sergiokun
Well-Known Member
Tackles like this can end players careers ffs the FA need to grow some balls and sort this out
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Callum McManaman escapes charge
- Thread starter Claytop
- Start date
Carver
Well-Known Member
Yes he did touch the ball. If he'd not made contact, but it had been close to it in any other country in the world this would have been a reckless challenge just for the studs up and possible booking. Haidara is not in control of the ball and can be said to be a 50/50 but McManaman's followed through. The challenge is reckless, dangerous and career threatening and deserved a red card. As for Mcmanaman being 'a bit green' this is the Premier League, one of the best and most competitive leagues in the world. Green or not, he's not playing for the Rose & Crown against The Red Lion.
Whether the officials see these incidents or not retrospective action has to be taken where needed. If the referee gets it wrong at the time then he gets it wrong. I don't see why this 'it's a slight on the ref if the FA don't back him up' still exists. I don't expect them to get every single decision right and we would all respect the FA more if they overturned decisions to get the right one. Also, the same should exist the other way round with sendings off rescinded if the ref's decision is clearly wrong because it's still 'if, in the opinion of the referee', which makes him right in ALL cases.
Here's a closing 'food for thought' question. McManaman touched the ball first before he studded Haidara, most people on here and the so called experts say it was a foul, (for me, to win the ball, you must do so cleanly i.e. without fouling the opponent before or after you touch the ball) but what would you or the experts have said if this happened inside the penalty area and the ball went from McManaman's boot straight out of play? IMO more experts would have said good challenge, he got the ball first, to me it would still be the same, a dangerous reckless foul deserving of a red card and a penalty.
Whether the officials see these incidents or not retrospective action has to be taken where needed. If the referee gets it wrong at the time then he gets it wrong. I don't see why this 'it's a slight on the ref if the FA don't back him up' still exists. I don't expect them to get every single decision right and we would all respect the FA more if they overturned decisions to get the right one. Also, the same should exist the other way round with sendings off rescinded if the ref's decision is clearly wrong because it's still 'if, in the opinion of the referee', which makes him right in ALL cases.
Here's a closing 'food for thought' question. McManaman touched the ball first before he studded Haidara, most people on here and the so called experts say it was a foul, (for me, to win the ball, you must do so cleanly i.e. without fouling the opponent before or after you touch the ball) but what would you or the experts have said if this happened inside the penalty area and the ball went from McManaman's boot straight out of play? IMO more experts would have said good challenge, he got the ball first, to me it would still be the same, a dangerous reckless foul deserving of a red card and a penalty.
That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've read all day on BM. And ive been down in the cellar ffs!bluekeith said:how many people are in full control when you play football its a mans game and sometimes tackles do not go 100% to planFantasyIreland said:bluekeith said:i think it was a good decision if you watch his foot it rolls over the ball I am fed up of sky and there 200 camera angles and being judge and jury just because sky says something you do not have to agree
So you believe he was in full control and not in any danger of hurting his opponent?
Challenges like that are career finishers. On another day the Newcastle lad might not have been so lucky. Its a red card all day long, so he should receive that ban retrospectively.
Where is the common sense in football nowadays!?
They make it up as they go along.
Any decision to ban or not to ban can be fudged by the referee saying that he saw it or not. Which, of course, gives the perfect opportunity for pressure to be put on them to ensure the required decision.
Now they are throwing the linesman into the equation. The ref has stated he didn't see it but they have found someone else to say he saw it, thus allowing a decision that someone obviously wanted.
It was a shocking tackle and a shocking decision not to give it. Who gives a fuck if they saw it or not. The current system means that poor decision after poor decision is upheld or readdressed. Often leaving a bitter taste and widespread suspicion, considering some teams regularly seem to benefit from it.
The decisions on this and Ferdinand in the last week are a total joke and is there anyone who believes 100% that the "I saw it" and "I didn't see it but it isn't worthy of action" explanations on both are totally honest and completely above board? Especially in light of the way other similar decisions have been made in the past.
Any decision to ban or not to ban can be fudged by the referee saying that he saw it or not. Which, of course, gives the perfect opportunity for pressure to be put on them to ensure the required decision.
Now they are throwing the linesman into the equation. The ref has stated he didn't see it but they have found someone else to say he saw it, thus allowing a decision that someone obviously wanted.
It was a shocking tackle and a shocking decision not to give it. Who gives a fuck if they saw it or not. The current system means that poor decision after poor decision is upheld or readdressed. Often leaving a bitter taste and widespread suspicion, considering some teams regularly seem to benefit from it.
The decisions on this and Ferdinand in the last week are a total joke and is there anyone who believes 100% that the "I saw it" and "I didn't see it but it isn't worthy of action" explanations on both are totally honest and completely above board? Especially in light of the way other similar decisions have been made in the past.
Claytop said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21849733
Another bad decision by the FA.
He knew hed caught the guy on the knee yet acted as if nowt happened and went chasing after the ball.. Horrible cahunt.
imtangledupinblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 569
So the linesman said he saw it, why did'nt he flag it up then, he should be kicked out for bottling it,
stan bowles
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the hospital surgeons can make Haidara's knee ligaments "come together" again ? If there is long term damage I can see a private legal action from the player against McManaman coming.
imtangledupinblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 569
Crouchinho said:I think common sense has to come into play. If it's deliberate then a ban, but if it's clumsy and unitentional then no ban. I have only seen a .gif of it so not sure
not sure,not fucking sure, the clues are there,
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
winchamblue said:Crouchinho said:I think common sense has to come into play. If it's deliberate then a ban, but if it's clumsy and unitentional then no ban. I have only seen a .gif of it so not sure
not sure,not fucking sure, the clues are there,
"the emphasis these days is on the end result not the intent".
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
winchamblue said:So the linesman said he saw it, why did'nt he flag it up then, he should be kicked out for bottling it,
I cannot understand what this fellow thinks he is doing on a football field but he certainly isn't doing what he should be doing.
And the notion of playing the ball first is wholly irrelevant. Can anyone say that this is the classic 'accident'. You can include 'a lack of intent' but it still remains a reckless and dangerous attempt at 'winning the ball'. What McMannaman could have 'done' with the ball, parallel to the ground and gravity taking its effect, Jeez knows.