Goal Keeper gets Red Card defending himself

[David McKeown]

I hope this happens to the fellas saying the keeper should be prosecuted.....especially david, you seem to have a serious lack of compassion for the victim in this case the keeper. The perpertriator SHOULD always be dealt with more severly, there is a serious flaw in the law that sometimes the perpertraitor is protected. But remember if there was no first action there would be no need to defend yourself. This happens all the time and i always have sympathy for the retaliator and victims and i would love to live in world where the perpertraitors were dealt with way more severely.

I have plenty of compassion for the keeper or at least had up until the point that he decides to take the law into his own hands and seek retribution on the initial perpetrator.  Once the man is on the ground, the keeper is no longer protecting himself he is extracting revenge and he should face the consequences of his actions.  There are mitigating factors to mitigate what he has done but the fact remains he kicked a man on the ground twice when he had no need to.  There were stewards nearby plenty of team mates too, he could easily have stood back or left the area quickly (he is after an all a professional sportsman) but he didnt and for that reason i think he should be punished.  If you were out for the night and were attacked how far would you be able to go in retalitation? Could you kick your attacker in the head? Could you fracture his skull?  Where would you draw the line?

[Tony Baloney]

I hope this happens to the fellas saying the keeper should be prosecuted.....especially david, you seem to have a serious lack of compassion for the victim in this case the keeper. The perpertriator SHOULD always be dealt with more severly, there is a serious flaw in the law that sometimes the perpertraitor is protected. But remember if there was no first action there would be no need to defend yourself. This happens all the time and i always have sympathy for the retaliator and victims and i would love to live in world where the perpertraitors were dealt with way more severely.

I have plenty of compassion for the keeper or at least had up until the point that he decides to take the law into his own hands and seek retribution on the initial perpetrator.  Once the man is on the ground, the keeper is no longer protecting himself he is extracting revenge and he should face the consequences of his actions.  There are mitigating factors to mitigate what he has done but the fact remains he kicked a man on the ground twice when he had no need to.  There were stewards nearby plenty of team mates too, he could easily have stood back or left the area quickly (he is after an all a professional sportsman) but he didnt and for that reason i think he should be punished.  If you were out for the night and were attacked how far would you be able to go in retalitation? Could you kick your attacker in the head? Could you fracture his skull?  Where would you draw the line?

Would be in broad agreement with this but can see how you'd get carried away in the heat of it.

[bennydorano]

Every player on the field should have been allowed a boot at thon ballix. Some people here need the same from what i've read.

[thewobbler]

where would you draw the line

David, ffs, please TRY to understand that the line was drawn by the assailant. It was he who  decided it was violence, it was he who decided it was every man for himself.

I would genuinely hate to see your vision of society unfold.

[David McKeown]

Wobbler. I am genuinely interested, in that situation how much force would you condone using, would you be supporting the keeper if he had broken the other guys leg? What about if he fractured his skull or worse? As I have said before I would have no difficulty with the keeper protecting himself but what he did went well beyond protecting himself. I'm not trying to get at you or stir anything I'm genuinely interested.  For me the line has already been crossed by the keeper

[thewobbler]

David, seriously fella, read my last comments.

The assailant set the tone for the incident through a blindside attack. In THIS instance, the assailant deserved beaten to an inch if his life.

[windyshepardhenderson]

Listen to Pinochet here 

[Windmill abu]

Once the man is on the ground, the keeper is no longer protecting himself he is extracting revenge and he should face the consequences of his actions.  There are mitigating factors to mitigate what he has done but the fact remains he kicked a man on the ground twice when he had no need to.  There were stewards nearby plenty of team mates too, he could easily have stood back or left the area quickly (he is after an all a professional sportsman) but he didnt and for that reason i think he should be punished.  If you were out for the night and were attacked how far would you be able to go in retalitation? Could you kick your attacker in the head? Could you fracture his skull?  Where would you draw the line?

It is not about retaliation.

David you have not questioned how far the initial attacker was willing to go before drawing the line.

If someone initiates a violent attack on you and the authorities are not there to protect you from further assault or restrain the assailant, then you should be allowed to use all and any means to stop them.

Dont forget who was the instigator here.

[Capt Pat]

He could not have broken his leg with the kicks delivered. He is a lrofessional footballer he knows how to kick to do damage. The hooligan would have been in trouble if the goalie had wanted to hurt him. His legs were dangling in the air meaning they couldn't be broken.

The keeper deliberately aimed his kicks at the legs to avoid doing any harm.

Honestly what do you expect. If you attack a pro footballer then be prepared to get kicked in the legs.

[Windmill abu]

Wobbler. I am genuinely interested, in that situation how much force would you condone using, would you be supporting the keeper if he had broken the other guys leg? What about if he fractured his skull or worse? As I have said before I would have no difficulty with the keeper protecting himself but what he did went well beyond protecting himself. I'm not trying to get at you or stir anything I'm genuinely interested.  For me the line has already been crossed by the keeper

why are you ignoring the initial attack that caused the keepers response

did the attacker not cross the line

Your attitude seems to be that it is okay to attack someone and possibly kill them, but if they are strong enough to stop the attack and prevent a similar attack then the initial assailant deserves protection because he wasnt bigger than his target

[David McKeown]

Wobbler. I am genuinely interested, in that situation how much force would you condone using, would you be supporting the keeper if he had broken the other guys leg? What about if he fractured his skull or worse? As I have said before I would have no difficulty with the keeper protecting himself but what he did went well beyond protecting himself. I'm not trying to get at you or stir anything I'm genuinely interested.  For me the line has already been crossed by the keeper

why are you ignoring the initial attack that caused the keepers response

did the attacker not cross the line

Your attitude seems to be that it is okay to attack someone and possibly kill them, but if they are strong enough to stop the attack and prevent a similar attack then the initial assailant deserves protection because he wasnt bigger than his target

My attitude is most certainly not in support of the first attacker, I have always maintained he should be prosecuted for assaulting the keeper, I am of the opinion though that the keepers response is more than just one of self defence. I have no problem with someone defending themselves or others when they are attacked. My problem comes with the keeper continuing the attack once the original attacker is on the ground and there are other more effective means of protecting himself without the need for what appears to me to be retaliation. At that point what the keeper does is no more than vigilante justice and that is no justice at all and can not be condoned.

[Windmill abu]

I am of the opinion though that the keepers response is more than just one of self defence. I have no problem with someone defending themselves or others when they are attacked. My problem comes with the keeper continuing the attack once the original attacker is on the ground and there are other more effective means of protecting himself without the need for what appears to me to be retaliation.

the keepers response is in the heat of the moment and not a what have could have been from behind a keyboard.

as a goal keeper he is not allowed to carry tasers, rubber bullets, pepper sprays/mace personal attack alarms or any kind of pre-emptive weapon on to the pitch. What are the more effective means of protecting himself which were available to him.

[David McKeown]

For me the keeper should have stepped back or walked/ran away from the immediate area. He should have been aware that the stewards or police in the area would have been there instantly. I accept the keepers action were in the heat of the moment but for me that doesn't excuse his actions. (although it does mitigate them a little)

[muppet]

For me the keeper should have stepped back or walked/ran away from the immediate area. He should have been aware that the stewards or police in the area would have been there instantly. I accept the keepers action were in the heat of the moment but for me that doesn't excuse his actions. (although it does mitigate them a little)

The keeper thought the next guy in was another attacker, even though he was a steward or official. There may have been thousands of potential attackers in the keepers mind in those few seconds.

I have no doubt you are right about the legal interpretation, but to paint the keeper as being guilty of assault then the law must view the fan as a victim. That is very hard to swallow.

[tyssam5]

For me the keeper should have stepped back or walked/ran away from the immediate area. He should have been aware that the stewards or police in the area would have been there instantly. I accept the keepers action were in the heat of the moment but for me that doesn't excuse his actions. (although it does mitigate them a little)

To answer your earlier question a couple of harmless kicks to his assailants extremities was in my opinion a very tempered response to this assault. Couple of full force boots to head might be another story.
When should the keeper have stepped back? He's not a law enforcement professional trained to deal with such incidents, he's a person making an instinctive reaction and it would seem from most comments here that a jury would not convict.