How many games or time should Martin Taylor be banned for?

People were saying there were to many dangerous tackles every week even before this incident. Yet another one comes along and finally does cause serious injury. So to let someone who has broken another mans leg get away with just a 3 game ban is surely wrong.

Of course you can do something after the incident, uefa recently gave Binya a 6 game ban for a very dangerous tackle, and this was because it could have caused serious injury. Well this one has. And today i read his foot was actually close to being amputated.

So whether it was intentional and if he feels remorse it's irrevant he should still get a larger ban i think if only to discourage others from continuing to make similar challenges.

I voted 10 games.

5 games would be OK. Is what every player should get for a foul like that.

People who call for ridiculous bans should bear in mind that most clubs would have a few players banned currently if severer punishment was standard.

I remember 1 weekend a few weeks ago with quite a few challenges which were as bad/dangerous or worse as/than Taylor's (some with clear intent), they were just lucky they didn't inflict similar damage.

Justice is about consistency in punishment.

He simply can't get the same punishment as say Jeremie Aliadiere, who will be banned for three games for simply slapping an opponent. There is something seriously wrong with the system if that does happen. It would also set a dangerous precedent for the future.

I don't think he is the sort of player that would set out to seriously hurt a fellow professional, but that tackle was was exceptionally negligent. Banning him for the duration for Eduardo's injury is very extreme. I would say 5-8 games would be acceptable.

Taylor was bloody irresponsible with his tackle. He has put a career of a fellow professional at risk.

Whether he had malice or not can only be answered convincingly by him. There have been worse tackles which have gone unpunished, but recklessness cannot be let off without punishment.

7 games I say would be fair enough.

Whilst I don't think Taylor intended to injure Eduardo - and I think there are really very few professional footballers who ever intend to injure others - I do question the idea that his tackle just had unfortunate consequences, as opposed to being particularly reckless or violent. I sympathise with the fact that an injury occurs somewhat by chance, relates to the exact timing of the challenge, the way the leg is positioned at the time, and so on - but the challenge was high and Taylor went in very hard, and to me, he snaps at the player rather than for the ball.

I agree that the problem is with the rules. I think generally violent acts aren't punished harshly enough, or in due proportion when compared with acts of petulance. A slap or a kick isn't as bad as a dangerous challenge, but both get red cards; and in the same way it's stupid to me how quite reckless challenges, or a constant run of fouls, can land a player only a yellow card when the same is immediately given once a player taps the ball away a few yards, or takes his shirt off.

As things are though, it would be difficult to give Taylor any more than three matches, because there have been one or two tackles as bad as his this season. I'd certainly be for pushing the ban for dangerous tackles up to five games.

Should be 6-7 games without pay.

Bashmachkin wrote:Whilst I don't think Taylor intended to injure Eduardo - and I think there are really very few professional footballers who ever intend to injure others - I do question the idea that his tackle just had unfortunate consequences, as opposed to being particularly reckless or violent. I sympathise with the fact that an injury occurs somewhat by chance, relates to the exact timing of the challenge, the way the leg is positioned at the time, and so on - but the challenge was high and Taylor went in very hard, and to me, he snaps at the player rather than for the ball.

I agree that the problem is with the rules. I think generally violent acts aren't punished harshly enough, or in due proportion when compared with acts of petulance. A slap or a kick isn't as bad as a dangerous challenge, but both get red cards; and in the same way it's stupid to me how quite reckless challenges, or a constant run of fouls, can land a player only a yellow card when the same is immediately given once a player taps the ball away a few yards, or takes his shirt off.

As things are though, it would be difficult to give Taylor any more than three matches, because there have been one or two tackles as bad as his this season. I'd certainly be for pushing the ban for dangerous tackles up to five games.

agree in general dangerous tackles should be more harshly punished

when I was watching the game my initial thought was that Eduardo had hit it too far ahead and was reaching for it himself and just touched it away before taylor reaches him, maybe that is why he has accepted taylor's appology and understands it was accidental etc (although since they are not showing replays I cannot be sure). The challenge is of course still high and late and I would say 5 game ban would be right.

if the challenge is a deliberate attempt to hurt a player, eg keane on halland, then lifetime ban, even prison for gbh.

110% wrote:

if the challenge is a deliberate attempt to hurt a player, eg keane on halland, then lifetime ban, even prison for gbh.

This thread is gonna snowball now

It is stupid that he'll get the same as Aliadiere who just did that little slap.

Stupid from Ali aswell though, he must've known, raise your hands and its a red card and 3 match ban. He should've just smashed the fucker in the face, at least that would've been worth it.

borocooper wrote:It is stupid that he'll get the same as Aliadiere who just did that little slap.

Stupid from Ali aswell though, he must've known, raise your hands and its a red card and 3 match ban. He should've just smashed the fucker in the face, at least that would've been worth it.

2:55 - 3:33

Keane was banned for 8 games and fined ? for the Alf-Inge Håland tackle.

Keane actually went out to destroy, Taylor didn't

10 game ban is too much, between 3 - 8 would be fine.

Marcus wrote:Keane was banned for 8 games and fined ? for the Alf-Inge Håland tackle.

Keane actually went out to destroy, Taylor didn't

10 game ban is too much, between 3 - 8 would be fine.

I'm sure that ban also came because he "confessed".

How many "deliberate" incidents do we see ?

L r d wrote: So whether it was intentional and if he feels remorse it's irrevant he should still get a larger ban i think if only to discourage others from continuing to make similar challenges.

Not sure how I feel about this. While dangerous tackles clearly can cause injury, I hate to add to M Platini's 'football as a non-contact sport' agenda.

However - in law, if I hit someone, I have to take the consequences. So if I punch someone and they get a bruised jaw, I am guilty of assault; if I punch someone and crush their skull because of a bone weakness, I am guilty of manslaughter/ murder.

Did he mean to brake Eduardo's leg? Probably not.
Did he want to 'get stuck in' and 'show him he's there'? Almost certainly.

Players get told by the media pundits and the managers the only way to play Arsenal (and any skilful team) is to kick them. Show them you're not starstruck...

There's a difference between a overenthusiastic shoulder barge or a mis-timed slide tackle on the floor. This tackle was with studs showing, closer to the knee than the floor and well after the ball had gone. Compare this to driving: hitting the curb is clumsy driving. Hitting the curb and then going over with half the car on the pavement is reckless regardless of whether you meant it or not.

This tackle is a consequences of a culture in English football that demands 'grit and determination' over intelligence and composure. Should he be banned for longer? Well what's the point if there isn't going to be a change in mentality and legislation. Like most problems in English football, the way to solve them is not to have a knee-jerk reaction but to change things and grass-roots and legislate intelligently from now on. IMO players should be protected more in general, obviously a shoulder barge or a slide on the floor isn't that dangerous.

I think we just played you off the park when you came to the riverside, none of this kicking malarky.

borocooper wrote:I think we just played you off the park when you came to the riverside, none of this kicking malarky.

The term 'honest hard-working players' should be designed for that performance. Not unskilled $h!t that try to cynically kick us about.

I agree 100% with shazlx's post above...considering how early it was in the game, the tackle IMO was a clear attempt by Taylor to "let him know he was there", like it's often glorified by managers, coaches, pundits, and even the bulk of fans in England. Taylor may well not be a dirty player, but no doubt he was following his manager's instincts or some subliminal mindset that the best approach to play Arsenal is to "get up them" or whatever the phrase is. That's why Wenger's initial comments had a point.

But the actual injury is just bad luck and an occupational hazard. I don't think he should get anything more than the normal 3 game ban for violent conduct.

Ban him forever!! Why are all Taylors such a pikeys!?

They should make an example of one person.

If Taylor gets a 6 month ban, then other players will think before they act and not make rash challenges

Jesus wrote:They should make an example of one person.

If Taylor gets a 6 month ban, then other players will think before they act and not make rash challenges

But will the same happen the next time Mikel, Essien, Gerrard..., or any other big name top 4 player, does it? I doubt it. Look at when Adebayor nutted Bendter, an incident almost IDENTICAL to Dyer/Bowyer - NOTHING happened.

Just stick with a 5 match ban, it's easier to enforce across the board.

Jesus wrote:They should make an example of one person.

If Taylor gets a 6 month ban, then other players will think before they act and not make rash challenges

Like Rio and forgetting his drugs test. No-one else has forgotten to take a test since, have they ?

But still, it's a bit draconian.

@ Shazlx

We've outplayed you 3 times this season without kicking you once

EDIT: Kimmy - well then we'll know if the system is corrupt or not.

De Guzman wrote:5 games would be OK. Is what every player should get for a foul like that.

People who call for ridiculous bans should bear in mind that most clubs would have a few players banned currently if severer punishment was standard.

I remember 1 weekend a few weeks ago with quite a few challenges which were as bad/dangerous or worse as/than Taylor's (some with clear intent), they were just lucky they didn't inflict similar damage.

Justice is about consistency in punishment.

I totally agree, there have been more dangerous tackles that had more intention behind them and it's horrific luck for Eduardo and Taylor that this one resulted in a terrible injury. If we're handing out a 6 game ban for this one (and maybe we should, something in that region anyway) then this should be the default punishment for all such dangerous tackles, regardless of their consequences.

This idea that making an example out of Taylor will somehow prevent this from happening again is utter Cr@p - no penal system in world history has ever made that principle work. There is literally no reason to believe it'll work in this case, except for people who read the Daily Mail.

The Voice of Reason wrote: If we're handing out a 6 game ban for this one (and maybe we should, something in that region anyway) then this should be the default punishment for all such dangerous tackles, regardless of their consequences.

I have to say I disagree with this. Intent is much more difficult to prove than injury.

The fact is that 99 times out of a hundred the tackle would have been nasty but not caused a serious injury. It seems reasonable to me that in the few cases where it is serious, the penalty is equally increased.

3 unless every other player who's made a similar tackle in the last few seasons get banned for a season too

I actually side with Taylor in this incident. If you look at the footage in slomo, you can see that Eduardo taps the ball just out of range of Taylor's feet in the final miliseconds. It is impossible to adjust your footing in that time period. Too me this was just one of those really unfortunate things. A red card + 3 match ban that goes with it suffices for me.

Luis wrote:3 unless every other player who's made a similar tackle in the last few seasons get banned for a season too

Roger's point on the law on the first page is interesting. There are nasty players out there Micheal Brown, Barton etc etc. Now if they have a grudge and can simply make such a tackle injure a player deny it was intentional and get just 3 games this is just bs.

I think the damage should reflect in the punishment. Dangerous horrible challenges that do not result in a serious injury should be 5 games for me. But ones that do result in serious injury surely it has to be more unless completly accidental?

It's not about making the sport a no contact sport, just cutting out the very dangerous tackles, tackling and late tackles are fine, just not one where studs are showing high and with a lot of force.

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote: If we're handing out a 6 game ban for this one (and maybe we should, something in that region anyway) then this should be the default punishment for all such dangerous tackles, regardless of their consequences.

I have to say I disagree with this. Intent is much more difficult to prove than injury.

The fact is that 99 times out of a hundred the tackle would have been nasty but not caused a serious injury. It seems reasonable to me that in the few cases where it is serious, the penalty is equally increased.

so it's a gamble, make a bad tackle get a 3 game ban, make a bad tackle that injures someone get a longer ban?

Would you be saying this if Eduardo were white, or a woman? I very much doubt it.

it's all about consistency

If you want to ban taylor for longer than 3 games then every player who goes in with studs up should be banned for longer than 3 games.

He should not be singled out on the grounds that he was more unlucky than other players who have tackled the same way. this of course is nearly impossible to implement

I don't think you can wipe those sorts of tackles out to be honest, because it's a sport and it's so quick and you are getting more and more skillfull, tricky players that you can't anticipate what they'll do next then there's always going to be one or two acidental tackles like this, I know it's not nice to hear but that's the reality

Luis wrote:I don't think you can wipe those sorts of tackles out to be honest, because it's a sport and it's so quick and you are getting more and more skillfull, tricky players that you can't anticipate what they'll do next then there's always going to be one or two acidental tackles like this, I know it's not nice to hear but that's the reality

But was it accidental? You cannot prove it was or wasnt. From what i saw Eduardo knocked the ball past him, and he then raised his foot studs showing into Eduardo. I don't think he meant to injure but i think he meant to foul him. If the law in the country is different depending on what happens to the person why can that not be the law in football? maybe players would be less likely to make such horror tackles.....