Still moaning

Even though I ****ing despise Stoke I can understand where their frustration comes from. It was shocking enough to send him off but to reject the appeal is just embarrassing on the FA's part.

Inept is the word.
 
5 Goals 1 Hat Trick 11 Heroes-NUFC4LIFE said:
Even though I ****ing despise Stoke I can understand where their frustration comes from. It was shocking enough to send him off but to reject the appeal is just embarrassing on the FA's part.

Inept is the word.
Click to expand...

No the right out come the tackle could have ended a career. I think he was luck not to get an extra match added.

The fact that he "pulled out" means nothing it was feet of the ground ifMeyler had not jumped three foot in the air the contact would have done real damage. Tackles as bad as this one are rare and must be stamped out!
 
Washysafc said:
No the right out come the tackle could have ended a career. I think he was luck not to get an extra match added.

The fact that he "pulled out" means nothing it was feet of the ground ifMeyler had not jumped three foot in the air the contact would have done real damage. Tackles as bad as this one are rare and must be stamped out!
Click to expand...

I had to laugh at this. Out of all the tackles coming out of football lately you think this is the worst? Howay man.

No ****ing sliding next.
 
5 Goals 1 Hat Trick 11 Heroes-NUFC4LIFE said:
Even though I ****ing despise Stoke I can understand where their frustration comes from. It was shocking enough to send him off but to reject the appeal is just embarrassing on the FA's part.

Inept is the word.
Click to expand...

IMO Shocking No Debatable yes - We all know that the FA panels are useless and bias towards the "big" clubs but I do not hear their manager or chairman complaining that Fullers tackle on Meyler in the second half did not result in a sending off. PS Fuller did not try to pull out of that one - straight red
 
I really find it hard to understand the idea that Huth "pulled out of the tackle", though he may have tried to mitigate the possible damage that could be caused to Meyler by keeping his studs down. Having committed himself at speed to a slide towards Meyler there was no way he personally could avoid impact, it was only by Meyler leaping into the air that a collision was avoided.

The question of whether it was potentially dangerous comes down to whether or not the collision would likely have caused injury to Meyler if he had not been able to get out of the way. I believe it would have, therfore it was dangerous and I think the instant reaction of many players, including Huth, who looked concerned, backs this up.

I hate the idea of football moving increasingly closer to becoming a 'non contact' sport, and regularly get annoyed when players are penalised for what really amounts to just hard physical contact. I have to say as a kid I regularly used sliding tackles from the side to try to get the ball but never straight on from the front, such a tackle ended my playing in anything more than a kick about at the age of 17 years.
 
I a no it does not matter if he "tried" to pull out, to go into a tackle like that when you travelling at that speed and clearly going to end up missing the ball by a mile (which he would have known by the way) !! Its like a person who is driving down a 30 mph road but going at 60 then when someone walks out onto the road he slammed his brakes on, the person can quickly jump out of the way but still gets clipped by the car and hurts themselves on the impact of ground also, and then the driver saying " Or i a was going 60 but to be fair i did slam me brakes on when a seen the person and when a hit the person i was only going about 35, so howay copper let is off"

It is the intent, and wrecklessness of the tackle!!!
 
There are few points here.

The tackle was poor and had Meyler not jumped so high, could have been severe. Meyler then landed on his knee, the same knee he had had an operation on just a few short months ago and quite normally was hurt.

Is Huth normally a wreckless tackler? Totally. This is how he plays the game and if simply left unchecked, he will finish someone's career.

Did he play to the conditions? Definately not.

Why did he feel the need to apologise to Meyler if he himself didn't think it a poor challenge. By the way, I think he should be applauded for his actions towards Meyler for that.

It was a definate yellow card and borderline red. The ref decided red.

That should have been the end of it were it not for dumb **** Pullis shouting his mouth off. I wonder if he has had the good grace to apologise to Meyler for calling him a cheat when the complete opposite is the case.

I thought not. The complete and utter Twat.
 
I really can see people's point as to why he should be banned, but let's be honest. None of us like the way the game has gone, and punishing things like this is ridiculous. He didn't get injured, he barely touched him. You have to base your decision on the facts and not what could have been. In my opinion, it never would have been, he had every right to go for the ball, he kept his studs away. It was a foul, clearly, a yellow in my opinion, but to receive a 3 game ban for that is shocking.

It's such a soft sport nowadays. Not helped by the decisions that are getting let off.

I hate Stoke more than most, and I agree with Cest, Pulis is a knob and should never have reacted like that. Had he been sensible about it he would have had a different outcome.
 
It was a red card.......that means 3 match ban.......and yes its harsh, but red cards have been given out for less, take Cisse's red card for QPR the other day, how did that injure anybody?
 
I think it's funny that Huth is being punished for actually drawing his leg in to avoid going in with his boot when he knew he wasn't going to get the ball. He probably wonders why he didn't just bother keeping his leg out or even going in with both feet, as the punishment would have been exactly the same.
 
Bexinio said:
It was a red card.......that means 3 match ban.......and yes its harsh, but red cards have been given out for less, take Cisse's red card for QPR the other day, how did that injure anybody?
Click to expand...

It isn't about injury, it's about intent, or more specifically, malicious intent.

Grabbing someone's face or throat has malicious intent whether it injures the player or not.

Did Huth have malicious intent in his tackle? Well he drew his leg in and simply couldn't stop the slide, so I don't think he did. Perhaps he could be charged with a dangerous tackle, but if that was the case then virtually any sliding challenge would be deemed dangerous.
 
I think Huth was sent off and rightly so.....

The reason he was sent off was it was 'reckless'. Not for the contact but because he was not in control of the situation. This was the correct decision by the ref and if Pulis doesn't like it, he should learn the rules and educated his players better. Huth was never in control of himself in that so called tackle.

In life there are always rules we, the general public don't agree with. This was rule was put in place to protect players against thugs on the field of play. One of Stokes players smashed a players leg in the past and surely this rules will help educate Pulis that his thinking, and many others is the wrong way and his players, and others might have longer careers because of this rule.

The real issue here is managers and players alike don't actually know the rules of the game they are involved in, and these are the people we call professionals, joke really.....

The F.A need to notify all clubs that they be running exams on the rules of the game and if they're not passed by players and managers they can't play or manage in said profession... that would shake them up... Pfffff professional my arse....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back