the world that he's playing in a sport that he can cripple an opponent by pure recklessness and line out again next week while the victim begins the long, uncertain road of recovery.

Bizarre analogy to a reckless challenge causing or not causing damage. And you have the cheek to question "why are people having such a hard time differentiating" the latter!

Agent Coulson

Taylor should have to wear a cast on his leg for as long as Coleman is wearing one.

The Talking Bread

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Taylor should have to wear a cast on his leg for as long as Coleman is wearing one.

Maybe Taylor should eat hospital food as long as Coleman has to or maybe just break his leg.

Maybe that will be "justice" for the witchhunters.

GLaDOS

Coleman should get to break Taylor's leg.

Minderbinder

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Minderbinder wrote: »

No, but the fact is it did break his leg. Why are people having such a hard time differentiating between a dangerous tackle that doesn't cause damage and one that does? Is it that hard a concept that punishment should be some way in line with the damage caused?

If I shot a bullet into the air I wouldn't be convicted of murder. But if it went into someone's head I would be. Why in football land is the weight of crime and punishment so unbalanced?

Why must players like Ramsey and Coleman pay the only price and suffer bad luck alone?

People are saying Taylor is unlucky are talking absolute rubbish. He's the luckiest man in the world that he's playing in a sport that he can cripple an opponent by pure recklessness and line out again next week while the victim begins the long, uncertain road of recovery.

Bizarre analogy to a reckless challenge causing or not causing damage. And you have the cheek to question "why are people having such a hard time differentiating" the latter!

Maybe it is bizarre or maybe I didn't explain it properly. I was trying to show how ridiculous it is that people are saying Bale and Taylor should have the same punishment. They both pulled the trigger but Bale missed.

People here are saying that if you have two guys who unintentionally, yet recklessly put others into danger, and only one of them causes injury both should be punished the same.

I'm just disagreeing with that.

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Maybe Taylor should eat hospital food as long as Coleman has to or maybe just break his leg.

Maybe that will be "justice" for the witchhunters.

A hearing is hardly a witchhunt. We don't say managers or players are victims of a witchhunt when they have to face a hearing about a tweet or a comment, we don't say rugby players are subject to a witchhunt when players are cited for nasty incidents.

Minderbinder

Deleted User wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Maybe Taylor should eat hospital food as long as Coleman has to or maybe just break his leg.

Maybe that will be "justice" for the witchhunters.

A hearing is hardly a witchhunt. We don't say managers or players are victims of a witchhunt when they have to face a hearing about a tweet or a comment, we don't say rugby players are subject to a witchhunt when players are cited for nasty incidents.

People are just so desperate to appear unbiased and above it all that Taylor has become the victim. Amazing. I think the complaints we made about the Henry handball and the subsequent laughing at the Paddies has affected some to the point they'll accept anything, just as long they don't appear emotional.

noodler

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The club pays the player? Do you honestly think FIFA could fine him the equivalent of up to 2 months wages? The club would be thrown in front of an Employment Tribunal quicker than it takes Randolph to punt the ball forward if they interfered.

Should Bale get his wages docked also?

Jesus, your obsession with the money aspect is ridiculous.

You really need to stop and think things through!!

Well, Fifa will be paying for most or all of Coleman's wages whilst he is recovering.

Shanotheslayer

Minderbinder wrote: »

Maybe it is bizarre or maybe I didn't explain it properly. I was trying to show how ridiculous it is that people are saying Bale and Taylor should have the same punishment. They both pulled the trigger but Bale missed.

People here are saying that if you have two guys who unintentionally, yet recklessly put others into danger, and only one of them causes injury both should be punished the same.

I'm just disagreeing with that.

Bale didn't miss he fully connected with O Shea. It just so happens O'Shea was lucky and it didn't break.

Minderbinder wrote: »

People are just so desperate to appear unbiased and above it all that Taylor has become the victim. Amazing. I think the complaints we made about the Henry handball and the subsequent laughing at the Paddies has affected some to the point they'll accept anything, just as long they don't appear emotional.

So by appearing objective and unbiased it then makes Taylor the victim? Idiotic statement to say the least.

Maybe you should stop coming across as a child that didn't get what he want and thinks it's unfair.

Taylors punishment is the red card. He got what the tackle warranted and also what's in the rules.

The Talking Bread

Minderbinder wrote: »

People are just so desperate to appear unbiased and above it all that Taylor has become the victim. Amazing. I think the complaints we made about the Henry handball and the subsequent laughing at the Paddies has affected some to the point they'll accept anything, just as long they don't appear emotional.

That is not what I said or indicated that I felt. Taylor is far from a victim.

Maybe read my comments. I was merely making a mockery of some of the outrageous, impossible to enact suggestions to punish Taylor that have been put forward. The player deserves a big ban but suggesting taking his wages away for the duration of the ban or lengthening the ban until Coleman plays again are ridiculous suggestions that will set unworkable precedents hereon.

And yes, I thought the suggestion, as much as I would have liked it to be no.33 in 2010 was silly and impossible to enact. Of course, Blatters response was irritating but it was more a sleight on him than us. It showed him up to be the cnt he is. I don't think many logical fans thought we would ever be accepted to be the 33rd. It was an amateurish suggestion by Delaney.

The Talking Bread

noodler wrote: »

Well, Fifa will be paying for most or all of Coleman's wages whilst he is recovering.

I know. That is compensation essentially. Why should Aston Villa profit from Taylor's misdemeanours financially? Makes no sense?

marbless

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Bale didn't miss he fully connected with O Shea. It just so happens O'Shea was lucky and it didn't break.

Exactly what Paddy Mulligan said yesterday.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/paddy-mulligan-recalls-jimmy-holmes-horror-story-following-colemans-calamity-446212.html

gucci

noodler wrote: »

Well, Fifa will be paying for most or all of Coleman's wages whilst he is recovering.

FIFAs insurance will pay for it, dont think there will be any FIFA director that is sweating over paying Colemans wages will affect his cocaine and hookers fund!

Gbear

Football has an odd approach to disciplining players.

For starters, there's still a lot of caveman level hypocrisy about the relative seriousness of some offences that besmirch the honour of players - people completely lose their minds after incidences of spitting and the like but relatively speaking, **** tackles are seen to be within the ordinary operation of the game so aren't as harshly dealt with despite being objectively worse in every way.

Rugby is, as in most administrative matters, far more progressive in how it handles discipline.
There's a solid, formalised process for dealing with matters after the match and as far as I know the punishments are pretty proportionate.

A good example of a gob****e in Dylan Hartley (England captain for anyone not acquainted) has been banned for a total of a year during his career.

A roughly equivalent example of dirtyness, cynicism and general bad behaviour in Joey Barton probably hasn't had half that, and with Rugby things are a lot more fraught and discipline is much more difficult in what at times looks like a well organised fight.

Citing needs to be introduced, overturning refereeing decisions needs to be introduced, not as a way to undermine them, but rather to support them and take pressure off them and bans need to reflect more accurately the seriousness off the offence.

If diving or other gob****ery is a booking in match, you can't start banning people for it. Defenders can and do cheat all the time as well. Diving is looked down on but it's the natural response when defenders can get away with all sorts of "dark arts".
A balance needs to be struck between players trying to cheat by diving and making it obvious that they're being fouled.

Honour based offences - ones that don't cause damage but are disrespectful or insulting - could be dealt with as harshly as you like but not to the point where they're eclipsing the punishments for serious dangerous offences.

Recklessness or indiscipline on the level of Taylor, Bale, Long and Whelan, leading to potentially very serious injuries, deserves an awful lot more than 3 games.
Throwing elbows, stamps and the like could certainly merit very lengthy bans 5-20 games wouldn't be unreasonable.
Potentially career ending tackles could well be argued as deserving of half a season level bans.

There needs to be another, virtually unlimited layer of punishments available for some behaviour - Keane on Haaland, Thatcher on Pedro Mendez and so on.

Another thing is the question of moral luck. If I drink drive, it isn't morally acceptable just because I didn't kill anyone.
Bale's tackle isn't magically less bad just because OShea got lucky.
If the goal is to protect players then the punishments need to be for behaviour that can lead to them getting injured and not just if they do get injured.

Hilly Bill

allthedoyles wrote: »

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

That sort of behaviour shouldnt be allowed on a sports field

Minderbinder

Messi banned for four games for verbally abusing an assistant referee. Hopefully that official makes a speedy recovery. #priorities

citytillidie

Minderbinder wrote: »

Messi banned for four games for verbally abusing an assistant referee. Hopefully that official makes a speedy recovery. #priorities

meaning he will miss all but 1 of Argentina's remaining qualifying games