Goal Keeper gets Red Card defending himself

[JUst retired]

The goalkeeper was right in what he did. I see the ref..has rescinded the red card. What would anyone do in this circumstance?

[trileacman]

Can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading. The next time someone kicks a guy on the ground outside a pub or nightclub I'm sure they can say in court they were only "defending themselves". I don't give a damn about the red card or not but kicking someone on the ground is a trampish act.

If Wayne Rooney or Van Persie lunge at a keeper next week in the PL does the keeper have the right to kick them as they lie on the ground?

[thewobbler]

Trileac man, I despair.

This is not two louts outside a pub. This is a lunatic coming onto a field and trying to take a player out with a flying kick. No matter what, this man HAS to be kept on the ground once he's put there.

Soft in the head you are.

[trileacman]

Trileac man, I despair.

This is not two louts outside a pub. This is a lunatic coming onto a field and trying to take a player out with a flying kick. No matter what, this man HAS to be kept on the ground once he's put there.

Soft in the head you are.

No matter what? So if the keeper had responded with 3 or 4 kicks to the head as your man lay on the ground you would deem that wholly acceptable?

[thewobbler]

Trileac, the point is he didn't.

I'm utterly shocked and even a little bit worried that some of the more pious sorts on here, can somehow expect a person to behave in a logical and passive way in the immediate seconds after being blindside assaulted.

Seriously, don't compare this to a bad foul or a pub brawl. Compare this to you going about your day's work tomorrow when some eejit swings for you out of nowhere. If you genuinely believe that your reaction would be anything else other than self defence, then you're wired up wrong.

[thewobbler]

Only sometimes Fintona. I'm a huge fan of a lively debate, but it gets me very frustrated when people politely ignore reason and ration when it suits their needs. I don't enter the political threads for this very reason!

[trileacman]

Trileac, the point is he didn't.

I'm utterly shocked and even a little bit worried that some of the more pious sorts on here, can somehow expect a person to behave in a logical and passive way in the immediate seconds after being blindside assaulted.

Seriously, don't compare this to a bad foul or a pub brawl. Compare this to you going about your day's work tomorrow when some eejit swings for you out of nowhere. If you genuinely believe that your reaction would be anything else other than self defence, then you're wired up wrong.

If someone swung for me I'd swing back. If someone jumps at me misses and lands sprawled on the ground my reaction wouldn't be to swing a boot at him. That's me. Can't speak for everyone but I'd imagine the majority of people would be the same.

[thewobbler]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you believe is that it's okay to stand toe to toe with an assailant, but not okay to maximise an unusual advantage provided by an assailant?

It takes 2 consenting people to play by the queensberry rules Trileac.

[trileacman]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you believe is that it's okay to stand toe to toe with an assailant, but not okay to maximise an unusual advantage provided by an assailant?

It takes 2 consenting people to play by the queensberry rules Trileac.

I'm saying I wouldn't swing a boot at a person lying on the ground. I assume alot of people would be the same. If you can't read that you must be a bit soft in the head yourself.

[David McKeown]

The idea this was self defence is ludicrous, if it happened here the goalkeeper should face criminal proceedings and should be looking at a custodial sentence (albeit a suspended one). At the point the fan is on the ground how is the keeper defending himself?

[trileacman]

Only sometimes Fintona. I'm a huge fan of a lively debate, but it gets me very frustrated when people politely ignore reason and ration when it suits their needs. I don't enter the political threads for this very reason!

I'm not fond of getting involved in political threads much either (other than observational calls) as the more extreme elements always drown out more moderate voices. But anyway, reason and ration are subjective and one not everyone will agree on. The argument as I see it is wherever the goalkeeper in question used reasonable or excessive force, and if emotions got the better of him at the time as opposed to calmly being aware of his actions. Simply telling people that they are "a liberal lefty twit" or "soft in the head" is itself hardly rational.

I'm saying I wouldn't swing a boot at a person lying on the ground. I  assume alot of people would be the same. If you can't read that you must  be a bit soft in the head yourself.

Is Packies still going?

T'is. I'd say the mass exodus of tradesmen to Australia* has dampened the custom somewhat but there is always the old dependables to keep Packie going. Alot of them home for Christmas though. I'd say he'll do a roaring trade!

* latest count puts the figure somewhere in the mid 50's and that would not be counting women or most protestant men from the parish. That includes a few sets of brothers and i would say a previous class of lads at St Scires PS must nearly all be away.

[Niall Quinn]

And so, a new use of 'ration' was born.

Only sometimes Fintona. I'm a huge fan of a lively debate, but it gets me very frustrated when people politely ignore reason and ration when it suits their needs. I don't enter the political threads for this very reason!

I'm not fond of getting involved in political threads much either (other than observational calls) as the more extreme elements always drown out more moderate voices. But anyway, reason and ration are subjective and one not everyone will agree on.

[nrico2006]

The idea this was self defence is ludicrous, if it happened here the goalkeeper should face criminal proceedings and should be looking at a custodial sentence (albeit a suspended one). At the point the fan is on the ground how is the keeper defending himself?

As mentioned, the keeper was attacked and reacted instinctively - he didn't plan to do what he did and was doing what he thought necessary to protect himself.  What should he have done when the fan ended up on the ground - should he have stood back and let him get to his feet to have another go, or should he have waited to the fella pulled out a knife?  What the keeper did was in no way wrong.  I take it there are a lot of lovely people on here who believe that Munir Hussain (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8413787.stm) or Peter Flanagan (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097) were in the wrong too.

[brokencrossbar1]

The idea this was self defence is ludicrous, if it happened here the goalkeeper should face criminal proceedings and should be looking at a custodial sentence (albeit a suspended one). At the point the fan is on the ground how is the keeper defending himself?

Catch yerself on David, he hit him 2 kicks in the hole! If it went to court at all it would be a s47 charge and if found guilty he would be bound over for 12 months. I despair sometimes about the extremities in the world sometimes.

[David McKeown]

No what the keeper should have done was walk away from the situation as the large number of stewards and police who were already making there way onto the pitch did their job. I acknowledge at least one steward cocked up in letting the fan get onto the pitch in the first place but that in no way gave the keeper the right to kick him as he lay on the ground. At that stage the keeper was in no way defending himself he was simply seeking retribution for what the fan had done on him.  He assaulted the fan at that point and I really do hope he faces charges. I have no doubt that if it had happened here he would be.

BC whilst it was at worst a 47 the courts have been clear recently a kick to a man on the ground should carry a suspended custodial sentence.