|
Post by spitthedog on Sept 17, 2008 9:53:12 GMT
Guthrie will receive no further action for the assault on Fagan that does the game no good at all what message does that send out for one of the worst tackles i have seen in a long time??? he should be given a hot reception when he comes to the Brit
|
|
|
Post by mitchandtitch on Sept 17, 2008 10:11:24 GMT
THE FA NEED BANNING
|
|
|
Post by gilberto on Sept 17, 2008 10:28:23 GMT
it wasnt even a tackle, it was GBH! if it happened anywhere else except a football pitch he'd have been arrested.
not surprising though, the FA have no balls.
|
|
|
Post by u2oxeterstokie on Sept 17, 2008 10:31:43 GMT
If Fagan makes an official assualt complaint to the police and is then found guilty, the FA will have no choice but to punish him. Barton springs to mind!
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 10:45:07 GMT
If Griff or Gerry had made that sort of tackle how many would be going mad to get him banned. My guess is NONE. Lets get it right. He made a very bad challenge but does anyone really think he meant to break the blokes leg? I don't. Right. Thats Barton,Terry and Guthrie out the way. Who's back shall we all jump on next?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 10:48:25 GMT
Stafford, he made no attempt to play the ball. He was TRYING to kick the bloke as hard as he could. Whether he meant to break his leg or not is irrelevant, you know your actions have consequences, and that wasn't so much a tackle as an act of violence. He should have got a 6 game ban at least.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 10:51:03 GMT
Stafford, he made no attempt to play the ball. He was TRYING to kick the bloke as hard as he could. Whether he meant to break his leg or not is irrelevant, you know your actions have consequences, and that wasn't so much a tackle as an act of violence. He should have got a 6 game ban at least. But if it was Griff or Gerry honestly???????
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 10:52:56 GMT
I'd still think it was a Godawful challenge and worthy of a lengthy ban. Who commits the foul is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 10:56:52 GMT
Come on mate. If that was Griff or Gerry or any other Stoke player the response would be on the lines of "how did he get away with that. Nice one". We would be chuffed to f**k they had got away with it. I know I would and believe anyone that says they wouldn't are being a bit short sighted.
Edit. I agree it was a bad challenge.
|
|
Spud
Youth Player
Posts: 466
|
Post by Spud on Sept 17, 2008 10:58:13 GMT
The FA are Shit houses and wont ban anyone big or from a big named club, I hope Fagan gets the police involved which will shove it up the FA's arses.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 10:59:45 GMT
If they'd got away with it though, it would be just that. They'd gotten away with something that they should have been heftily punished for.
Do you really think a three game ban is sufficient for what Guthrie did? Do you honestly think it's no worse than what Amdy Faye was sent off for?
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 11:06:48 GMT
If they'd got away with it though, it would be just that. They'd gotten away with something that they should have been heftily punished for. Do you really think a three game ban is sufficient for what Guthrie did? Do you honestly think it's no worse than what Amdy Faye was sent off for? Straight red=3 game ban. Don't matter what its for. He made the challenge in a hyped up situation where the players were frustrated. I don't think he meant to break his leg. I am not saying its right but they are the rules. I have seen Gerry and other Stoke players make worse tackles in the past its just that never resulted in a broken leg.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 11:11:22 GMT
I've never seen Gerry make a worse tackle than Guthrie's. It was disgusting.
A ban CAN be extended after a red card in certain cases.
"Frustration" is NOT an excuse for taking two efforts to kick a bloke, with the ball not really near him, as hard as you can. It's more than "a bad challenge", it's assault. He aims to hurt him. Even if he hadn't broken his leg, the challenge was bad enough to warrant a lengthy ban.
|
|
|
Post by Godo on Sept 17, 2008 11:16:25 GMT
Stafford -you're talking rubbish mate - I've never seen Gerry/Griff etc ever run up behind a player and kick the shit out of him regardless of the location of the ball! Griff has had a couple of red cards that I recall when playing for us - Walcott play acting at Southampton and one against QPR where he won the ball - and Gerry was sent off for grabbing Bircham the skunk - nothing at all like the "challenge" from Guthrie - so get off your sanctimonious high horse. Guthrie should be banned for as long as Fagan is out for a challenge like that.
If the FA don't act judiciously then more cases will end in courts of law. In court it would be difficult to defend Guthrie's challenge as being anything other than GBH!
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 17, 2008 11:18:30 GMT
That's garbage about Taggart.
If you'd have said Mick Kennedy, you'd have had a point.
|
|
|
Post by suttontiger on Sept 17, 2008 11:20:35 GMT
The FA are Shit houses and wont ban anyone big or from a big named club, I hope Fagan gets the police involved which will shove it up the FA's arses. Cant say im surprised, the FA are pathetic. I do think its unlikey you will see anything worse than that on a football field. The only time I remember them acting was the Ben Thatcher attack on Mendes. IMO this was every bit as bad
|
|
|
Post by DrGonzo on Sept 17, 2008 11:22:09 GMT
Where are all the people who were screaming for 'Dicko' to kick Ronaldo into row Z when we play the Shite?
|
|
|
Post by suttontiger on Sept 17, 2008 11:23:50 GMT
If Griff or Gerry had made that sort of tackle how many would be going mad to get him banned. My guess is NONE. Lets get it right. He made a very bad challenge but does anyone really think he meant to break the blokes leg? I don't. Right. Thats Barton,Terry and Guthrie out the way. Who's back shall we all jump on next? It WASN'T a challenge, and YES he meant to hurt Fagan. The fact he broke his leg isn't the issue. Guthrie tried to do damage to Fagan, its the intent. The bloke is a fookin low life
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 11:25:43 GMT
Oh well. Alls well in love and football. I don't think it was that bad (in an intended to break his leg way) and think the punishment he has got is fair. Fagan was unlucky to break his leg and in most cases the leg prob wouldn't have broken. Occupational hazard I suppose. Right. Who shall we scream to be banned next?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 11:28:59 GMT
So it's all right to mean to hurt someone, as long as you don't break their leg?
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 11:33:04 GMT
So it's all right to mean to hurt someone, as long as you don't break their leg? Not what I mean at all. He obviously meant to take him out of the game (not permanently just to get the possession back) I just don't think he meant to cause serious injury.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 11:36:52 GMT
Cynically attempting to take someone out of the game is worth a three game ban irrespective of whether he broke his leg or not.
The intent to injure was there, he must have known there would be consequences to going in that hard on him, and he tried to do it more than once.
I don't know how it can be defended. It doesn't matter if he meant to break his leg or not. The challenge was abhorrent and he knew what he was doing in trying to kick him as hard as he could.
|
|
|
Post by suttontiger on Sept 17, 2008 11:38:53 GMT
So it's all right to mean to hurt someone, as long as you don't break their leg? Not what I mean at all. He obviously meant to take him out of the game (not permanently just to get the possession back) I just don't think he meant to cause serious injury. You're talking utter bollocks. Aside from sticking a knife into Fagan, its hard to think of a more obvious intent to hurt him
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 11:41:46 GMT
We will just agree to disagree on this one I think.
I am not trying to defend the challenge I just don't think it warrants him being hung from the gallows.
I think a 3 match ban, which is the punishment for the offense, is sufficient.
|
|
|
Post by JetBlack on Sept 17, 2008 11:52:17 GMT
Has anyone spotted this topic on the NUFC message board?
|
|
|
Post by johnnysoul60 on Sept 17, 2008 11:58:40 GMT
Thats amazing, given the fact it was no attempt to play the ball and simply an assault.
My view is that where it is deliberate the ban should be the length of time that the injured player misses doue to the injury caused.
If its simplky a mistimed challenge then the standard bans should stay no matter how bad the injury is but Guthrie simply went for the man
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Sept 17, 2008 12:06:36 GMT
3 MATCH ban clearly isnt sufficient when the intent - clearly! - was to hurt the player.
Mick Kennedy did indeed make worse tackles,1 of which was on a certain Bournemouth player whose leg was (very) broken courtesy of mad Mick.
I think that player went onto be a manager of some club or other.....
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Sept 17, 2008 12:09:55 GMT
Players like Sandford and Overson made "bad" tackles week in week out. The major difference is it was accepted that football was far more physical then so the tackles never stood out as much as they do in what is becoming a non contact sport.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2008 12:12:21 GMT
Stafford, he kicks him, with the ball nowhere near, with the intent to hurt him. He doesn't go in hard but fair and just miss the man, it's a PREMEDITATED attack. Do you not agree with that?
|
|
|
Post by bogus on Sept 17, 2008 12:13:12 GMT
Players like Sandford and Overson made "bad" tackles week in week out. The major difference is it was accepted that football was far more physical then so the tackles never stood out as much as they do in what is becoming a non contact sport. It wasn't a tackle at all, he had no interest in where the ball was, he just ran up and kicked someone's leg as hard as he could. Common assault in my book.
|
|