I read this morning that Newcastle's Jose Enrique had called for Nigel De Jong to be banned until Ben Arfa has returned from his broken leg. I now read that Newcastle are urging the FA to take "appropriate action" against De Jong. I also note that no-one from Newcastle urged the FA to take action against Nolan when he blatantly did Anichebe.
Why the PFA remain silent when one of their members deliberately threaten the career of another of their members has always been a mystery to me.
My question is, if a player deliberately takes out another player for a prolonged period of time, is a maximum 3 games a fitting punishment?
John Keating, Posted 05/10/2010 at 19:42:17
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:11:23
1 comment as Carl Henry from Wolves didn't put his opponent out for a lenghthy spell does that mean he shouldn't serve a 3 match ban ?
2 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:17:27
3 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:20:09
4 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:27:00
Stupid, reckless, badly-timed, over-exuberant... yes, I can believe that. And I would vote for longer/parallel punishments on that basis. But tackling to intentionally break someone's leg? I thought we moved on from those Good Old Days some time ago.
5 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:26:03
Banning a player for as long as the player he fouls is injured is completely unworkable for the following reason.
What happens if a player goes in hard and aggravates an existing but undiagnosed weakness in the opponent's knee, resulting in a 9-month absence?
Yes, the tackle was hard. Yes, there was clear intent to foul the player. But no, it was nowhere near as bad as 10 other fouls in the game. Do you still ban the player for 9 months?
Injury lengths depend on so many factors, only one of which is the specific nature of the foul committed. Players can fall awkwardly after a foul. All players have different recovery rates. Some have setbacks. Some work harder to regain full fitness than others.
It would be absolutely insane to ban a player for an indeterminate length of time when you consider all these variables.
6 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:26:39
7 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:36:38
One thing I'm happy to repeat however, is that Newcastle can shove their hypocritical indignation up their proverbial Gallowgate!
8 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:37:36
9 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:39:57
On a similar note, lets make sure that the next time that you (read: anyone) make's an error of judgement at work, that they are also automatically banned from premises and pay with-held until such time as the issue is rectified.
Doesn't really work, does it?
When players go on to the pitch for £20k+ per week, they know the risks. The clubs and players are insured against injury and inability to play. It's almost impossible to judge what is malice and what is bad luck in the heat of a paced tackle.
It's part of the game, and you can't really legislate nor fairly judge incidents not on their own merit. There are plenty of malice-intended, horrendous tackles which *don't* end up in injury. And plenty of innocent 50:50 tackles which end up with serious breaks.
It's impossible to do anything other than it already is.
10 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:56:25
11 Posted 05/10/2010 at 21:12:06
Kompany is twice the player De jong will ever be I'm surprised he starts.
12 Posted 05/10/2010 at 20:20:09
13 Posted 05/10/2010 at 22:11:57
14 Posted 05/10/2010 at 22:19:08
15 Posted 05/10/2010 at 22:30:58
I am beginning to worry that with all the millions involved now that some of it is filtering through to referees.
How else can you explain some of the absurdly obvious favoritism show to certain teams.
16 Posted 05/10/2010 at 22:50:09
Man U v Man City he adds and extra 2 minutes of extra time on to enable Man U to get a winner. Everton v Man U as soon as we attack ina 4v3 situation he blows up despite there still being well over a minute to play with added time for the goals. He is a cheat simple as and the FA should get onto him.
Hos performance on Sunday for the City Newcastle game was a disgrace. De Jong should have seen red for a disgracefully robust challenge. Man City's penalty was iffy to say the least and Newcastle had a stone-waller turned down when tosser Atkinson was only 5 yards away.
I have no sympathy for the gobshite Geordies but thos tosspot of a ref needs to be 'outed'.
I bet after the game he was duly 'entertained' by the far east mafia.
17 Posted 05/10/2010 at 23:11:56
He went flying right through Ben Arfa, and scissored his trailing leg. It was an absolutely digusting tackle.
Guy should definately be suspended for a minimum of 3 games, if not longer.
Intent? yeah - no question. No professional engages in a tackle like that without knowing what might occur.
18 Posted 05/10/2010 at 23:55:27
19 Posted 06/10/2010 at 00:29:58
20 Posted 06/10/2010 at 00:37:14
Yes, occasionally it does happen ? I played in a pick-up game on Sunday where a guy went in for a very innocent challenge and broke the other fella's ankle. There was no malice at all. It was an accident. Poor guy was given morphine for the pain right there on the spot. There's a difference between accidental outcomes that cause injury and malicious tackling that is bound to hurt someone.
I saw DeJong's tackle as the latter. And "it" shouldn't be allowed to just "happen"/
21 Posted 06/10/2010 at 03:21:21
I think it is a red herring to try to find intention. A sneaky player with the intention to injure can always calculate it to appear like it was just an accident, leaving a dangerous trailing leg or following up hard on a mis timed tackle.
We need to take out the subjective element of intent. As long as it is objectively reckless (i.e. a reasonable person would think it is likely to result in injury), measures should be put in place for greater levels of punishment depending on culpability. They have already done this with the no tackle from behind, and no two footed tackles.
That said, I am not sure if more categories could be added without splitting hairs. Guess it is up to the ref and the disciplinary board, with his expertise, to judge whether the player was reasonably trying to get the ball or the player was being reckless by going in when he had little chance of getting the ball, or if excessive force was used than was necessary to attempt to get the ball. Maybe we shouldn't be celebrating the "full blooded" slide tackle because if mistimed, the consequences can be ugly, although it may be unintended.
22 Posted 06/10/2010 at 04:34:43
Given that De Jong wasn't carded and the way that penalty decisions went in that game, the possibility of corruption has to be considered.
How could the ref not send him off? It's indefensible. Sheikh Yermoneymaker is intent on buying success through players, so why not refs as well?
Open yer eyes people!
23 Posted 06/10/2010 at 10:39:01
Let's now apply that rule to Kevin Nolan. Anichebe was out for a year and then has had knee and shin problems ever since that challenge and still remians crocked! Where is the justice? No doubt Ben Arfa will be back to full fitness before Victor is, and yet that smug kopite still goes round being his usual unprofessional horrible self.
24 Posted 06/10/2010 at 11:04:58
Or perhaps it was Brian Marwood while he consoling Adrian Heath and limping around the ward and feeling the effects of his tackle from Peter Reid.
Or maybe it was anyone in Jack Charlton's little black book.
Or any Sunday morning game when revenge is committed.
25 Posted 06/10/2010 at 11:21:53
You made my point for me in the last part of what you said,
'There's a difference between accidental outcomes that cause injury and malicious tackling that is bound to hurt someone.
I saw DeJong's tackle as the latter.'
You may have seen it like that, others will have seen it differently. I personally thought it was late, a bit clumsy etc, but definitely not deliberate. How can you prove it was deliberate anyway? It's a non-starter, anyone accused of deliberately injuring someone will always plead innocence, and it would descend into your word against theirs. The current system is adequate, if the Premier League want to ban him for a few games retrospectively, they can do. End of.
26 Posted 06/10/2010 at 11:09:52
These bans in line with injury would be too difficult to manage as the punishment would fall down to the opinion from a panel. Would we be saying the same if Beckford had started his career with a couple of hat-tricks etc then lays into Harper with a badly timed tackle and is banned for 12 weeks or so? Probably not.
De Jong is a thug and his punishment long-term will result in him being a target for refs over every tackle he makes, like Fellaini was in is first season. One of the posts was spot on stating the City team talk around Ben Arfa, you can imagine it being "don't give him space on the ball and nail him, look what he did to Everton". Heitinga, somewhere in between his non challenge and De Jong's was required at Goodison that day.
Injuries are a fact of football but I applaud Holland's national coach taking the stance he has, despite reaching a World Cup Final he see's something more important than simply winning in this manner.
27 Posted 06/10/2010 at 11:47:50
28 Posted 06/10/2010 at 12:00:49
The problem is the definition between a hard player and a dirty player.
Roy Keane and Patrick Viera were hard tough tackling players.
Nigel De Jong and Lee Cattermole come under the dirty/dangerous category.
De Jong has more than one previous though.
29 Posted 06/10/2010 at 12:37:26
Take Hypothetically that Chelsea play versus Man Utd with 5 games to go. Chelsea and Man UTD are the only two teams that can realistically win the league, Chelsea have a 2 pointlead in the league and have a 2 - o lead in this match so with 10 minutes to go they bring on a young reserve team defender who wouldnt be required to play again between now and the end of the season.
"Right son, go and take Berbatov out of the game and make sure he misses the rest of the season.
The sub isnt required for the rest of the season and so the ban doesnt matter, whereas Berbatov is out for the season taking Man UTDs chances of winning the league with him and effectively handing Chelsea the title.
The same can be said (perhaps more so) at the bottom of the league. This ruling could lead to cheating and corruption.
30 Posted 06/10/2010 at 12:30:08
31 Posted 06/10/2010 at 13:17:28
De Jong has always had a reputation as a "physical player". And yes I would agree with those who say the game is a physical contact sport and guys like De Jong are part of football and should remain so. However it's one thing to play a "physical game" it's quite another to play a "reckless" one. In my opinion a longer than usual ban would be in order, something like 5 or 6 games rather than the usual 3.
I welcome the actions of the Dutch coach in dropping him from the squad, but I would have more pleased if he had taken some action during the World Cup Final. I remember with fondness the Dutch team of 1974 and what happened in the World Cup Final did a lot of harm to the image of Dutch Football.
I don't think anyone would condone dangerous play, but I must say I have a certain sympathy for defenders in certain situations. What should a defender do if an attacker is in the penalty area - attempt to tackle him ? Or let the guy have a clear run on goal? In most cases when a penalty is awarded the defender is given a yellow card. That hardly seems fair to me. Basically if a defender mistimes a tackle, there is a risk of a yellow card but if a striker mistimes a shot or a midfielder mistimes a pass what happens ? Isn't it a similar scenario in most cases. Football is becoming card happy, and whilst we don't want to see dangerous play do we really want to see the game devoid of any physical challenge ? If we carry on it will become like Basetball and the only way to stop attackers will be to block them in some way and the only way to get the ball back would be for the opposition make a mistake, winning the ball back would be outlawed.
Football should remain a physical contact sport, but played fairly and with fairness shown to both attackers and defensive players.
32 Posted 06/10/2010 at 13:44:45
Don't think a 3 game ban is sufficient for such tackles as Nolan's and De Jong's, though difficult to ban them for as long as the opposing player is out injured as well. Maybe somewhere in between (6/12 games?) might be more appropriate.
Good to see the Holland manager banning De Jong- would be nice to see more managers taking a hard line over their own players, rather than just whinging about bans
33 Posted 06/10/2010 at 15:11:39
"It's a contact sport" is a ridiculous macho generalisation!
So should shouting racial abuse at a colleague at work not get you disciplined because it's "only words"?
Should stabbing someone get you the same jail term as pushing someone because they are both occasions when you making contact?
Should rape not be punished when the person being raped isn't a virgin so it's just like the every day sex they have?
Football is a 'minimal contact sport'. There's a massive difference between 'minimal contact sports' and sports like MMA fighting, to generalize them under the same heading is ludicrous
Sorry, I couldn't hold my tongue on this.
34 Posted 06/10/2010 at 15:44:08
"Roy Keane and Patrick Viera were hard tough tackling players."
I don't think they fall into the same category. Yes they played the same way but Keane had a mean vindictive streak and did some very nasty things.
Great player, peerless in his time, but nasty as well.
35 Posted 06/10/2010 at 15:49:48
36 Posted 06/10/2010 at 15:47:56
What if someone injures a player on last game of season, and the player is fit come the start of season, Does that mean no ban is required?
What about a fairly innocuous challenge, but the result is a player being injured for 6 months?
What if say, next week, Fellaini injures Johnny No-Mark with Squad No 74, who comes on in the 82nd minute. Liverpool say the injury is serious, complications arise (according to the club doctor) and this player is ruled out injured for 7 months. Liverpool pay Johnny No-Mark a nice fee to keep quiet, say how bad his injury is, Everton lose their best player.
Injuries happen, and tough tackling is part of the game. I don't want this sport to become basketball. Cattermole is a good player, those calling dirty are those same people who get up in arms when people call Fellaini dirty. Well, they are both guilty of the same thing, being a bit reckless; however, Cattermole has yet to develop his timing, he is a very good player.
De Jong, a couple of high pofile incidents, and the media like a hate figure. The same people who dismiss the media reaction as being paper-selling bullshit fall for it, hook, line and sinker when it's directed at non-Everton players. I remember when De Jong signed for City, people on this site were sayng how he is the type of player Everton need, one of the players of Euro '08, now you're saying he's crap and just a thug? It was a tough tackle and he got the man as well as the ball, there wasn't intent to break a leg, but these things happen.
Basically, if it was an Everton player, there would be an article on this website defending him.
37 Posted 06/10/2010 at 16:10:05
What ridiculous comparisons.
38 Posted 06/10/2010 at 16:35:43
Yes that's right, I am trying to point out the ridiculousness of tagging it with the general "contact sport" name; To give it the tag "contact sport" when MMA fighting is a contact sport draws - to quote you - a "ridiculous comparison".
Calling it this general name opens up peoples minds to what should and shouldn't be allowed, do we allow mid-kicks? (De Jong on Alonso) or sweep kicks? (Henry on Gomez).
39 Posted 06/10/2010 at 18:00:46
40 Posted 06/10/2010 at 18:49:41
The stabbing example though was just an extreme example of what we're talking about with push becoming nudge and stabbing becoming karate kicks (or headbutts Andrew!) and the racist example was pretty much a spot on allegory I think.
The letter of the law states 'incidental contact' is allowed in the same way incidental hand ball is allowed (if hands are by your side). We don't say football is a sport where you're allowed to handle it so it infuriates me when people say football is a sport where you're allowed contact.
41 Posted 06/10/2010 at 20:08:17
I can understand why Duncan decided not to play for Scotland again. De Jong deserves to be punished but that should be down to the Football authorities. I have to feel that Newcastle should keep quiet and show some dignity. I have been very critical of David Moyes and his tactics, however I think that he deserves great credit for the restraint he showed following our match at Newcastle in 2009 when first Mikel Arteta and then Victor Anichebe suffered bad injuries as the result of poor challenges. We lost two players for a long period of time, yet I can't recall Moyes having a go at either of the Newcastle players responsible.
On a general note, watching quite a lot of the 6 Nations games, I can't help feel some envy at the attitude of respect shown towards the match officials. The respect it appears is two way - with the referees treating the players with respect and explaing decisions. It is a pity that the FA can't show some initiative, the relationship between players and match officials needs to be addressed. There needs to be respect from the players to the officials and from the officials to the players. If that was the case then the game would improve and perhaps we would have less reckless play.
42 Posted 06/10/2010 at 20:49:12
43 Posted 06/10/2010 at 22:09:34
you are saying a push is like a good solid tackle,and whee thedistiction needds to be made is between the push and the stab, both contact yes but both very ifferent in nature....you are then saying de Jongs was like a stabbing, well I disagree. Ben Arfa had the ball, an it was a reckless challenge by de Jong with bad consequences, but the difference between his challenge and a goo solidd tackle is far smaller than the difference between a pus and a stabbing. So the analogy, i'm afraid, does not work.
44 Posted 07/10/2010 at 00:25:30
I know the Ben Arfa one is the subject here, I just wasn't happy with the contact sport excuse.
45 Posted 07/10/2010 at 07:08:43
I do think De Jong should serve a longer ban than the standard 3 games, however I believe that should be decided by an independant "party". It could have been a case of serious injury at Wigan as well. I hope that Wolves are not going to get a reputation for such play but I have to say that I am dismayed at Mick McCathry's response which I don't think did Wolves as a club any favours. He seemed more concerned in portraying his team as an "honest bunch of lads" than condemning the challenge by Henry. They may well be a hard working decent set of players - but one of them was well out of order and I would have liked to have seen his manager recognising that his player was badly at fault.
46 Posted 07/10/2010 at 07:43:15
Sorry mate had to pull you there. As some one who's practised karate for over 20 years i don't like the reference to violence. Karate is an art and thugs or bullys like De Jong would not be tolerated in any Dojo. There is great respect and care for your opponent whilst training not to intentionally injure each other, something which i think is missing from some footballers.
47 Posted 07/10/2010 at 13:12:35
Now do you not think Mancini watched that performance? Mancini knows De Jong's character and will have definitely told him to go out there and stop Ben Arfa. I know you can't prove anything but I would point the finger as much at Mancini, the horrible slimey bastard.
48 Posted 07/10/2010 at 15:35:58
49 Posted 07/10/2010 at 15:43:20
50 Posted 09/10/2010 at 08:03:33
It was very very clearly intentional in every way shape and form. He went for the player and not the ball. If you've seen the tackle then you know how bad it was. It was deliberate / wreckless and dangerous. He went for the player and not the ball and the fact he had a wry smile after it should sum it all up perfectly.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.