Danny Guthrie

[Farley11]

He has escaped a further ban from the FA

 

[Mendoza]

Joke

He should have been suspended until Fagan made a FULL recovery

 

[Frutos]

He has escaped a further ban from the FA

That is ridiculous.

 

[Elder for England]

What does that mean? He's only going to a miss a standard 3 games for a straight red?

 

[itszamora]

Ridiculous. They say they can only impose an extra ban by charging the player with another offence a la Ben Thatcher a couple of years ago. This IMO was every bit as bad as Thatcher's.

 

[Mellotron]

Very lucky boy. Put this in almost ANY other workplace and he's going to prison.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

So what is his ban? TWO matches?

I'm playing on Sunday and our opponents have a player I really don't like very much. I may just BOOT f*** out of him for the sheer hell of it, seeings how its 'okay' to do so.

 

[One True BHA]

to be honest, it was no worse than a lot of standard "red card fouls". just a shame and unlucky as it actually broke the guys leg.

 

[British Bulldog]

Very lucky boy. Put this in almost ANY other workplace and he's going to prison.

More proof that football is a law unto itself.

 

[Elder for England]

Ridiculous. They say they can only impose an extra ban by charging the player with another offence a la Ben Thatcher a couple of years ago. This IMO was every bit as bad as Thatcher's.

It wasn't quite as bad, but it definately is up there. Especially as he had a first go which obviously shows the intent, how could he not of got a further ban?

 

[strings]

According to the FA he has already been punished (by getting the red card), the FA cannot add to that unless there is an additional charge, or in exceptional circumstances (i.e. the Mendez challenge of 2 years ago).

Whilst I admire the FA for keeping to their rules, the whole thing has been a joke.

1) Why was the other player involved not red carded, or subsequently punised by the FA for pushing the fouled player back to the ground?
2) Once an exception is made to the rules (as was done for the Mendez challenge) then the rules should be changed, or guidance should be issued to make clear when something is an 'exceptional circumstance'.

The FA seem to be trying to make enough rope to hang themselves...

 

[Elder for England]

to be honest, it was no worse than a lot of standard "red card fouls". just a shame and unlucky as it actually broke the guys leg.

No. No it is not. It was a terrible takcle, he wasn't going for the ball at all, like I said in my earlier post, the fact that he had a first go further shows it was intended.

 

[Mellotron]

to be honest, it was no worse than a lot of standard "red card fouls". just a shame and unlucky as it actually broke the guys leg.

It was worse than most, as he didn't even pretend to go for the ball. A lot of bad red card challenges are as a result of a 50-50 tackle. This was not. Not wanting to be melodramatic but it was just assault.

 

[Elder for England]

It was worse than most, as he didn't even pretend to go for the ball. A lot of bad red card challenges are as a result of a 50-50 tackle. This was not. Not wanting to be melodramatic but it was just assault.

I agree, it was malicious.

 

[Knotty]

Interesting question.

Isn't it a matter of timing and angles? I have seen equally bad tackles that have resulted in no injury at all and tackles that have not looked too bad that have caused a break.

I don't think you can have a tariff of match suspensions based on the subsequent injury. That would mean something like 3 matches for the red card tackle plus another 10 for a broken bone, 6 for a cruciate ligament, 3 for bad brusing and 0.2 of a match for each stitch required for a cut.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but the punishment should be based on the tackle itself rather than the injury which can be a matter of luck or bad luck.

 

[saltash seagull]

i can't believe this worst challange i have ever seen

 

[Elder for England]

Interesting question.

Isn't it a matter of timing and angles? I have seen equally bad tackles that have resulted in no injury at all and tackles that have not looked too bad that have caused a break.

I don't think you can have a tariff of match suspensions based on the subsequent injury. That would mean something like 3 matches for the red card tackle plus another 10 for a broken bone, 6 for a cruciate ligament, 3 for bad brusing and 0.2 of a match for each stitch required for a cut.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but the punishment should be based on the tackle itself rather than the injury which can be a matter of luck or bad luck.

I thought it was terrible when I first saw it and the guy stood up after the tackle, it wasn't until yesterday that I found out it resulted in a broken leg. Yes it makes the situation worse but even before I knew about the leg break I still felt a long ban was in order.

 

[Mendoza]

He should be punished solely on the fact that he tried to do it about 10 seconds earlier, but missed, so tried again!

Him and Joey Barton would make a lovely couple

 

[Knotty]

I thought it was terrible when I first saw it and the guy stood up after the tackle, it wasn't until yesterday that I found out it resulted in a broken leg. Yes it makes the situation worse but even before I knew about the leg break I still felt a long ban was in order.

I agree with you, but I felt that some were saying that it should have been longer because of the break. It shouldn't. It should have been longer because it was such a bad tackle, even if there had been no injury at all.

 

[Mellotron]

Interesting question.

Isn't it a matter of timing and angles? I have seen equally bad tackles that have resulted in no injury at all and tackles that have not looked too bad that have caused a break.

I don't think you can have a tariff of match suspensions based on the subsequent injury. That would mean something like 3 matches for the red card tackle plus another 10 for a broken bone, 6 for a cruciate ligament, 3 for bad brusing and 0.2 of a match for each stitch required for a cut.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but the punishment should be based on the tackle itself rather than the injury which can be a matter of luck or bad luck.

Don't dignify what Danny Guthrie did by calling it a tackle. It had nothing to do with where the ball was or anything. He kicked the guy as hard as he could.