Punishments for players should be harsher when they inflict serious injury on an opponent

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
It was a knee to waist height two footed assault. It wasn’t a tackle.

Van Dijk could have really hurt Mertens but it was a genuine attempt to win the ball. He was low to the ground and it wasn’t wildly out of control.

There is no excusing Pickford’s actions and I hope somebody gives him a dose of his own medicine.

Knee to waist height? I think you need to re-familiarise yourself with the human anatomy mate. It’s not two footed either, both feet are wide apart and neither makes contact with the player, it’s the inside of his knee/thigh that connects and causes the damage.

It’s a really bad challenge from a keeper who’s making howler after howler and who made a desperate lunge to stop the opposition player from getting on the ball and scoring. No matter how you dress it up it’s nothing like an assault. Liverpool fans are only seeing what they want to see here because who the injured player is and his importance to their team. There’s no way to prove and nothing to suggest he’s tried to maim the player same way there’s no way you can prove Van Dijk’s shocker on Mertens was an honest attempt to win the ball as opposed to clean the player out.

 

Balogun1

Well-Known Member
Knee to waist height? I think you need to re-familiarise yourself with the human anatomy mate. It’s not two footed either, both feet are wide apart and neither makes contact with the player, it’s the inside of his knee/thigh that connects and causes the damage.

It’s a really bad challenge from a keeper who’s making howler after howler and who made a desperate lunge to stop the opposition player from getting on the ball and scoring. No matter how you dress it up it’s nothing like an assault. Liverpool fans are only seeing what they want to see here because who the injured player is and his importance to their team. There’s no way to prove and nothing to suggest he’s tried to maim the player same way there’s no way you can prove Van Dijk’s shocker on Mertens was an honest attempt to win the ball as opposed to clean the player out.

A still photo (especially one that shows Pickford with a foot back on the ground) does this particular incident no justice. Go away and watch it again.

Pickford doesn’t slide out. He jumps out leading with both legs and yes, they were between knee and waist height. Naturally gravity bring him back towards the ground.

Stop being obsequious. You know perfectly well that Pickford jumped out, he didn’t slide with his legs at the positions depicted in the picture.

With respect, I will take the opinions of the raft of professionals who have commented on it, rather than yours, especially given your anti-Liverpool stance.

Sander Westerveld has said it was an attack and an assault. He was a top level goalkeeper. I’ll accept his take on it, especially having played for both clubs.

A two footed tackle is one leading, as Pickford did, with two feet off the ground. The legs don’t need to be together.
 

TW1988

Well-Known Member
Says Mark Bosnich. Thoughts?

I noticed Carragher was saying last night that these things happen it’s a part of football and with Pickford it’s likely a bad mistake from a player whose making been making them regularly over the last year. Now if we’re talking about something like scumbag Simpson on Durrant or Keane on Haaland I can see there being a case for harsher punishment because there’s no question these ‘tackles’ were intended to maim (Keane even went on to admit as much). But if it’s just a shite or poorly timed tackle that results in the injury should the punishment still be more severe due to the outcome? I know there’s still a grey area where you can say “well how do you know Pickford wasn’t intending to cause harm” and I suppose that’s where it becomes more about personal judgment and it goes back to the same problem with penalties being awarded via VAR.

I must admit I think the hoopla surrounding the whole thing is getting a bit ridiculous now, you’d think this was the first time a player had ever had an ACL injury or been out for a lengthy time as the result of a bad tackle. Let’s be honest if it’s a lesser player at a smaller club this is being forgotten about and folk are moving on a lot quicker, even if the injury potentially resulted in a significant increase in the chances of another club being relegated for instance.
Injuries happen, its a contact sport.
unless their is clear malice then its just noise from Bosnich
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
A still photo (especially one that shows Pickford with a foot back on the ground) does this particular incident no justice. Go away and watch it again.

Pickford doesn’t slide out. He jumps out leading with both legs and yes, they were between knee and waist height. Naturally gravity bring him back towards the ground.

Stop being obsequious. You know perfectly well that Pickford jumped out, he didn’t slide with his legs at the positions depicted in the picture.

With respect, I will take the opinions of the raft of professionals who have commented on it, rather than yours, especially given your anti-Liverpool stance.

Sander Westerveld has said it was an attack and an assault. He was a top level goalkeeper. I’ll accept his take on it, especially having played for both clubs.

The still photo shows the point of contact, it’s not knee to waist high and I’m not being obsequious, you’re talking nonsense and posting fiction. A two footed challenge would indicate both feet together and in contact with the player, that doesn’t happen at any point here, it’s yet more fiction.

Isn’t it peculiar how my opinion aligns with ex-player and Liverpool legend Carragher, or is he anti-Liverpool now too? Should I chalk your opinion down to being pro Liverpool and infatuated with VVD, hence your eyes telling you you’re seeing something that’s not there?
 

UncleG

Well-Known Member
Says Mark Bosnich. Thoughts?

I noticed Carragher was saying last night that these things happen it’s a part of football and with Pickford it’s likely a bad mistake from a player whose making been making them regularly over the last year. Now if we’re talking about something like scumbag Simpson on Durrant or Keane on Haaland I can see there being a case for harsher punishment because there’s no question these ‘tackles’ were intended to maim (Keane even went on to admit as much). But if it’s just a shite or poorly timed tackle that results in the injury should the punishment still be more severe due to the outcome? I know there’s still a grey area where you can say “well how do you know Pickford wasn’t intending to cause harm” and I suppose that’s where it becomes more about personal judgment and it goes back to the same problem with penalties being awarded via VAR.

I must admit I think the hoopla surrounding the whole thing is getting a bit ridiculous now, you’d think this was the first time a player had ever had an ACL injury or been out for a lengthy time as the result of a bad tackle. Let’s be honest if it’s a lesser player at a smaller club this is being forgotten about and folk are moving on a lot quicker, even if the injury potentially resulted in a significant increase in the chances of another club being relegated for instance.
No I think people should be punished based on their intention. Player could go in genuinely intending to win the ball but get it all wrong and break the other guys leg. Another player could go in trying to break a guys leg and not harm him atall. So the theory regarding should people punished based on the outcome of the injury, would mean player b in my example with the horrible intentions could get away with no or little punishment whereas the guy who just commits a foul whilst trying to win the ball and breaks a leg is punished worse. I'm not sure that's fair.
 

Balogun1

Well-Known Member
The still photo shows the point of contact, it’s not knee to waist high and I’m not being obsequious, you’re talking nonsense and posting fiction. A two footed challenge would indicate both feet together and in contact with the player, that doesn’t happen at any point here, it’s yet more fiction.

Isn’t it peculiar how my opinion aligns with ex-player and Liverpool legend Carragher, or is he anti-Liverpool now too? Should I chalk your opinion down to being pro Liverpool and infatuated with VVD, hence your eyes telling you you’re seeing something that’s not there?
Graeme Souness called it an assault. I’d say he, more than anyone, would know assault and intent on a football field. Wouldn’t you?

Carragher is an Uncle Tom, a McCoist if you will.

I am not infatuated with van Dijk.

You must be the singlemost poster, in the entire history of FF, that resorts to farcical exaggeration when losing an argument. It’s ridiculous.
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
Graeme Souness called it an assault. I’d say he, more than anyone would know assault and intent on a football field. Wouldn’t you?
And Carragher who played as a centre half and whose responsibility it was to make tackles said that’s bollocks. Wouldn’t he know?

I’ve posted a photo at the point of contact and explained why what you’re saying just isn’t true. I can’t do any more than that. To call it an assault ascertain “he knew what he was doing” just doesn’t fly.
 

Balogun1

Well-Known Member
And Carragher who played as a centre half and whose responsibility it was to make tackles said that’s bollocks. Wouldn’t he know?

I’ve posted a photo at the point of contact and explained why what you’re saying just isn’t true. I can’t do any more than that. To call it an assault ascertain “he knew what he was doing” just doesn’t fly.
Souness played football during an era where assaults were commonplace and he himself was one of the main culprits.

Carragher played in a far cleaner era where the game had been drastically cleaned up. He is an Uncle Tom that is protecting his cushy Sky career, Souness just says it as it is.

Your picture is after the impact. The pain is already visible on van Dijk’s face.

Go away and watch it again, putting your anti-Liverpool stance aside (probably impossible) and day its not assault,

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you with this rubbish. I will believe the pros, the ones who know what they’re taking about and my own eyes. It’s a blatant assault.
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
Souness played football during an era where assaults were commonplace and he himself was one of the main culprits.

Carragher played in a far cleaner era where the game had been drastically cleaned up. He is an Uncle Tom that is protecting his cushy Sky career, Souness just says it as it is.

Your picture is after the impact. The pain is already visible on van Dijk’s face.

Go away and watch it again, putting your anti-Liverpool stance aside (probably impossible) and day its not assault,

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you with this rubbish. I will believe the pros, the ones who know what they’re taking about and my own eyes. It’s a blatant assault.

Surely that means Carragher is the one who should be shocked by the tackle and Souness the one brushing it off? That makes no sense. And I didn’t realise Souness was just showing up to Sky for free whilst Carragher is an employee. Pickford knew what he was doing and Carragher’s an Uncle Tom - it sounds to me like you make broad assumptions about people depending on whether or not they agree with your personal view. Have at it mate, but personally I think that’s embarrassing pish, however everyone’s entitled to their opinion and all that.

And all of the above is my sincere opinion, leaving my jokey WUM persona to the side.
 

erskine bear

Well-Known Member
It’s a shocking tackle absolutely, it’s a fairly obvious goalkeeping manoeuvre though and throwing everything you can to keep the thing out the net.

If it was a Keane on Haaland type assault then yes it would be justified but this was an accident IMO. I don’t feel this is warranting of anything more than a retrospective ban in line with the current procedure. No matter how bad it looks and the damage it has caused.

For example, Jones tackle on that tim in the OF game was an even worse tackle that would have been a horror injury had the lads leg been planted. Again, i would be outraged if he was banned for X amount of time.

Pickford does come across a bit of a jack the lad wannabe type cnut, but I don’t think he’s seriously meant to injure VVD here.

So no, I don’t think he should be banned for however long VVD is out for. Which really isn’t that controversial in my opinion.
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
It’s a shocking tackle absolutely, it’s a fairly obvious goalkeeping manoeuvre though and throwing everything you can to keep the thing out the net.

If it was a Keane on Haaland type assault then yes it would be justified but this was an accident IMO. I don’t feel this is warranting of anything more than a retrospective ban in line with the current procedure. No matter how bad it looks and the damage it has caused.

For example, Jones tackle on that tim in the OF game was an even worse tackle that would have been a horror injury had the lads leg been planted. Again, i would be outraged if he was banned for X amount of time.

Pickford does come across a bit of a jack the lad wannabe type cnut, but I don’t think he’s seriously meant to injure VVD here.

So no, I don’t think he should be banned for however long VVD is out for. Which really isn’t that controversial in my opinion.

Absolutely this. It should have been a red card, standard ban served and no more. If it’s a lesser player at a smaller club this sort of hysteria never manifests.
 

erskine bear

Well-Known Member
Absolutely this. It should have been a red card, standard ban served and no more. If it’s a lesser player at a smaller club this sort of hysteria never manifests.
He could still have been given a red, despite the ball being out of play.
Where’s our English football correspondent when needed :))

In all seriousness Grigo’s point is where I’m confused, I thought because the phase of play the incident took place in was effectively ‘invalid’ he couldn’t have been red carded.

However, I imagine precedent for such a thing does exist. The attention this incident will get will most likely lead to new legislation (if there already isn’t) and rightfully so.

Even with an ‘intentional’ injury it all comes down to interpretation.
 

Grigo Yossarian

Well-Known Member
Where’s our English football correspondent when needed :))

In all seriousness Grigo’s point is where I’m confused, I thought because the phase of play the incident took place in was effectively ‘invalid’ he couldn’t have been red carded.

However, I imagine precedent for such a thing does exist. The attention this incident will get will most likely lead to new legislation (if there already isn’t) and rightfully so.

Even with an ‘intentional’ injury it all comes down to interpretation.

My understanding is that the ball was out of play, EB, so they can’t give a penalty, however a red card can be awarded any time the players are within the referees control, even after The final whistle.

No ?
 

erskine bear

Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the ball was out of play, EB, so they can’t give a penalty, however a red card can be awarded any time the players are within the referees control, even after The final whistle.

No ?
Possibly, players can get booked and sent off from corners without penalties (Zizkov against us) I think you are right mate.

Like I said, either way we will hearing about it from all angles for the next few weeks.
 

Grigo Yossarian

Well-Known Member
Possibly, players can get booked and sent off from corners without penalties (Zizkov against us) I think you are right mate.

Like I said, either way we will hearing about it from all angles for the next few weeks.

I must say, I thought it was absolutely reckless & I hope he is cited.

Total disregard for a fellow professional in my personal opinion.
 

DavieM

Well-Known Member
Once again we are seeing current England internationals on the protected species list.

I am pretty sure the initial thinking that he couldn't be punished because of the offside was completely wrong - simply he couldn't win a penalty for it.

They are now coming out to say he won't receive retrospective punishment because the incident was seen at the time. How can you see that incident and not view it as a red card?? He has virtually jumped in and wrapped his legs round the opponent.
 

UncleG

Well-Known Member
And Carragher who played as a centre half and whose responsibility it was to make tackles said that’s bollocks. Wouldn’t he know?

I’ve posted a photo at the point of contact and explained why what you’re saying just isn’t true. I can’t do any more than that. To call it an assault ascertain “he knew what he was doing” just doesn’t fly.
You're 100% right there. Nobody can argue with this point.
 

Glasgowsteve

Well-Known Member
I think it’s being talked about because there has been no punishment for an outrageous lunge on a fellow pro, that will potentially mean he is missing almost a full season. Throw in the fact he is one of the top CB out there then it’s bad for the game. People want to see top players on the pitch.
I think a 5 game ban would be appropriate. Pickford is an enigma. He really hasn’t improved since coming through as a young keeper, he’s making mistakes and now he’s injured someone.
I don’t think it was intentional, I don’t think he’s that sort of guy. In the case of Keane v Haaland, Keane should have been banned for life. That was a premeditated attack - assault. It wasn’t anything to do with a hard tackle. He went in there to ruin someone’s career. Thugs like that have no place in the game. Now sometimes you’re unlucky and you have a career ending tackle or injury that’s accidental and not intended. I think the difference is intent.
 

Glasgowsteve

Well-Known Member
2002 WC, first player to be sent off without being on the pitch in WC history. Even Claudio was a bit too old by 06 :)
Ach so it was. Mind playing tricks on me. Doesn’t seem that long ago.
I do remember his last game was in 2012 when he scored for Wembley in a FA Cup preliminary round. I had only just moved and we went to the local pub for lunch and the game was being shown there. Had it been 10-15 years earlier it would have been a most impressive line up.
 

No Hiding Place

Well-Known Member
It's ironic that its a goalkeeper who are uber protected got away with an assault that an outfield player would have been red carded for.
 

Jase

Well-Known Member
It’s been touted that if you injured a guy you should sit out for as long as it takes them to recover.

The trouble is the subjectivity of how bad the tackle is. I’ve seen players seriously injured in pretty innocuous tackles and I’ve seen tackles which are totally malicious.

It would also be open to abuse as another club could manipulate a situation to keep one of your players sidelined.
 

Bluebear72

Well-Known Member
Getting banned for the same amount of time as someone's injury is nonsense and everyone knows it. Plus, how can you even judge based on intent - practically it doesn't work as it's purely subjective.

I think it was a horrendous tackle by the way, I'm not denying that fact but some of the shite that's getting spouted is getting beyond a joke.
We need to get “intent” into its correct context
A small numbers of tackles (assaults) are so obvious that there is no debate
The issue here is lack of control and reckless endangerment. Despairing lunges by players might be loved by fans, we all love our players to be wholehearted ,but they have to educated not to crash in unlessThey have a realistic chance of winning the ball fairly.Stiffer penalties must be brought in to educate players to not to go balls to the walls at any cost
 

Bluebear72

Well-Known Member
And Carragher who played as a centre half and whose responsibility it was to make tackles said that’s bollocks. Wouldn’t he know?

I’ve posted a photo at the point of contact and explained why what you’re saying just isn’t true. I can’t do any more than that. To call it an assault ascertain “he knew what he was doing” just doesn’t fly.
Don’t have to prove intent ,malicious or otherwise it was reckless and has put the player out for 6 to 9 months
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
Don’t have to prove intent ,malicious or otherwise it was reckless and has put the player out for 6 to 9 months
You obviously don’t, but the poster in question clearly thinks it’s quantifiable and something that should be used to dole out a much more severe punishment. Before he went on to pick and choose which “pro” is credible whilst discrediting the one that don’t subscribe to his theory as an uncle tom. Load of bollocks.
 
Last edited:

Northhiglander

Well-Known Member
If Pickford came out today and said I did exactly what i intended to do injure VVD then he would maybe have a point.

Pickford didn't go out to injure the player, was clumsy yes but no way intended to injure. Intent is really important here. Might be able to suggest some tackles were reckless, but impossible to prove intent was to seriously injure.

Football is a contact sport and accidental injuries are part of that. Even if you look at some of the really bad tackles, Simpson on Durrant the referee that day had a lot to answer for, the game was out of control he had allowed emotions to go unchecked. Never a black and white situation.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Getting banned for the same amount of time as someone's injury is nonsense and everyone knows it. Plus, how can you even judge based on intent - practically it doesn't work as it's purely subjective.

I think it was a horrendous tackle by the way, I'm not denying that fact but some of the shite that's getting spouted is getting beyond a joke.
That’s probably the whole answer.
The only person that knows intent is the perpetrator.
It’d be impossible to include a line like “could have” or “likely would have” as these can be argued away very easily.
 
change consent
Top