ayrmad Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Can I just add that IMHO the goalies tackle really should be a 10 or 20 game ban,I am not looking for the guy to get a ban of that length but for future reference it should be declared that such reckless endangerment will be met with a significant ban, ignoring Moore's previous head injury, that sort of tackle could kill or cause a brain injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raith Against The Machine Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Battiston didn't even get a freekick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joma Boo Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Just now, Raith Against The Machine said: Battiston didn't even get a freekick. It's Political Correctness gone mad these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, Raith Against The Machine said: Battiston didn't even get a freekick. 35 years later and we still remember that tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank conner Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Im sure i read somewhere that battiston even invited schumacher to his wedding after the finals but that was when players could take a tackle and no cry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 The ball was moving when the free kick was taken before the incident with Penksa. On another note, we've now seen games with Ayr this season involving 1 goalkeeper for Ayr with Stevo for us, 2 on each team and 4 on each team. What a bizarre set of circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mince Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 27 minutes ago, rw89 said: The ball was moving when the free kick was taken before the incident with Penksa. On another note, we've now seen games with Ayr this season involving 1 goalkeeper on each team, 2 on each team and 4 on each team. What a bizarre set of circumstances. And stevo in goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, mr mince said: And stevo in goals I phrased that poorly! Exactly what I meant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 The game on the opening day is pathetic when you think about it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raith Against The Machine Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Cuthbert played the majority of the first game at Somerset with an injury, that then led to him missing a load of games. The start of our ludicrous goalkeeping odyssey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Can I just add that IMHO the goalies tackle really should be a 10 or 20 game ban,I am not looking for the guy to get a ban of that length but for future reference it should be declared that such reckless endangerment will be met with a significant ban, ignoring Moore's previous head injury, that sort of tackle could kill or cause a brain injury. [emoji23] a 10-20 match ban, get a grip, it was a clumsy and dangerous tackle and he was rightly sent off as the laws dictate. Football is a contact sport and accidents do sometimes happen. He didn't deliberately injure the lad, it was 3 players running for a ball and two collide. You wouldn't get 10-20 matches if you headbutted a player. So unless you believe he deliberately tried to hurt the lad why would he deserve such a lengthy ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Used to be a mans game so it did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said: a 10-20 match ban, get a grip, it was a clumsy and dangerous tackle and he was rightly sent off as the laws dictate. Football is a contact sport and accidents do sometimes happen. He didn't deliberately injure the lad, it was 3 players running for a ball and two collide. You wouldn't get 10-20 matches if you headbutted a player. So unless you believe he deliberately tried to hurt the lad why would he deserve such a lengthy ban. Rubbish, 2 didn't collide, never in my life have I ever led with my knee when I was going for the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted May 7, 2017 Share Posted May 7, 2017 Rubbish, 2 didn't collide, never in my life have I ever led with my knee when I was going for the ball. So you are saying he deliberately kneed him in the head then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said: So you are saying he deliberately kneed him in the head then? I've not used the word deliberate but he's well out of his box and is no more entitled to lead with his knee than any other player, he chose self protection over getting the ball with no concern for what might happen to his opponent, that's reckless endangerment to me. Reckless endangerment: is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I've not used the word deliberate but he's well out of his box and is no more entitled to lead with his knee than any other player, he chose self protection over getting the ball with no concern for what might happen to his opponent, that's reckless endangerment to me.Reckless endangerment: is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. Yes it's called dangerous play which he was sent off for as per the laws of the game, where does a 10-20 match suspension come from for something you just stated wasn't deliberate. Does he deserve a red yes, does he deserve a suspension yes, does he deserve a 10-20 match ban of course he doesn't. As I said before you wouldn't get that for a head butt or a punch which are criminal assault so why would he get such a ridiculous length of ban for this. I agree he shouldn't lead with his knee which keepers get away with all the time but 10-20 matches does not fit the offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said: Yes it's called dangerous play which he was sent off for as per the laws of the game, where does a 10-20 match suspension come from for something you just stated wasn't deliberate. Does he deserve a red yes, does he deserve a suspension yes, does he deserve a 10-20 match ban of course he doesn't. As I said before you wouldn't get that for a head butt or a punch which are criminal assault so why would he get such a ridiculous length of ban for this. I agree he shouldn't lead with his knee which keepers get away with all the time but 10-20 matches does not fit the offence. I never mentioned a 10-20 game ban for yesterdays keeper, I mentioned it for future offenders, he perhaps never meant to catch Moore where he caught him but he did deliberately tackle with his knee with zero regard for his opponent, I love hard tackles but I can't be fucked with cowardly tackles that could seriously injure someone, the fact that it was his head just multiplies the severity in my book. IMHO it's the current punishments that don't fit the offences, there is practically no difference between giving the ref abuse and putting in a legbreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 I never mentioned a 10-20 game ban for yesterdays keeper, I mentioned it for future offenders, he perhaps never meant to catch Moore where he caught him but he did deliberately tackle with his knee with zero regard for his opponent, I love hard tackles but I can't be fucked with cowardly tackles that could seriously injure someone, the fact that it was his head just multiplies the severity in my book. IMHO it's the current punishments that don't fit the offences, there is practically no difference between giving the ref abuse and putting in a legbreaker. Fair enough if you increase all serious offenses not just this one but I think 20 still sounds a bit high. I dislike the whole keepers leading with the knee thing and would ban it totally as you say it is dangerous in any situation. Last Scotland game saw the thumb injured with a keeper using his knee for protection which would be a foul by any other player. If you change the ban length for reckless play and assaults I would also like to see harsh punishments for abusing the referee, while the fans might give him stick as fans do the players should respect the man one of the things I would take for the egg chasers is the way referees are treated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 1 minute ago, San Starko Rover said: Fair enough if you increase all serious offenses not just this one but I think 20 still sounds a bit high. I dislike the whole keepers leading with the knee thing and would ban it totally as you say it is dangerous in any situation. Last Scotland game saw the thumb injured with a keeper using his knee for protection which would be a foul by any other player. If you change the ban length for reckless play and assaults I would also like to see harsh punishments for abusing the referee, while the fans might give him stick as fans do the players should respect the man one of the things I would take for the egg chasers is the way referees are treated. Don't really disagree too much with any of that, 20 games is a bit high but it's better than players getting an extra game for a legbreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beastie Russell Posted May 8, 2017 Share Posted May 8, 2017 What's so special about legs ? What about an ankle breaker or are we just using cliches ? Personally, I think Penska knew Moore had suffered from concussion and deliberately targeted his knee to Moores head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.