Callum McManaman (Wigan)...

[upthealbion1970]

These! Getting the ball is absolutely irrelevant and I still can't believe people think you can let woeful tackles go because of the slightest hint of contact with the ball. It was a shocking tackle and was blatantly dangerous play.

Try explaining that to 9 years olds and their parents

 

[severnside gull]

Love it when daring to disagree draws immediate personal abuse.

NSC at its best?

 

[Fran Hagarty]

Bad bad tackle....no doubt.......but he did catch the ball first, if only with the tip of his boot, so some slight mitigation as an inch lower and his foot would never have followed through to the guy's knee. Nothing to indicate it was deliberate still less malicious


Martinez said in his post match intervew (in full on radio but only selective bits on tv) that he hadnt seen the video of the tackle at that point as there had been rather a lot going on at half time. I would trust him to take appropriate action than most

What he said.

 

[severnside gull]

How about banning knee high challenges? You tool

I saw plenty of times where feet were raised at the Amex yesterday. Given the speed a game is played any one of those could have ended in a coming together and an injury. They didnt. They rarely do thankfully. When it does happen the player gets sent off (if spotted) and a three game ban. If not spotted by the ref but highlighted on tv the player gets a three game ban anyway. Rightly so.
This was a bad tackle and no-one has tried to say otherwise but as to premeditation it wasnt obviously malicious and it wasnt the sort of thuggery we have seen from the likes of Joey Barton. A longer ban might be justified were that the case.

Forgive me for borrowing your words but the "tool" is the one who jumps on a media bandwagon and tries o hound a young and inexperienced player out of the game for the sort of misjudgement that happens at all levels of football and always will unless you ban tackling completely. An extended ban will have no effect on the inevitability of bad tackles in football.

 

[sydney]

very bad tackle....three weeks on his arse should put him off doing it again in a hurry.....makes a mockery of barnses' predicament.........7 weeks off for half-heartedly waving his shoe at a ref's ankle , albeit an asenine action.

that tackle was wrong and the lad needs to take his medicine.....imho

 

[Hamilton]

From what I saw on the highlights only - and so incomplete picture - I was shocked by the lad's indifference to what he had done to a fellow professional.

 

[albion534]

I saw plenty of times where feet were raised at the Amex yesterday. Given the speed a game is played any one of those could have ended in a coming together and an injury. They didnt. They rarely do thankfully. When it does happen the player gets sent off (if spotted) and a three game ban. If not spotted by the ref but highlighted on tv the player gets a three game ban anyway. Rightly so.
This was a bad tackle and no-one has tried to say otherwise but as to premeditation it wasnt obviously malicious and it wasnt the sort of thuggery we have seen from the likes of Joey Barton. A longer ban might be justified were that the case.

Forgive me for borrowing your words but the "tool" is the one who jumps on a media bandwagon and tries o hound a young and inexperienced player out of the game for the sort of misjudgement that happens at all levels of football and always will unless you ban tackling completely. An extended ban will have no effect on the inevitability of bad tackles in football.

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, it was a horific tackle, and deserves to be punished with a 3 game ban, I never said he is a joey Barton type player, he went for the ball, but fook me, the guys career could be over, it was horrendous

 

[halbpro]

Hope the other guy is OK. Was there any update on him?

Last I'd heard is they were unable to properly assess it because he couldn't actually straighten his leg out yet.

 

[severnside gull]

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, it was a horific tackle, and deserves to be punished with a 3 game ban, I never said he is a joey Barton type player, he went for the ball, but fook me, the guys career could be over, it was horrendous

a three game ban is the punishment for a red card which is what he would have got had the ref had a clear sight of the incident.
Calls for a ban for the rest of the season on here and in the media is a witch hunt that serves no purpose.


It has however (very conveniently) got the Newcastle management team out of the spotlight for some frankly disgraceful behaviour accosting a player on the pitch

 

[keaton]

Ooh 'accosting' a player on the pitch, that sounds dangerous. But yeah you're right, i'd much rather be carried off on a stretcher and unable to straighten my leg than a have a fat man shout at me for a couple of seconds

 

[brakespear]

Ooh 'accosting' a player on the pitch, that sounds dangerous. But yeah you're right, i'd much rather be carried off on a stretcher and unable to straighten my leg than a have a fat man shout at me for a couple of seconds

and precisely who was making that comparison?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Dave Whelan live on SSN "It was a fair tackle, he won the ball, football is a tough game, but he won the ball and it was a fair challenge"

 

[pornomagboy]

he has done it before

 

[GreersElbow]

Bad bad tackle....no doubt.......but he did catch the ball first, if only with the tip of his boot, so some slight mitigation as an inch lower and his foot would never have followed through to the guy's knee. Nothing to indicate it was deliberate still less malicious


Martinez said in his post match intervew (in full on radio but only selective bits on tv) that he hadnt seen the video of the tackle at that point as there had been rather a lot going on at half time. I would trust him to take appropriate action than most

Glad someone else noticed that. Certainly wasn't intentional and he did get the ball first.

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/11-v-11/interpretation-of-laws/interpretation-of-the-laws-of-the-game---law-12.ashx


You do not have to touch the ball, I seriously don't get this. "Oh he got the ball, it's okay" argument. It is not okay, read the laws and their interpretation. This was a reckless challenge, a challenge that could cause serious harm and a threat to his future in football.

 

[Bold Seagull]

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/11-v-11/interpretation-of-laws/interpretation-of-the-laws-of-the-game---law-12.ashx


You do not have to touch the ball, I seriously don't get this. "Oh he got the ball, it's okay" argument. It is not okay, read the laws and their interpretation. This was a reckless challenge, a challenge that could cause serious harm and a threat to his future in football.

Completely agree, and in fact he went over the ball as it bounced downward. McManaman was off the ground, everything about the challenge was reckless and a red card. That said it looked to me like Haidara pulled out a bit, had he gone in full blooded himself, I don't think his leg would have been planted and McManaman's foot would probably have connected with Haidara's foot and not his knee.

 

[severnside gull]

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/laws-of-the-game/11-v-11/interpretation-of-laws/interpretation-of-the-laws-of-the-game---law-12.ashx


You do not have to touch the ball, I seriously don't get this. "Oh he got the ball, it's okay" argument. It is not okay, read the laws and their interpretation. This was a reckless challenge, a challenge that could cause serious harm and a threat to his future in football.

no-one is challenging what the law says but rather that it was a split second from being a challenge that took the ball and not the player - ill judged and dangerous but not malicious - 3 match ban not 7

 

[GreersElbow]

Bad bad tackle....no doubt.......but he did catch the ball first, if only with the tip of his boot, so some slight mitigation as an inch lower and his foot would never have followed through to the guy's knee. Nothing to indicate it was deliberate still less malicious


Martinez said in his post match intervew (in full on radio but only selective bits on tv) that he hadnt seen the video of the tackle at that point as there had been rather a lot going on at half time. I would trust him to take appropriate action than most

no-one is challenging what the law says but rather that it was a split second from being a challenge that took the ball and not the player - ill judged and dangerous but not malicious - 3 match ban not 7

I wasn't questioning the banning or not, but the whole thing about winning the ball annoys me seeing as it is a reckless challenge. I don't care if he got the ball entirely, his leg is too high and stamps him into the knee. It's contact sport yes, but that's a career threatening challenge that could also severely effect his ability to run if the damage is bad enough.

 

[drew]

I don't believe this "got the ball" business. It was a knee high challenge.

Knee high because that was how high the ball was. Are you suggesting that no one is allowed to kick a ball if it is off the ground!

From what I saw on the highlights only - and so incomplete picture - I was shocked by the lad's indifference to what he had done to a fellow professional.

So, you're a mind reader are you. From what I saw on the pitch there was no sign of him being indifferent. He stood not far away and one of his players stood with him.

As for the tackle, it was reckless but not malicious. He went for the ball, which he got and the follow through caused the injury. It was his first start in the premiership so this witch hunt is ridiculous and as for the comparison with Keane, that's a joke. Keane admitted in his book that he did Haaland deliberately as revenge.

 

[Hamilton]

Knee high because that was how high the ball was. Are you suggesting that no one is allowed to kick a ball if it is off the ground!



So, you're a mind reader are you. From what I saw on the pitch there was no sign of him being indifferent. He stood not far away and one of his players stood with him.

As for the tackle, it was reckless but not malicious. He went for the ball, which he got and the follow through caused the injury. It was his first start in the premiership so this witch hunt is ridiculous and as for the comparison with Keane, that's a joke. Keane admitted in his book that he did Haaland deliberately as revenge.

No, I'm not a mind reader and I don't need to be one to see that you're clearly wrong on at least one point. First the ball was nowhere near where his foot came in - he had no right to make a challenge of that nature. Second, you clearly can't read. As I stated, from "what I saw on the highlights and NOT A COMPLETE PICTURE" he did not seem to care. The phrase "not a complete picture" is rather critical here. I'm certainly unaware as to whether the young man has made any statement of regret - he may have done so, but it hasn't been a high profile statement of regret.

Can't stand people like you that jump in all keyboards blazing without bothering to read.

 

[The Wizard]

Just to give my pennyworth - Does he actually try and tackle him? Looks more like an attempted clearance gone wrong to me complete fail but the way he moves he doesn't really lunge. Its a bad 'tackle' but I don't believe he was actually trying to tackle him.