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

Sir Les wrote:

Cesc wrote: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.

Who knows what the FA will do, the cretins have not only backed their incompetent referee but increased Aliadiere's ban to 4 games (while Mascherano got away with it completely of course). If that was worth a 4 game ban then what is a tackle that breaks someone's leg worth?

The fact it broke someone's leg is irrelevant. Unless you're an Arsenal fan with an inferiority complex.

To answer your question (employing the principle of charity and repairing the damage you did), if Aliadiere's cheeky slap is worth 4 games, Taylor's tackle is worth 10, maybe 12 games.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Sir Les wrote:

Cesc wrote: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.

Who knows what the FA will do, the cretins have not only backed their incompetent referee but increased Aliadiere's ban to 4 games (while Mascherano got away with it completely of course). If that was worth a 4 game ban then what is a tackle that breaks someone's leg worth?

The fact it broke someone's leg is irrelevant. Unless you're an Arsenal fan with an inferiority complex.

It really is not irrelevant. And we have already established only northerners have an inferiority complex.

L r d wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Sir Les wrote:

Cesc wrote: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.

Who knows what the FA will do, the cretins have not only backed their incompetent referee but increased Aliadiere's ban to 4 games (while Mascherano got away with it completely of course). If that was worth a 4 game ban then what is a tackle that breaks someone's leg worth?

The fact it broke someone's leg is irrelevant. Unless you're an Arsenal fan with an inferiority complex.

It really is not irrelevant. And we have already established only northerners have an inferiority complex.

ferguson?

L r d wrote:
It really is not irrelevant.

As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

And we have already established only northerners have an inferiority complex.

Southerners are so terrified of Northerners shutting off their water and making them $h!t in their manbags that they have to either invent psychological disorders or just misuse psychological terms in an attempt to win the propaganda war.

You just wait. 2012, it's all gonna kick off. The Somalis will revolt against the Poles, the Northerners versus the Southerners, the Jews versus the Blacks. It's going to be beautiful.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Torrente wrote: I think that Taylor is a neanderthal who should be banned for at least 3 months. I can't believe so many people agree that it was accidental. Just think about it for a second. If he really went for the ball then why were his studs so high when he hit Eduardo? They were almost at knee height. If he was really going for the ball then he would have hit Eduardo at a lower part of his leg.

His studs weren't almost at knee height, they were in the middle of Eduardo's leg. Still a high challenge deserving of serious punishment, but if you're going to try to make a point you could at least be accurate.

Last time I checked the knees were located in the middle of a person's leg. Maybe you meant in between the knee and the foot, but if you're trying to make a point you could at least be accurate.

The Voice of Reason wrote:
And as for the 'accidental' issue - if your brick thrower chucks it out of the window and it hits someone, does that mean he meant to hit them just because it's a bloody stupid and reckless thing to do?

Does it f@ck.


Your entire argument is based on false premises and leaps of faith. Hardly a sound basis for a disciplinary code.

You seriously need to get laid. I know there's no point in arguing with you about this anyway since I've seen your posts about Arsenal. The moment Eduardo's leg cracked you probably pulled your pants down right then and started masturbating while rewinding the tape every few seconds.

Torrente wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Torrente wrote: I think that Taylor is a neanderthal who should be banned for at least 3 months. I can't believe so many people agree that it was accidental. Just think about it for a second. If he really went for the ball then why were his studs so high when he hit Eduardo? They were almost at knee height. If he was really going for the ball then he would have hit Eduardo at a lower part of his leg.

His studs weren't almost at knee height, they were in the middle of Eduardo's leg. Still a high challenge deserving of serious punishment, but if you're going to try to make a point you could at least be accurate.

Last time I checked the knees were located in the middle of a person's leg. Maybe you meant in between the knee and the foot, but if you're trying to make a point you could at least be accurate.

I meant in the middle of his shin, obviously.

The Voice of Reason wrote:
And as for the 'accidental' issue - if your brick thrower chucks it out of the window and it hits someone, does that mean he meant to hit them just because it's a bloody stupid and reckless thing to do?

Does it f@ck.


Your entire argument is based on false premises and leaps of faith. Hardly a sound basis for a disciplinary code.

You seriously need to get laid.

You offering?

I know there's no point in arguing with you about this anyway since I've seen your posts about Arsenal.

Nonetheless you're going to try to argue anyway...

The moment Eduardo's leg cracked you probably pulled your pants down right then and started masturbating while rewinding the tape every few seconds.

So the sum total of your counterargument is to speculatively insult me?

You are such a fucking sadsack loser. I bet the women push you around like there's no tomorrow. Let me guess, later on you're going shopping for kitchen utensils and a new lampshade...

The Arsenal fans are mounting a serious assault against Taylor



Most retarded video i have ever seen. Nothing is right from the music to the wording.



Taking a baseball bit to Taylor's shins if you happen to bump into him will please this guy

I don't think he should be banned at all...I think he should be able to have another chance at doing a similar tackle against T*ttenham.

HAHA "Who make the Eduardo broken his leg"

How the f@ck can Arsenal complain anyway? I think they forget when Arsenal had the worst discipline record every season. Where Vieira made two footed tackles, Bergkamp elbowing people, Fabregas being a dirty c**t, Van Persie stamping...Keown was a dirty bastard too.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Sir Les wrote:

Cesc wrote: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.

Who knows what the FA will do, the cretins have not only backed their incompetent referee but increased Aliadiere's ban to 4 games (while Mascherano got away with it completely of course). If that was worth a 4 game ban then what is a tackle that breaks someone's leg worth?

The fact it broke someone's leg is irrelevant. Unless you're an Arsenal fan with an inferiority complex.

To answer your question (employing the principle of charity and repairing the damage you did), if Aliadiere's cheeky slap is worth 4 games, Taylor's tackle is worth 10, maybe 12 games.

My point was more about the unjust treatment of Aliadiere than some eye for an eye consideration of the Eduardo tackle.
I'd say 200 games by the FA standards if they just once applied them equally. The trouble with the FA is they can do what they like and are answerable to nobody. Same with FIFA. The FA have spent 100 years behaving like c**ts so why should they stop now?

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

Have to disagree with this. If the tackle is reckless (as opposed to being malicious, with actual intent to harm), then whether the tackle causes serious injury or not is essential to the determination of punishment.

By comparison, if I am working on a roof and drop a hammer, my punishment if it kills someone will be significantly more than if it does not.

Now this is my point of view and you can of course disagree. But don't pretend your point of view has been established as fact.

I Hate Tottenham wrote:How the f@ck can Arsenal complain anyway? I think they forget when Arsenal had the worst discipline record every season. Where Vieira made two footed tackles, Bergkamp elbowing people, Fabregas being a dirty c**t, Van Persie stamping...Keown was a dirty bastard too.

Arsenal are seen as this one slick butter wouldn't melt passing total football team. But it's bollocks. Flamini, Fabregas, Eboue, Rvp are all dirty c**ts. In the past Vieira was a bully even though he often got bitch slapped by someone half his size, Lauren also, Bergkamp possibly the most sly player there was, Keown's attack on ruud was applauded all through north london by those hypocrites!

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

Have to disagree with this. If the tackle is reckless (as opposed to being malicious, with actual intent to harm), then whether the tackle causes serious injury or not is essential to the determination of punishment.

Why?

By comparison, if I am working on a roof and drop a hammer, my punishment if it kills someone will be significantly more than if it does not.

Dropping a hammer would be purely accidental - going into a competitive tackle recklessly is not. This analogy is bunk.

Now this is my point of view and you can of course disagree. But don't pretend your point of view has been established as fact.

I haven't. The fact that worse tackles haven't produced as serious injuries is established as fact. The conclusion I have drawn from that is not.

Disagree all you like, but be prepared to defend your position.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

Have to disagree with this. If the tackle is reckless (as opposed to being malicious, with actual intent to harm), then whether the tackle causes serious injury or not is essential to the determination of punishment.

Why?

I'm stating my opinion - that the outcome of your actions matters, as well as the intent.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

By comparison, if I am working on a roof and drop a hammer, my punishment if it kills someone will be significantly more than if it does not.

Dropping a hammer would be purely accidental - going into a competitive tackle recklessly is not. This analogy is bunk.

Disagree. If I am working on a roof and I fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent things falling on passer-by - like netting on scaffolding - then I am being negligent, in the same way as a reckless driver or someone who tackles dangerously.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Now this is my point of view and you can of course disagree. But don't pretend your point of view has been established as fact.

I haven't. The fact that worse tackles haven't produced as serious injuries is established as fact. The conclusion I have drawn from that is not.

Disagree all you like, but be prepared to defend your position.

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

That reads to me as a statement of 'fact' therefore 'fact'. If you meant it to read 'As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, in my opinion, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment' - I don't think that's clear from your post.

L r d wrote:

I Hate Tottenham wrote:How the f@ck can Arsenal complain anyway? I think they forget when Arsenal had the worst discipline record every season. Where Vieira made two footed tackles, Bergkamp elbowing people, Fabregas being a dirty c**t, Van Persie stamping...Keown was a dirty bastard too.

Arsenal are seen as this one slick butter wouldn't melt passing total football team. But it's bollocks. Flamini, Fabregas, Eboue, Rvp are all dirty c**ts. In the past Vieira was a bully even though he often got bitch slapped by someone half his size, Lauren also, Bergkamp possibly the most sly player there was, Keown's attack on ruud was applauded all through north london by those hypocrites!

same applies to manu in the past with cantona, scholes, keane, butt, neville*2 etc. I think your forgetting the most sly and dirtiest player there has ever been in the EPL called Scholes and he still plays for manu, so it's kind of hypocritical for manu fans to be complaining about arsenal.

110% wrote:

L r d wrote:

I Hate Tottenham wrote:How the f@ck can Arsenal complain anyway? I think they forget when Arsenal had the worst discipline record every season. Where Vieira made two footed tackles, Bergkamp elbowing people, Fabregas being a dirty c**t, Van Persie stamping...Keown was a dirty bastard too.

Arsenal are seen as this one slick butter wouldn't melt passing total football team. But it's bollocks. Flamini, Fabregas, Eboue, Rvp are all dirty c**ts. In the past Vieira was a bully even though he often got bitch slapped by someone half his size, Lauren also, Bergkamp possibly the most sly player there was, Keown's attack on ruud was applauded all through north london by those hypocrites!

same applies to manu in the past with cantona, scholes, keane, butt, neville*2 etc. I think your forgetting the most sly and dirtiest player there has ever been in the EPL called Scholes and he still plays for manu, so it's kind of hypocritical for manu fans to be complaining about arsenal.

Both teams and fans are c**ts OK

I don't read Spiked for the sport, and this is partly why...

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4694/

He makes some decent points, and of course it's true that many of the most horrific injuries of recent years have been essentially the result of accidents. But in a case like this it's as crass to say the horrible consequences resulted purely from bad luck as it is to say it was entirely the result of malice or recklessness. It's quite plainly a bit of both.

This is a tipping point for me as an Arsenal fan. It may be true that 95% of the time this kind of tackle doesn't result in serious injury, but tackles of this sort do carry an unacceptable level of risk. We might not be able to eliminate accidents, but we surely have to do our best to eliminate the kind of tackle that carries with it the inherent risk of serious injury – whether the motive is malicious, cynical or just plain reckless.

All this has done is bring back to the fore an issue that already made the diving/simulation debate look trivial.

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

Have to disagree with this. If the tackle is reckless (as opposed to being malicious, with actual intent to harm), then whether the tackle causes serious injury or not is essential to the determination of punishment.

Why?

I'm stating my opinion - that the outcome of your actions matters, as well as the intent.

Again, why? Why does the outcome matter?

The Voice of Reason wrote:

By comparison, if I am working on a roof and drop a hammer, my punishment if it kills someone will be significantly more than if it does not.

Dropping a hammer would be purely accidental - going into a competitive tackle recklessly is not. This analogy is bunk.

Disagree. If I am working on a roof and I fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent things falling on passer-by - like netting on scaffolding - then I am being negligent, in the same way as a reckless driver or someone who tackles dangerously.

But this is different from just dropping a hammer. You can blame someone for the hammer then passing through space where precautions should have been placed, but not for dropping the hammer.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Now this is my point of view and you can of course disagree. But don't pretend your point of view has been established as fact.

I haven't. The fact that worse tackles haven't produced as serious injuries is established as fact. The conclusion I have drawn from that is not.

Disagree all you like, but be prepared to defend your position.

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

That reads to me as a statement of 'fact' therefore 'fact'. If you meant it to read 'As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, in my opinion, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment' - I don't think that's clear from your post.

Try again:

As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't
produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is
irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this
one did and other worse ones didn't.

If you were capable of reading grammatically then you'd realise there's nothing wrong with the sentence except your overbearing desire to find fault with what I'm saying. I don't keep writing 'in my opinion' because it's a redundant phrase that isn't even logically defensible. If you want to try to reduce everything to individual opinion then go ahead, but it's bullshit and eventually you will probably realise that.

I really don't want to get involved in this argument/slanging match – but the fact remains that from the legal point of view in most contexts the outcome is critical, even the governing factor. If you crash your car into another one that contains a Stradivarius, thereby damaging the violin, the fact that you weren't to know there was a Strad in the other vehicle is no defence from the legal point of view.

Presumably those arguing that the gravity of the damage caused is irrelevant as regards appropriate punishment believe that the way the law works in most spheres of life is therefore profoundly wrong in these situations?

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Roger Hunt wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

Have to disagree with this. If the tackle is reckless (as opposed to being malicious, with actual intent to harm), then whether the tackle causes serious injury or not is essential to the determination of punishment.

Why?

I'm stating my opinion - that the outcome of your actions matters, as well as the intent.

Again, why? Why does the outcome matter?

Because (if we are talking about recklessness not malicious intent), then 'no harm no foul'. How can the outcome not matter? Seems completely logical to me to punish more for causing death by reckless driving than just for reckless driving.

The Voice of Reason wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote:

By comparison, if I am working on a roof and drop a hammer, my punishment if it kills someone will be significantly more than if it does not.

Dropping a hammer would be purely accidental - going into a competitive tackle recklessly is not. This analogy is bunk.

Disagree. If I am working on a roof and I fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent things falling on passer-by - like netting on scaffolding - then I am being negligent, in the same way as a reckless driver or someone who tackles dangerously.

But this is different from just dropping a hammer. You can blame someone for the hammer then passing through space where precautions should have been placed, but not for dropping the hammer.

How is tackling recklessly different from driving recklessly or working recklessly on a roof?

The Voice of Reason wrote:

The Voice of Reason wrote:

Now this is my point of view and you can of course disagree. But don't pretend your point of view has been established as fact.

I haven't. The fact that worse tackles haven't produced as serious injuries is established as fact. The conclusion I have drawn from that is not.

Disagree all you like, but be prepared to defend your position.

The Voice of Reason wrote: As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this one did and other worse ones didn't.

That reads to me as a statement of 'fact' therefore 'fact'. If you meant it to read 'As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, in my opinion, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment' - I don't think that's clear from your post.

Try again:

As we've already established, there have been worse tackles that didn't
produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is
irrelevant when deciding a punishment, since it's simply luck that this
one did and other worse ones didn't.

If you were capable of reading grammatically then you'd realise there's nothing wrong with the sentence except your overbearing desire to find fault with what I'm saying. I don't keep writing 'in my opinion' because it's a redundant phrase that isn't even logically defensible. If you want to try to reduce everything to individual opinion then go ahead, but it's bullshit and eventually you will probably realise that.

Your statement is a non sequitur. You say 'there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, the fact that the tackle produced an injury is irrelevant when deciding a punishment'. The second statement does not follow from the first unless you believe that harm caused is irrelevant to the punishment that should ensue. You believe it is irrelevant, I don't. Therefore it's a matter of opinion.

I could say 'there have been worse tackles that didn't produce injuries. Ergo, that fact that the tackle produced an injury is the only thing that should be considered when deciding a punishment'. I don't believe that but it is just as logical as your statement - i.e., not.

FIFA getting involved

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-fifataylor&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Bouaouzan got 10 matches, so this should be around 4-5.

Fifa= being fucking morons again.

In English law it is caled the eggshell skull principle. Basically if someone had a thin skull and you thump them causing them to hit skull on pavement which fractures their skull, killing them you will be found guilty of manslaughter, regardless of the fact that you did not intend outcome, nor know of brittle skull. Basically it is your tough luck if victim had something you didn't know about that resulted in more serious outcome than you intended. Fairness has nothing to do with it. This is well established principle in UK law.

And before you repeat your libel Kimbo I'm not a rozzer! If you do I insist that you pay substantial damages to my favourite charity The Buy Some Decent Players for Newcastle Fund!