|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:03:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 10:03:19 GMT
But thats exactly what Allen did, he instigated the incident not Deeney. I don't care what pundits or the football authorities say they've been punishing the reaction for years and letting the instigators off scott free. It doesn't matter who you think instigated the incident. If someone does something to you, getting in your face for instance, your response has to be reasonable. Deeny could of easily walked away, but he didn't, he grabbed Allen by the face, squeezing hard (by the looks of it) - That was an unreasonable reaction. Tempers were frayed, but that does not excuse a use of force. It does actually you don't have to walk away turning your back on an aggressor is a risk as is moving in a direction that you're not looking. You are not required to do so believe me I've put it to the test.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 10:04:33 GMT
But Allen didn't get off scott free. He (rightly) got a yellow card for verbal abuse. Deeney got a yellow card for pushing Shawcross and now he should be charged with violent conduct for squeezing Allen's face. It really isn't very difficult - I am surprised that you can't see it. What I see is if Allen doesn't go steaming into Deeney non of it happens. If thats what you consider acceptable behavior you are either one hard bastard or have a badly misshapen face. If you get into people's face in an aggressive manner like that they will react and you will deserve it. Or if Deeney had followed convention and given the ball back to Stoke after the throw in which was awarded after Stoke had put the ball out to allow treatment for an injury, then there would have been no problem. So Deeney started it through ungentlemanly conduct. Do you remember the Arsenal game years ago when Kanu scored a goal in similar circumstances after being unaware of the convention to return the ball to the team who put it out because of injury? I seem to recall that game was declared null and void and replayed at a later date.
|
|
|
Post by jeycov on Oct 29, 2017 10:06:57 GMT
Why not play on until the referee stops the game?
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:10:52 GMT
Post by crownmeking on Oct 29, 2017 10:10:52 GMT
It doesn't matter who you think instigated the incident. If someone does something to you, getting in your face for instance, your response has to be reasonable. Deeny could of easily walked away, but he didn't, he grabbed Allen by the face, squeezing hard (by the looks of it) - That was an unreasonable reaction. Tempers were frayed, but that does not excuse a use of force. It does actually you don't have to walk away turning your back on an aggressor is a risk as is moving in a direction that you're not looking. You are not required to do so believe me I've put it to the test. If you are talking about self-defense, no you do not have to walk away, and you could even employ a preemptive strike, if it were reasonable to do so. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. We did not get to hear what Allen and Deeny where saying to each other, but I would suggest that Deeny would have a hard time convincing anybody that he was in immediate fear of physical harm.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 10:15:05 GMT
Why not play on until the referee stops the game? I've never understood that myself. The trouble is, though, that the injured player could be a long way away from the ref who is, presumably, trying to keep up with play. It is a fact that both sides often feel they have no option but to put the ball out - for their own or an opposition injury. Perhaps rugby has the best idea - they just allow the physio and doctor onto the pitch whilst the game proceeds and, as far as I can see, no permission from the referee is needed.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:25:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by thedarkknight on Oct 29, 2017 10:25:21 GMT
Can’t wait to see him at Bet 365. Zouma, Shawcross and BMI will be waiting and if they aren’t Charlie will... Stupid, idiotic post. BMI wasn't playing....
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:31:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by sportsman on Oct 29, 2017 10:31:26 GMT
Can’t wait to see him at Bet 365. Zouma, Shawcross and BMI will be waiting and if they aren’t Charlie will... Stupid, idiotic post. BMI wasn't playing.... And a load of Stoke fans as he gets off the coach.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:40:49 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 10:40:49 GMT
It does actually you don't have to walk away turning your back on an aggressor is a risk as is moving in a direction that you're not looking. You are not required to do so believe me I've put it to the test. If you are talking about self-defense, no you do not have to walk away, and you could even employ a preemptive strike, if it were reasonable to do so. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. We did not get to hear what Allen and Deeny where saying to each other, but I would suggest that Deeny would have a hard time convincing anybody that he was in immediate fear of physical harm. The fact that his face was a centimetre or two away from Deeney's face and he wasn't trying to give him a kiss is adequate. You aren't required to let a bloke hit you just because he's smaller than you and Joe's approach was inarguably aggressive. cctv rarely includes audio but when it comes down to evidence Joe fucked himself with his aggressive momentum toward Deeney as far as the law is concerned Deeney could have put him into a coma with a single punch it would still be self defence its reasonable because its only one blow enough to remove the threat. You just can't go about losing your cool in an aggressive manner like Joe did.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:42:49 GMT
Post by ohbottom on Oct 29, 2017 10:42:49 GMT
I don't agree. Joe fronted up to Deeney because he felt Stoke should have been given the ball back as they'd kicked it out to let an injured player receive treatment, and Joe was making that point. Deeney was the first to raise his hands and make physical contact; Joe shoved back and Deeney then grabbed his face. You said you didn't agree then went on to agree. Joe fronted up Deeney in an aggressive manner. You are misleading yourself about hands they are unimportant Joe instigated the incident people don't have to put up with someone getting in their face like that. No I don't agree. I'm not misleading myself. You appear to believe that something spoken justifies a physical assault, whereas I don't. Hands ARE important, but in any case Deeney instigated the initial confrontation by ignoring the convention to return the ball, and he also instigated the physical confrontation by being the first to raise hands, and he then escalated it by grabbing Joe's face. The red mist descended.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 10:51:19 GMT
Post by roylandstoke on Oct 29, 2017 10:51:19 GMT
Deeney clearly would have been red carded if the ref had had a clear view of the incident, however any future ban will not help Stoke in any way, shape or form. Even worse than that, investigation into the incident may involve Ryan and we all know Stoke players do not get particularly fair hearings at the FA. I'd like the whole thing to be forgotten until Mr Deeney next appears against Stoke when he will obviously get the dog's abuse he deserves.
|
|
|
Post by crownmeking on Oct 29, 2017 10:52:21 GMT
If you are talking about self-defense, no you do not have to walk away, and you could even employ a preemptive strike, if it were reasonable to do so. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. We did not get to hear what Allen and Deeny where saying to each other, but I would suggest that Deeny would have a hard time convincing anybody that he was in immediate fear of physical harm. The fact that his face was a centimetre or two away from Deeney's face and he wasn't trying to give him a kiss is adequate. You aren't required to let a bloke hit you just because he's smaller than you and Joe's approach was inarguably aggressive. No, you are required to be reasonable. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. I am not going to keep arguing back and forth with you on this, other than to say, in my opinion, Deeny would not be able to offer self-defense as a justification for grabbing Allen's face. It was a unreasonable reaction to what was essentially a verbal altercation.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Oct 29, 2017 10:52:23 GMT
Deeney- if he wasn't a footballer he'd probably be selling crack.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 10:54:37 GMT
If you are talking about self-defense, no you do not have to walk away, and you could even employ a preemptive strike, if it were reasonable to do so. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. We did not get to hear what Allen and Deeny where saying to each other, but I would suggest that Deeny would have a hard time convincing anybody that he was in immediate fear of physical harm. The fact that his face was a centimetre or two away from Deeney's face and he wasn't trying to give him a kiss is adequate. You aren't required to let a bloke hit you just because he's smaller than you and Joe's approach was inarguably aggressive. cctv rarely includes audio but when it comes down to evidence Joe fucked himself with his aggressive momentum toward Deeney as far as the law is concerned Deeney could have put him into a coma with a single punch it would still be self defence its reasonable because its only one blow enough to remove the threat. You just can't go about losing your cool in an aggressive manner like Joe did. I'm sure we will all be interested to see what happens the next time a player is put into a coma by a single blow from Deeney or from anyone else. I suspect your definition of reasonable force is different from the FA's - or the law of the land for that matter!
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:04:52 GMT
via mobile
s7oke likes this
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:04:52 GMT
If you are talking about self-defense, no you do not have to walk away, and you could even employ a preemptive strike, if it were reasonable to do so. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. We did not get to hear what Allen and Deeny where saying to each other, but I would suggest that Deeny would have a hard time convincing anybody that he was in immediate fear of physical harm. The fact that his face was a centimetre or two away from Deeney's face and he wasn't trying to give him a kiss is adequate. You aren't required to let a bloke hit you just because he's smaller than you and Joe's approach was inarguably aggressive. cctv rarely includes audio but when it comes down to evidence Joe fucked himself with his aggressive momentum toward Deeney as far as the law is concerned Deeney could have put him into a coma with a single punch it would still be self defence its reasonable because its only one blow enough to remove the threat. You just can't go about losing your cool in an aggressive manner like Joe did. That second paragraph is absolute horse shit.....
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:09:55 GMT
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Oct 29, 2017 11:09:55 GMT
OK I'll defend Deeney and the ref. As I saw it Joe was the instigator of the aggression and appeared to have lost his head. If there is a red card its got to be for both of them. As an abrbitor of fairness the ref can't be allowing the instigator to go unpunished or receive a lesser punishment. If anything Deeney was a bit of a bitch, if you front a bloke up like Allen did you have no complaints if he spreads your nose across your face. Which I'm sure Deeney as a far larger man and keen and useful boxer is more than capable of. Sorry but Joe Allen was no inocent victim. The referee is not the arbitrator of fairness, whatever that means, he applies the laws of the game to individual acts committed by players. Both Allen and Deeney should receive the appropriate punishment for what they actually did, regardless of who "started" it. What was unclear to me from the video was whether Deeney got the yellow for what he did to Allen or whether it was for something else in the same incident. That could be crucial. I think it is also likely both clubs will be charged for two mass confrontations.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:12:15 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:12:15 GMT
The fact that his face was a centimetre or two away from Deeney's face and he wasn't trying to give him a kiss is adequate. You aren't required to let a bloke hit you just because he's smaller than you and Joe's approach was inarguably aggressive. cctv rarely includes audio but when it comes down to evidence Joe fucked himself with his aggressive momentum toward Deeney as far as the law is concerned Deeney could have put him into a coma with a single punch it would still be self defence its reasonable because its only one blow enough to remove the threat. You just can't go about losing your cool in an aggressive manner like Joe did. That second paragraph is absolute horse shit..... In what way? You think you are not legally entitled to punch someone who has approached you within centimetres in a very aggressive manner? You think there is a requirement to calibrate the punch? You think the consequential injuries constitute a crime? If you want to debate it fine I can pretty much guarantee my experience of the subject is greater than yours and tested upto and including police investigation.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:15:58 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:15:58 GMT
OK I'll defend Deeney and the ref. As I saw it Joe was the instigator of the aggression and appeared to have lost his head. If there is a red card its got to be for both of them. As an abrbitor of fairness the ref can't be allowing the instigator to go unpunished or receive a lesser punishment. If anything Deeney was a bit of a bitch, if you front a bloke up like Allen did you have no complaints if he spreads your nose across your face. Which I'm sure Deeney as a far larger man and keen and useful boxer is more than capable of. Sorry but Joe Allen was no inocent victim. The referee is not the arbitrator of fairness, whatever that means, he applies the laws of the game to individual acts committed by players. Both Allen and Deeney should receive the appropriate punishment for what they actually did, regardless of who "started" it. What was unclear to me from the video was whether Deeney got the yellow for what he did to Allen or whether it was for something else in the same incident. That could be crucial. I think it is also likely both clubs will be charged for two mass confrontations. Well unless the rules of football have their own definition of violence both men are guilty of violent conduct. From what I saw Deeney's mitigated by the fact that Joe was the instigator.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:19:18 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:19:18 GMT
The fact that his face was a centimetre or two away from Deeney's face and he wasn't trying to give him a kiss is adequate. You aren't required to let a bloke hit you just because he's smaller than you and Joe's approach was inarguably aggressive. cctv rarely includes audio but when it comes down to evidence Joe fucked himself with his aggressive momentum toward Deeney as far as the law is concerned Deeney could have put him into a coma with a single punch it would still be self defence its reasonable because its only one blow enough to remove the threat. You just can't go about losing your cool in an aggressive manner like Joe did. I'm sure we will all be interested to see what happens the next time a player is put into a coma by a single blow from Deeney or from anyone else. I suspect your definition of reasonable force is different from the 1 FA's - or the 2 law of the land for that matter! In the case of 1 who the fuck knows, in the case of 2 I'm certain that I'm right.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 11:22:27 GMT
OK I'll defend Deeney and the ref. As I saw it Joe was the instigator of the aggression and appeared to have lost his head. If there is a red card its got to be for both of them. As an abrbitor of fairness the ref can't be allowing the instigator to go unpunished or receive a lesser punishment. If anything Deeney was a bit of a bitch, if you front a bloke up like Allen did you have no complaints if he spreads your nose across your face. Which I'm sure Deeney as a far larger man and keen and useful boxer is more than capable of. Sorry but Joe Allen was no inocent victim. The referee is not the arbitrator of fairness, whatever that means, he applies the laws of the game to individual acts committed by players. Both Allen and Deeney should receive the appropriate punishment for what they actually did, regardless of who "started" it. What was unclear to me from the video was whether Deeney got the yellow for what he did to Allen or whether it was for something else in the same incident. That could be crucial. I think it is also likely both clubs will be charged for two mass confrontations. Given that the clearest things that would have been obvious to the ref were a) Allen's confrontation and verbals with Deeney at the start of the melee and b) Deeney's pushing Ryan to the ground, I assume that Allen and Deeney got their yellows for those two incidents. Like Graham Poll, I don't see how Oliver could have seen what Deeney did to Allen as he must have been unsighted.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:30:20 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:30:20 GMT
The referee is not the arbitrator of fairness, whatever that means, he applies the laws of the game to individual acts committed by players. Both Allen and Deeney should receive the appropriate punishment for what they actually did, regardless of who "started" it. What was unclear to me from the video was whether Deeney got the yellow for what he did to Allen or whether it was for something else in the same incident. That could be crucial. I think it is also likely both clubs will be charged for two mass confrontations. Given that the clearest things that would have been obvious to the ref were a) Allen's confrontation and verbals with Deeney at the start of the melee and b) Deeney's pushing Ryan to the ground, I assume that Allen and Deeney got their yellows for those two incidents. Like Graham Poll, I don't see how Oliver could have seen what Deeney did to Allen as he must have been unsighted. This again is the Shawcross who's head is shall we say "resting" on Deeney's forehead?
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:31:16 GMT
Post by crownmeking on Oct 29, 2017 11:31:16 GMT
That second paragraph is absolute horse shit..... In what way? You think you are not legally entitled to punch someone who has approached you within centimetres in a very aggressive manner? You think there is a requirement to calibrate the punch? You think the consequential injuries constitute a crime? If you want to debate it fine I can pretty much guarantee my experience of the subject is greater than yours and tested upto and including police investigation. No, again, to offer justification in self-defense, you must only respond with reasonable force. The test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he had believed about the circumstances, even if they were mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. If someone got in your face and shouted at you, and you responded by hitting them as hard as you could, causing them to fall and hit their head on the pavement, resulting in death or serious injury, you would have to convince a jury, that your actions were reasonable. I could cite some case law for you, if you want.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:32:40 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:32:40 GMT
Upon closer inspection its clear our players actions were at least as out of order as Deeney's but somehow its lost in the emotional ether because he squashed his face.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 11:33:43 GMT
Given that the clearest things that would have been obvious to the ref were a) Allen's confrontation and verbals with Deeney at the start of the melee and b) Deeney's pushing Ryan to the ground, I assume that Allen and Deeney got their yellows for those two incidents. Like Graham Poll, I don't see how Oliver could have seen what Deeney did to Allen as he must have been unsighted. This again is the Shawcross who's head is shall we say "resting" on Deeney's forehead? As far as I know there was only the one Shawcross on the pitch - so I guess it must have been that one.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:34:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:34:29 GMT
What I see is if Allen doesn't go steaming into Deeney non of it happens. If thats what you consider acceptable behavior you are either one hard bastard or have a badly misshapen face. If you get into people's face in an aggressive manner like that they will react and you will deserve it. Or if Deeney had followed convention and given the ball back to Stoke after the throw in which was awarded after Stoke had put the ball out to allow treatment for an injury, then there would have been no problem. So Deeney started it through ungentlemanly conduct. Do you remember the Arsenal game years ago when Kanu scored a goal in similar circumstances after being unaware of the convention to return the ball to the team who put it out because of injury? I seem to recall that game was declared null and void and replayed at a later date. I remember that LP... But it was Overmars, looked like Kanu was trying to give it back to The Blades Keeper. The game was replayed, it was a cup game, and the game was actually replayed at Highbury, not Bramhall Lane...
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:36:24 GMT
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 29, 2017 11:36:24 GMT
Or if Deeney had followed convention and given the ball back to Stoke after the throw in which was awarded after Stoke had put the ball out to allow treatment for an injury, then there would have been no problem. So Deeney started it through ungentlemanly conduct. Do you remember the Arsenal game years ago when Kanu scored a goal in similar circumstances after being unaware of the convention to return the ball to the team who put it out because of injury? I seem to recall that game was declared null and void and replayed at a later date. I remember that LP... But it was Overmars, looked like Kanu was trying to give it back to The Blades Keeper. The game was replayed, it was a cup game, and the game was actually replayed at Highbury, not Bramhall Lane... cheers
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:39:36 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:39:36 GMT
In what way? You think you are not legally entitled to punch someone who has approached you within centimetres in a very aggressive manner? You think there is a requirement to calibrate the punch? You think the consequential injuries constitute a crime? If you want to debate it fine I can pretty much guarantee my experience of the subject is greater than yours and tested upto and including police investigation. No, again, to offer justification in self-defense, you must only respond with reasonable force. The test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he had believed about the circumstances, even if they were mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. If someone got in your face and shouted at you, and you responded by hitting them as hard as you could, causing them to fall and hit their head on the pavement, resulting in death or serious injury, you would have to convince a jury, that your actions were reasonable. I could cite some case law for you, if you want. So could I Regina vs Beckford for starters. You see you have no evidence that the person approaching you aggressively to within centimeters only intends to shout in your face. There is no requirement to calibrate the force however many blows, shots, strikes are necessary to remove the threat. If you knock him to the ground and go down after him and beat him to a pulp/death you are crossing the line but a single blow no matter how hard can't be deemed unproportionate.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:45:53 GMT
Post by alster on Oct 29, 2017 11:45:53 GMT
In what way? You think you are not legally entitled to punch someone who has approached you within centimetres in a very aggressive manner? You think there is a requirement to calibrate the punch? You think the consequential injuries constitute a crime? If you want to debate it fine I can pretty much guarantee my experience of the subject is greater than yours and tested upto and including police investigation. No, again, to offer justification in self-defense, you must only respond with reasonable force. The test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what he had believed about the circumstances, even if they were mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. If someone got in your face and shouted at you, and you responded by hitting them as hard as you could, causing them to fall and hit their head on the pavement, resulting in death or serious injury, you would have to convince a jury, that your actions were reasonable. I could cite some case law for you, if you want. The infamous Kenneth Noye stabbed a copper to death in his garden and got away with in on self defence and you think Troy Deeney couldn't justify punching a very aggressive Joe Allen a couple of centimeters away from his face and still advancing, once at full force?
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:47:39 GMT
Post by FbrgVaStkFan on Oct 29, 2017 11:47:39 GMT
Why not play on until the referee stops the game? I've never understood that myself. The trouble is, though, that the injured player could be a long way away from the ref who is, presumably, trying to keep up with play. It is a fact that both sides often feel they have no option but to put the ball out - for their own or an opposition injury. Perhaps rugby has the best idea - they just allow the physio and doctor onto the pitch whilst the game proceeds and, as far as I can see, no permission from the referee is needed. I remember watching a hurling match years ago on TV and sat agape as they played on with a guy just lying there, not even moving for what seemed a very, very long time. Tough bastards.
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:47:42 GMT
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 11:47:42 GMT
I think there was a self hyped psychosis* there
in those mad-mad fucking eyes i.e.
Psychosis is characterized by an impaired relationship with reality. And it is a symptom of serious mental disorders. People who are psychotic may have either hallucinations or delusions. Hallucinations are sensory experiences that occur within the absence of an actual stimulus.19 May 2016
This is the sort of thing strait jackets were invented to control
No doubt, he will receive a very warm reception at the Brit
|
|
|
Deeney
Oct 29, 2017 11:47:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by PotteringThrough on Oct 29, 2017 11:47:50 GMT
Hands are very important. They're not its a nonsense created by football and pundits. So you don't use your hands?
|
|