Didn't see this on here
Goal Keeper gets a red card after a fan jumps onto the field and tries to attack him.
http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/blog/dirty-tackle/post/DTotD-Pitch-invader-attacks-Alkmaar-keeper-get?urn=sow-wp7668
Must have been an Ulster Council official sent him off.
Disgrace that the keeper got sent off.
Obviously sticking the boot in twice at full force into the pitch invader as he lay prostrate on the ground, doesn't resonate with some peoples perception of ugly cowardly violence.
The ref was quite correct to send off the goalie, a ref can tell the difference between violence used to defend oneself and the goalkeepers extra footwork.
Quote from: Main Street on December 22, 2011, 09:23:19 AM
Obviously sticking the boot in twice at full force into the pitch invader as he lay prostrate on the ground, doesn't resonate with some peoples perception of ugly cowardly violence.
The ref was quite correct to send off the goalie, a ref can tell the difference between violence used to defend oneself and the goalkeepers extra footwork.
Fair play Main Street I looked at it and thought that the keeper has gone after him there. Whatever about defending himself which he did in the first instance the man was lying on the ground then and got kicked twice after that. Red Card!
Referee was correct to send the keeper off for violent conduct. Rules don't state that violent conduct should be directed at an opponent.
There are similar stories.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364156/Footballer-rugby-tackled-streaker-stunned-sent-violent-disorder.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364156/Footballer-rugby-tackled-streaker-stunned-sent-violent-disorder.html)
Haha Main Street you're a liberal lefty twit.
A man was deranged enough to run onto a football pitch and attack a player with a flying kick. That player's human instinct for survival kicked in; he put the assailant down. He then has a nanosecond to decide to either a) let this crazy bastard get up and have another go at me, or b) keep him where he is. Again, human instinct for survival kicked in. This is not an offence, it's a reaction.
Only one person deserves punishment for what happened there last night.
If a player did that to the keeper would he have been justified in retaliating thus, and would the referee then have sent off only the attacker?
That nut job could have had a knife or anything when he came running at that keeper - he did what he had to do to ensure his safety.
Fair fcuks to the keeper, the fan should have known they are all crazy hoors anyway!
Its lucky the attacker wasn't black/coloured/african-american/african-caribeen, the keeper would be for the plank with John Terry and Luis Suarez ;)
The keepers reaction was natural but the referee had no choice either. If another player made a cantona esque flying kick at him and missed the way your man did and fell on the ground and the keeper then drove the boot into him twice then both deserve the line. Ajax though as a club should be the ones who really get punished here.
Saw this yesterday, for me the following should happen:
Keeper should be suspended for violent conduct
The keeper should face criminal charges
The fan should be banned for life
The fan should face criminal charges
Alkmar should be deducted points for withdrawing their team from the field of play
The Alkmar manager should be suspended
Ajax should be fined and/or forced to play matches behind closed doors
The match should be declared a 3-0 win for Ajax
The spectator was made to look like some a real dung bag.
Nothing is ever a complete waste of time. I've just learned the Dutch for "what an idiot". (3:43)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgElEE_4uW0
The goalkeeper was right in what he did. I see the ref..has rescinded the red card. What would anyone do in this circumstance?
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?
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.
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:02:41 PM
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?
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.
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!
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:33:20 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:59:52 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 22, 2011, 11:17:26 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:38:56 PM
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.
Quote from: trileacman on December 22, 2011, 11:06:40 PMI'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.
And so, a new use of 'ration' was born.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on December 22, 2011, 11:17:26 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:38:56 PM
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.
Quote from: David McKeown on December 23, 2011, 12:13:37 AM
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 (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 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14248097)) were in the wrong too.
Quote from: David McKeown on December 23, 2011, 12:13:37 AM
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.
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.
It wouldn't even get to court, the police would laugh them out of the custody suite.
David, if you're wishing punishment on a man for instinctively protecting himself, can I ask what punishment you'd dole out to the invader?
Trlieac, I'll repeat again that it takes two people to agree to Queensberry Rules before they can be introduced. By launching a flying kick at the keeper, the invader made it very clear that he wasn't in the mood for taking off his coat and settling things like gentlemen.
Next thing you'll be telling me that the Gardai who kicked seven shades of shit out of English fans at Lansdowne in 1995, were out of order.
If someone makes an attack on you then in my opinion you can use as much force as you like to stop him and prevent him coming back at you. I'd answer questions on the quantity of the force at a later date. FFS this guy could have had a knife or anything. What did ye want the keeper to do, make a citizens arrest? I wonder what planet some people are on sometimes. The dirty sc**bag came on the field to attack and injure a footballer and the footballer defended himself. Its time the law protected the victims and not the perpetrators of crime. In my opinion he should have gave him a few more slaps. The ref's red card is down to the laws of the game and I am not sure what they are in relation to defending yourself against an invading fan.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on December 23, 2011, 08:55:49 AM
It wouldn't even get to court, the police would laugh them out of the custody suite.
I disagree the law is clear that what the keeper did was not self defence.
Anyone who doesn't have sympathy for the keeper has obviously been fortunate enough to never found themselves the victim of an attack of any description. If the law thinks he should have got some good advice and waited for the stewards to save him, then the law has a very poor understanding of human nature. The idiot ran 30-40 metres before launching an assault that the victim only saw and avoided at the last second. He then lashed out twice in the next 5 seconds before he even had time to figure out what was happening. If you watch afterwards he even braced himself for what he thought was another attacker but was actually an official coming to his aid. It would have been minutes before he even understood what had happened.
I do have sympathy for the keeper but to me it appears he seeks to extract retribution for being attacked. A lot of what has been said here should certainly go as mitigation to what he did but it's not a defence.
Quote from: trileacman on December 22, 2011, 11:06:40 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:59:52 PM
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.
If a sc**bag tried to dirty joe me from behind and ended up on the ground like yer man, I'd be disappointed in myself if he didn't feel the full force of my dealer boots to serve as a memory to him of the event. I might pay a price for that down the line but my conscience would be clear.
Quote from: David McKeown on December 23, 2011, 08:48:38 AM
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.
Proof if ever it were needed.....The Law is an ASS :D
I don't blame the keeper here. The guy wasn't running out to get his autograph.
Someone who is crazy enough to run onto field is bound to shock you. Your self preservation instincts take precedence over the wish to engage in an honourable and jolly old fair contest.
Perhaps he should have sat on the supporter and waited for a member of the constabulary to arrive:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=08BqaSuEE_w
Quote from: David McKeown on December 23, 2011, 09:45:30 AM
I do have sympathy for the keeper but to me it appears he seeks to extract retribution for being attacked. A lot of what has been said here should certainly go as mitigation to what he did but it's not a defence.
A sc**bag who launches an unprovoked physical assault on a man deserves anything they get. The keeper should have sunk the boot into him more than he did.
The goalie defended himself deftly with the first strike. After that, he behaved with ignominy.
He totally lost his head under those circumstances, the ref was quite correct to send him off.
However he has mitigating circumstances for his ignominious actions and these were bizarre circumstances.
AZ were attacked first and we all know how sensitive soccer players are to being touched, the goalie could not be expected to regain his composure and play a further part in the game ::)
I think in those circumstances the ref can just abandon the game and the Association works out who gets the result, usually to the favour of the team who were attacked. It will be interesting to see if the fact that they walked off in protest first, has any bearing on the normal procedure.
In general, goalies are a unpredictable bunch, it's a brave man or a fool who would provoke one without good reason.
Remember that Dida character for Milan at Celtic pk. It ended up that he received a ban for simulating the effect of getting hit by a sledgehammer, when in fact the harmless pitch invader had just consoled him with a gentle pat on the neck, as he strolled by.
There are few situations where it is justified to kick a man on the ground but this is probably one of them. I'd say the goalie's only regret is he didn't kick him harder. Fair play to him.
I'm with the keeper on this one. If you watch it in slow motion you'd think it was premeditated but watch it at full speed and you see it happened in the blink of an eye. The keeper was acting in self defence, and kicking the asshole on the ground was also self defence. If I was in his position and suddenly somebody was crazy/drunk/high enough to run out onto the field and attack me out of nowhere then how the hell am I supposed to know that he isn't armed or something? I'd want him to go down and stay down for my own safety. That was the survival instinct that kicked in here.
There wasn't any problem when schmeicel did this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtzFDU1oYI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Quote from: trileacman on December 22, 2011, 10:54:17 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on December 22, 2011, 10:33:20 PM
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 you
r 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.
That's alright then, you let him up to have another go at you.
Hopefully he won't be more successful, hopefully he won't have a knife or another weapon.
Jesus wept.
I guess that most of those applauding the action of 'sticking the boot in on someone lying on the ground' would be too busy running away scared witless (after pissing your shorts), if faced with a bit of fear.
'Those who shout the loudest are the weakest in their actions', as the saying sort of goes.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 23, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
There wasn't any problem when schmeicel did this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtzFDU1oYI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
That's what the goalkeeper should have done instead of kicking him twice on the ground.
Quote from: Main Street on December 23, 2011, 09:45:50 PM
I guess that most of those applauding the action of 'sticking the boot in on someone lying on the ground' would be too busy running away scared witless (after pissing your shorts), if faced with a bit of fear.
'Those who shout the loudest are the weakest in their actions', as the saying sort of goes.
What are you on about?
What exactly would have you done if you were the keeper?
Quote from: Captain Obvious on December 23, 2011, 09:54:43 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 23, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
There wasn't any problem when schmeicel did this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtzFDU1oYI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
That's what the goalkeeper should have done instead of kicking him twice on the ground.
Really? This guy didn't try to assault anyone, just went for a wee run. Schmeicel intercepted him and assaulted him by firing him of the pitch. There's wasn't a word about it at the time cos yer mam got what he deserved.
Quote from: hardstation on December 23, 2011, 10:45:14 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 23, 2011, 10:44:14 PM
Quote from: Captain Obvious on December 23, 2011, 09:54:43 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 23, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
There wasn't any problem when schmeicel did this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtzFDU1oYI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
That's what the goalkeeper should have done instead of kicking him twice on the ground.
Really? This guy didn't try to assault anyone, just went for a wee run. Schmeicel intercepted him and assaulted him by firing him of the pitch. There's wasn't a word about it at the time cos yer mam got what he deserved.
Nice.
:D f**king predictive text. Apologies to the mothers of all posters on this thread.
Main Street, you're now lost in a world of generalisations and presumptions. Well done you.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 23, 2011, 10:44:14 PM
Quote from: Captain Obvious on December 23, 2011, 09:54:43 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 23, 2011, 08:57:10 PM
There wasn't any problem when schmeicel did this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLtzFDU1oYI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
That's what the goalkeeper should have done instead of kicking him twice on the ground.
Really? This guy didn't try to assault anyone, just went for a wee run. Schmeicel intercepted him and assaulted him by firing him of the pitch. There's wasn't a word about it at the time cos yer mam got what he deserved.
Yes really! pushing a "fan" off the field of play > kicking a "fan" on the ground.
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.
After watching the video I believe the keeper should have let loose with the boot to keep the man down. It was an unprovoked attack on the keeper who has only a split-second to determine what is going on. His response to kick again when the man is down is right, you can see the "Fan" trying to get back up.
After Monica Seles was stabbed in the back by a "Fan" these sports fiqures assume they would be protected while working, it doesn't always happen as evidence of the video.
And the red card? The player is suppose to let an attack on his own body go on so he doesn't get the card....thats absurd.
Can you compare it to your own job? You are sitting at your desk and some stranger enters your shop, walks up and attacks you......would you hit once and say thats enough? Now since you defended yourself, your manager pulls you aside and says "well you hit the man there so you are now out of work."
There are nutjobs everywhere you have to watch your back and sometimes have to defend yourself......the keeper was just and the ref made a bad call.
Not sure how i would have reacted to a situation like that? people are going to have different opinions on how to defend themselves that case with the Mayo farmer Padraig Nally spring to mind.
Quote from: hardstation on December 24, 2011, 02:02:57 AM
No. Ref made the right call. Violent conduct on the field of play. Had to go.
Well done to the 'keeper for booting him. Cnut deserved it.
Funny my opinion would be the exact opposite in both cases. Can't understand why the ref would send him off. The guy ran at him and kicked him, he's going to react somehow. Continue playing the f**king match and let the courts/police sort out the rest. The only thing I feel is that kicking a guy on the ground is a trampish act and the keeper shouldn't have reacted thus.
Someone said the keeper should face charges, wouldn't agree. He really broke no laws but just losing the plot and wailing into someone on the ground is a bit of an over-reaction. Would he have done the same if the guy had slapped across the back of the head? Or if he just seen this guy running towards him would he be right in immediately assuming he had a knife, throwing him to the ground and kick the f**k out of him?
I'd consider myself a fairly mild mannered bloke! But my house got broken into a few months ago (and again quite recently) and I think I started a thread at the time that if I'd caught the little hoors in the act, I honestly would not be able to control what actions I might take! I'd say a few hefty kicks up the hole would be the least I would be dishing out given half a chance! So I draw similar parallels to this goalkeeper and I ask the lads on here, if they walked in and found someone robbing their house, what would they do? Make sure you nullified the threat or push them away until the police game? Just because the law is an ass doesn't mean you have to be!
Quote from: hardstation on December 24, 2011, 02:02:57 AM
No. Ref made the right call. Violent conduct on the field of play. Had to go.
Well done to the 'keeper for booting him. Cnut deserved it.
By that logic, a team or every team can hire out some idiot to attack a player to get the player tossed. What would the fine be 100, 500? A slap on the wrist that some owner or management can pay and use that as part of their game plan.
It should only apply to people involved within the match - players, ref or others involved and if a player jumps into the stands.
Goalie done the right thing. If he let yer man away with his terrible carry on it wouldn't exactly discourage any other head the ball doing something similar.
If i was that keeper and i was attacked in this manner and the nutjob had fallen i'd have been down on top of him hammering the fcuker until either a - there was no possibility of him attacking me again or b - stewards / police have him restrained.
i'd expect little more than a pat on the back from the ref for protecting the remaining players and himself.
If you are attacked out of the blue going about your business then you are entitled to defend yourself in my book. The attacker is taking the risks - he cannot be afforded the luxury of attacking someone then demanding restraint after he has placed the victim in a position where they reasonably fear for their life.
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on December 24, 2011, 01:23:58 AM
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?
Quote from: David McKeown on December 24, 2011, 07:05:32 PM
Quote from: SLIGONIAN on December 24, 2011, 01:23:58 AM
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.
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.
Quotewhere 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.
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
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.
Listen to Pinochet here ::)
QuoteOnce 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.
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.
QuoteWobbler. 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
Quote from: Windmill abu on December 26, 2011, 02:17:24 AM
QuoteWobbler. 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.
QuoteI 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.
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)
Quote from: David McKeown on December 26, 2011, 11:23:18 AM
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.
Quote from: David McKeown on December 26, 2011, 11:23:18 AM
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.
He should have just gripped him by the lug.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16360934 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16360934)
The fan got 6 months (2 suspended).
http://blogs.nfl.com/2012/01/05/packers-lb-jones-tackles-teenage-fan-to-turf/?module=HP11_content_stream
no whinging or handwringing about it afterwards either.