Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy

[Tangles]

Grats to FIFA growing a pair. I expected a delayed sentence so he could play in the tournament still.

 

[Ikki]

Here we go: https://twitter.com/FootballVines/status/482171810063339520

What ever he's trying to do, it's ****ing bat **** crazy.

Er, no.

 

[Tom Halsey]

They're actually fairly easy to spot.

If proving what level of intent (completely unintentional mistimed tackle, a tackle meant to hurt but not break a leg, a tackle intended to break a leg) is that easy to you then it begs the question why you are not a part of FIFA's disciplinary procedure as I'm fairly sure no-one else finds proving intent easy.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's just crazy that people are trying to downplay this imo. Comparing it to other on the field incidents like bad tackles and so on is nonsense.

At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that HE ****ING BIT ANOTHER PERSON FFS.

There is no way that is acceptable, anywhere, ever. He should have the book thrown at him.

That's just a senseless rant because no one here is saying its acceptable FFS.

 

[Ikki]

If proving what level of intent (completely unintentional mistimed tackle, a tackle meant to hurt but not break a leg, a tackle intended to break a leg) is that easy to you then it begs the question why you are not a part of FIFA's disciplinary procedure as I'm fairly sure no-one else finds proving intent easy.

You don't prove subjective intention - did the player actually in his mind want to break the other person's leg - but you look at it objectively. If you commit a two foot lunging tackle, or one where the contact is half way on the shin, etc, then saying you didn't intentionally want to break their legs is irrelevant. You intended the tackle you committed which resulted in a break. You don't let someone go on that kind of reasoning if you actually want to stop the act of dangerous tackling (intentional or just reckless) in the first place.

Moreover, who said a leg has to be broken for the tackle to be bad or to garner lengthy bans? If you're tackling to hurt, that's just as bad. The only way to legally tackle someone is if you're legitimately tackling to get the ball. And it's hard to argue that you're doing that if you're slide tackling with your studs up from behind or if your studs are anywhere near another player's torso (as examples).

 

[OverratedSanity]

Here we go: https://twitter.com/FootballVines/status/482171810063339520

What ever he's trying to do, it's ****ing bat **** crazy.

That's the one I was referring to.Guy is a complete nutter.

 

[Ikki]

Apparently, LFC can't appeal, only Uruguay can. As if Fifa weren't enough of a joke.

 

[Ikki]

Absolute ****ing moron though, I swear. He should not get a penny from the club until the ban is over.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Er, no.

Leg breakers are cloudy. I think some people go in intentionally hard and try to cause pain, but I doubt many would intentionally savage someones leg. Though I'm not sure I'll ever hate someone more than the bloke who ruined Diaby's career, even if it's impossible to tell if it was completely intentional.

I doubt Suarez knows enough about bite infections to think "OK I'll sink my canines into that guys shoulder causing an infection and possibly transferring by Hepatitis B". That part of the thought process is irrelevan.

What matters is whether it was an intentional attempt at injuring a player without going for the ball. Imo, they're easy to spot on a large number of occasions and they get off too lightly.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Er, no.

Most intentional leg breakers though are impossible to prove, and I don't think many leg-breakers are intentional because I don't think most people are deranged ****s like Keane/Suarez etc.

When someone like Keane admits he did it on purpose, then by all means throw the book at him. I doubt anyone here seriously thinks Keane was adequately punished, he should have got a similar sort of ban to Suarez.

Agree with all of that really. I'm only talking about those worst of tackles which are obviously done intentionally, not the reckless ones where he does go the ball but mistimes it a fraction. Those I can understand.

Echoing another poster's thoughts, Dan Smith on Diaby was pretty bad IIt was a petulant and clearly malicious challenge intended to cause pain. It kept Diaby out for almost a year.

 

[GIMH]

Apparently, LFC can't appeal, only Uruguay can. As if Fifa weren't enough of a joke.

I'm pretty sure Liverpool will have a strong legal case here if they take it to the CAS.

The no training thing is bizarre as well. Sets a precedent though which is fair enough

 

[Tom Halsey]

You don't prove subjective intention - did the player actually in his mind want to break the other person's leg - but you look at it objectively. If you commit a two foot lunging tackle, or one where the contact is half way on the shin, etc, then saying you didn't intentionally want to break their legs is irrelevant. You intended the tackle you committed which resulted in a break. You don't let someone go on that kind of reasoning if you actually want to stop the act of dangerous tackling (intentional or just reckless) in the first place.

Moreover, who said a leg has to be broken for the tackle to be bad or to garner lengthy bans? If you're tackling to hurt, that's just as bad. The only way to legally tackle someone is if you're legitimately tackling to get the ball. And it's hard to argue that you're doing that if you're slide tackling with your studs up from behind or if your studs are anywhere near another player's torso (as examples).

I agree with much of this but it does make your defence of some tackles by Liverpool players seem incredibly hypocritical.

I also think you can make a terrible, two-footed lunging tackle without really meaning to cause injury. Sterling's tackle on Valencia was far from the worst example of this but it's freshest in my memory and it does serve as an example. It was lunging, studs up and off the floor but I wouldn't say he actually meant any harm by it. These tackles still deserve to be punished obviously but given football is such an instinctive and adrenalin-based game I think it's pretty easy to just dive in without giving the consequences any thought whatsoever. This is notably in contrast to just biting someone (for the THIRD time) off the ball in a far less instinctive situation.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm not defending him on any basis. I said that I didn't consider Chiellini infection because he didn't bite him hard enough. And this is the photo that has been going round and the one I saw:

It's teeth indentations, as I said before.



They're actually fairly easy to spot.

Dude...its more than indentation. I think he probably had to get a tetanus shot if he wasn't up to date.

 

[Ikki]

I agree with much of this but it does make your defence of some tackles by Liverpool players seem incredibly hypocritical.

I also think you can make a terrible, two-footed lunging tackle without really meaning to cause injury. Sterling's tackle on Valencia was far from the worst example of this but it's freshest in my memory and it does serve as an example. It was lunging, studs up and off the floor but I wouldn't say he actually meant any harm by it. These tackles still deserve to be punished obviously but given football is such an instinctive and adrenalin-based game I think it's pretty easy to just dive in without giving the consequences any thought whatsoever. This is notably in contrast to just biting someone (for the THIRD time) off the ball in a far less instinctive situation.

The point is really not to give the player an excuse to be able to say that they lunged in two footed innocently. It means they should never under any circumstance go in like that. The Sterling tackle we discussed I remember we disagreed on because it is his trailing leg which is on the floor that contacts with Valencia (where you showed a photo of the tackle where the high leg looks like connecting with Valencia when it in actual fact it's nowhere near). Even then, what did I say? Yellow. It was a dangerous tackle but he went for and did get the ball (of course, as well as the man). It's not an out of the ordinary tackle, though.

For the record, I'm talking more about two footed lunges like this, this and this - where the player is clearly leaving the ground, lunging towards the player with two feet in the air and directed at the opponent with studs showing. There's basically no context in the game that necessitates a tackle like that, so arguing that you didn't intend to hurt/break the other player's leg is kind of besides the point.

 

[sledger]

That's just a senseless rant because no one here is saying its acceptable FFS.

Oh sorry, I must have confused you with one of your other accounts.

 

[duffer]

Oh sorry, I must have confused you with one of your other accounts.

Heh.

 

[Ikki]

Is there anybody that thinks he's a **** but still thinks 4 months is too much?

That's basically 9 matches for Uruguay, with another 9 EPL games and whatever CL and cup games LFC have. That's ****ed up.

 

[duffer]

Dopey Ferdinand got 6 months for failing a drugs test. Whether that's a more heinous crime or not I'm not sure.

 

[Uppercut]

Dopey Ferdinand got 6 months for failing a drugs test. Whether that's a more heinous crime or not I'm not sure.

He got 8 months for missing a drugs test. It was a very strange case and a terrible benchmark to choose to compare any other punishment to.

 

[Burgey]

Incredible. Tassotti who broke Luis Enrique's nose by elbowing him only got 8 games in 1994. In the same tournament Leonardo broke Ramos' cheekbone and got 3 with an elbow as well.

Had they done the same thing twice before?