kevrenor
Moderator
Keeping the 'surrounding regions' yellow since 2004 ... Be Mariners, be Yellow, be a Marinator!
Posts: 2,130
|
Post by kevrenor on Dec 23, 2006 10:56:07 GMT 10
Thats my point kevrenor, as above. There is more intent from front than behind as no-one would be stupid enough to try it from behind, as there is less chance to hurt someone that way. Trust me on this one, playing dirty is all I have on the football field I defer to you bear ... I was sent from the field once in 29 years! Probably why I never played higher than premier league reserves.
|
|
|
Post by Jesus on Dec 23, 2006 17:00:58 GMT 10
Ive seen a guy get a broken leg from behind. And as a defender know that plenty of damage can be done from behind, though obviously not as dangerous, can be a very professional foul, which can deserve more than a red.
|
|
|
Post by T on Dec 23, 2006 20:07:56 GMT 10
I've never seen someone's leg broken from behind, but I unfortunatly know from personal experiance what a tackle from behind can do to ligaments and its not fun..... But then that happens with side tackles as well. Its a part of football and no matter how many rules are upheld/changed etc people will still get hurt.
|
|
|
Post by countryhick on Dec 23, 2006 20:52:27 GMT 10
I actually got a viedo clip of a break from behind...its nasty.
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Dec 24, 2006 15:26:45 GMT 10
offtheball and gull, I'm going to make a big call here. If you honestly think that Leijer's tackle was as bad as Jedi's, then I put it to you that you do not know very much about the game off football at all. Yes, Jedi did try and pull out of his tackle, Leijer did not. But the fact remains that a lunging 2 foot studs up tackle with ALWAYS be worse than ANY tackle from behind. It would even be worse than a 2 foot lunging studs up tackle FROM behind, as there is less intent to hurt someone from behind. Try to correct me if you think I'm wrong. Makes no difference whether it is from in front behind side wherever. I would definitely argue that some one can come from behind with just as much intent. Sometimes more, I've seen tackles where a player has been beaten pointlessly and the defender comes again with malice. In fact in the two tackles in question I feel Jedinak went in with less intent, as stated at the judiciary he pulled out. If you pull out of a tackle where is the intent to hurt I'm a believer that if a foul is committed then the injury should be taken into consideration when dishing out the punishment. Good enough for the law of the land. Yes Mrdja should have got six weeks last season for his tackle V Jest. But Bearinator you can just dismiss all of the above, I disagree with you so clearly I don't know anything about football
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Dec 28, 2006 11:31:39 GMT 10
Everyone should believe in something.
I believe you are a fool.
Your saying injurys should be taken into account when handing out suspensions.
So if 1 player dose the same tackle on 2 different players from 2 different teams at different times of the year, 1 tackle breaks 1 guys leg, the other leaves a few scratches, your saying he should be suspended for the broken leg challenge but not the other. Thats what your saying right??? Taking the injurys into account when suspending people.
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Dec 29, 2006 10:39:48 GMT 10
Excellent arguement! When you disagree with someone resort to personal abuse. This forum is really going places with such intellect.
Some claim the Newcastle forum is juvenile!
You can always paint extreme scenarios to prove your point, if that gives you a sense of accomplishment then fair enough.
I'll repeat my case using the Jedinak example. When he fronted the board most people seemed to think the 1 game suspension was sufficient. I doubt that same sentiment would have been expressed if Seo had sustained a broken leg.
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Dec 29, 2006 13:02:41 GMT 10
Excellent arguement! When you disagree with someone resort to personal abuse. This forum is really going places with such intellect. Some claim the Newcastle forum is juvenile! You can always paint extreme scenarios to prove your point, if that gives you a sense of accomplishment then fair enough. I'll repeat my case using the Jedinak example. When he fronted the board most people seemed to think the 1 game suspension was sufficient. I doubt that same sentiment would have been expressed if Seo had sustained a broken leg. Me calling you a fool is not "personal abuse", its my opinion of you based on your opinions and your comments on this thread. You might be steven hawkings for all I know, but for all I care, in this matter, I still think your a fool. If suspensions were based on the injury caused, kevin muscat would never play another game again, anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Dec 29, 2006 13:07:55 GMT 10
We disagree again. Definition of personal abuse? Usually if you disagree with someone you say I think you are mistaken and give your reason. Calling someone a fool because they have a different opinion is personal abuse.
So you support Muscat's tackling style?
|
|
|
Post by greenpoleffc on Dec 29, 2006 13:21:45 GMT 10
By the way, an "opinion" cant be wrong in logic. I can make a statement that is factually wrong but I cant be held as being wrong for an opinion that I espouse.
Unless you are from Newcastle then you are both wrong AND a fool :-)
|
|
|
Post by Bearinator on Dec 29, 2006 13:24:28 GMT 10
I dont agree with it when he is dirty, no. When he is not playing dirty he is one of the best and most influential players in the a-league, but based on what you said, in that the injury should be taken into account when suspending people, he probably would be banned years ago.
|
|
|
Post by offtheball on Dec 29, 2006 14:44:42 GMT 10
probably
|
|
gull
Local league player
Posts: 65
|
Post by gull on Dec 30, 2006 19:55:48 GMT 10
Bearinator,
Whether you like it or not we are all entitled to an opinion on this forum as Mariner's SUPPORTER'S.
I'm sorry if you don't like mine, but at least you've seen it.
|
|