No offense taken Flyer, I'm glad I didn't see you either. In fact I said to the people I was with...if you see a guy in a Flyers hat...pull my hat over my eyes so I can't see him
He's a saint in hindsight only. We can look back now and see it with rose-tinted specs, and indeed many of the fans around me admitted at the end that they could barely remember the sending off. It certainly affected how we played for the final 30, and we were only ever going to get breakaway chances. Fortunately it worked out for us. It's interesting that people are quite happy to talk about 'taking one for the team' when it's only a yellow. When it's a red, not so. I can't find myself completely condoning his action, however I'm utterly delighted that we came out on top, and so I reckon O'Neill has a lot of players to thank for saving his skin...
The result of the game has dictated that many see him as a saint. If Derby had of won then I imagine there'd be a few different views on him losing us our chance of a win.
I read this thread yesterday and wondered how I could justify my hypocrisy. When he was sent off, I accepted it as a straight red and I think my disappointment was more levelled at our desperate situation that at O'Neill. As a purist, I like to see a fair game - no deliberate fouls, no diving, no influencing the officials etc. I realise this is an ideology and doesn't really exist in practise. That said, I still think the laws of the game are there to be adhered to. Mistimed tackles and accidents are one thing but every flouting of the rules to get an edge is another. It wasn't an accidental foul, he had no chance of getting the ball and so broke the rules (although the level of punishment for each offence is a different debate). For that tackle, he may not have had the time to contemplate the decision to drag the player down but he did so instinctively. Instinct is based on all our thinking and mindset prior to the crucial moment (ie he already had it in his psyche to do a professional foul for the sake of a competitive edge). Personally, I couldn't ever do that, although my football has never been played with millions at stake and thousands of fans hopes resting on my shoulders. If I ran through scenarios like that with that pressure, I might be less righteous. While my purism, condemns such actions, my pragmatism realises that, for example, the Derby fans and players revelled in the sending off almost as much as a goal - thinking that it was a near-decisive advantage. That, in my mind, reduces the impact of the action because the affected party willingly accepted it (or the punishment of it) readily. He is a sinner but did I care when that goal went in? No. Am I a hypocrite? Partially, yes.
I applaud your consideration and debate on this Matt, but i really think you are missing the "instinct" part of this Before starting, I would like to say...it was a foul, and the red was the correct response. O'Neil accepted it, so did our players ( a bit of a conflab but not really a lot bearing in mind what was at stake) But instinct took over with O'Neil I believe, just if the ball had been flying at him/me on the line...we would instinctively put our hand out...well I would, because my instinct would over-ride my sense of fair play. It is not an act of cheating per se, you have to have a conscious thought about the outcome of what you are about to do to cheat...is the basic point I am making Now obviously I do not know what Gary O'Neil was thinking, whether he can compute all that logic in a split second,and other than the instinct "must get the ball" I do not think the thought processes went much further. So in conclusion Red card deserved...YES Deliberate cheat....PROBABLY NO Took one for the team...YES and NO. Yes... he took one for the team, but No.... I do not ever think it entered his mind that he was about to "take one for the team"
I suppose my point is that I wouldn't put my arm out on the line - I'm not a goalkeeper and so it is not an instinctive response for me. For someone that want's to win at all costs it might be. He wasn't calculating in that split second but he obviously does have a propensity to win at all costs even if it outside the laws and spirit of the game. He's still a sinner but most in the sport would be too (in a similar position).... I find that "taking one for the team" attitude a little strange anyway - footballers are confident and arrogant on the whole and I'd have thought that they'd assume their impact on the game would outweigh the one goal that they are possibly preventing (unless in the closing stages) and they should assume it too.
From quite an early age, players are instructed to "take one for the team". Even my lad's U15s are told to do it if there's a breakaway on!
That's quite sad. If it's all in the players' conditioning, then it's a moot point - the attitude that gets taught into them dictates their instinctive responses. Sinner or saint? No, just a modern footballer.
I was a goalie...so perhaps that is part of my answer to this discussion.... But the but "that they'd assume their impact on the game would outweigh the one goal that they are possibly preventing" Is probably part of the problem...they get so worked up about "being beaten" to the ball, that there is no logical thought process. O'Neil was just desperate to get to the ball. Not a saint or a sinner, just a competitive footballer
I can happily agree with all that (although my definition of a sinner is probably harsher and probably encompasses 99% of footballers).
As per my previous posts, I'll agree with sinner but you're very misguided about him being a cheat (in relative terms). If you compare those players that overtly pull a shirt or trip someone up to those that sneakily pull shirt or dive, you'll see that there is an marked difference - the former do the act fully expecting and accepting the inevitable punishment whereas the latter try to break the rules while trying to avoid the consequences. I'd actually argue that a professional foul is far nobler than the thousands of shirts tugged every week during corners and set pieces. Doesn't make it right but it does make it less of a "cheat" than some of the other underhand tactics players employ these days.
I don't think its cheating, cheating is diving or trying to palm the ball in, then the player is trying to con the ref. O'Neil was honest in what he did. Blatant but honest.
There's a big difference between trying to deceive the ref and gain your team an advantage they don't deserve, and taking the chance on putting your own team at a disadvantage by committing a foul in a dangerous location. In both areas you know what you're doing, but there's no desire to deceive in the latter. As I said before, I cannot completely condone O'Neill's actions, however I'd far rather have an O'Neill in the side than an Ashley Young.
There's no way on God's green earth that what O'neill did can be described as cheating, in the same sense as diving.
They are, but one is a foul, committed out in the open for all to see and the other is trying to deceive.
All i know is i wish Tony Currie had clobbered Roberts in the same way in the 82 cup replay instead of waiting until he got into the box,we may have won the cup that year
