FIFA President wants life-time ban for dangerous tackles

[Fyzoman]

Friday, Mar 7, 2008 6:45 AM ET

[REF WATCH] In the wake of the horrific foul by Birmingham defender Martin Taylor that shattered the leg of Arsenal's Eduardo, which earned Taylor a three-game suspension, FIFA president Sepp Blatter said that players guilty of deliberately dangerous tackles should be banned from the game.

"Dangerous tackling is one of the most important issues in soccer at the moment," Blatter said. "Players who do this kind of thing intentionally should be banned from the game."

Blatter called for stricter refereeing and implicated coaches.

"The mechanism where this happens today is obvious," he said. "The pressure on the coach or manager to win is such that he encourages his players to go for victory at any cost. There is no microphone in the locker room, so he says, 'Go, go, go'. Until when? Until the point where the referee intervenes.

"Some referees have in their mind, 'How long can I let the game go without giving a card?' They think they are good referees if the game flows for 20 minutes without an interruption. But the referees must give yellow cards or red cards in the first three or four minutes if necessary and we will call for them to do so. Then the referee will have peace on the field.

"At the moment it is just not working."

Blatter added: "Attacking somebody is criminal, whether it happens on a soccer field or elsewhere. It is a crime and should be treated as such."

I especially like the last paragraph.

[KND2]

Problem with this is to ban a man for life for that Tackle is ridiculous.

how dangerous a man get tackle cannot be measured on how much the player get injured.

The man was going for the ball Edurado get to the ball first move it out of the way but his foot was in position.
end result injury

this happens a million times in football at all levels but the injury is a random thing.

It was not like the man run up to him with an intentional doubles or an intentional kick.

Very rare in football I see another player trying to break a next man foot.

[RGarcia]

Problem with this is to ban a man for life for that Tackle is ridiculous.

how dangerous a man get tackle cannot be measured on how much the player get injured.

The man was going for the ball Edurado get to the ball first move it out of the way but his foot was in position.
end result injury

this happens a million times in football at all levels but the injury is a random thing.

It was not like the man run up to him with an intentional doubles or an intentional kick.

Very rare in football I see another player trying to break a next man foot.

the word i looked at was Dangerous! a player can be a hard but clean tackler. And i think thats where the difference lies... Not killing your point KND but such tackle on that Aresenal player was a dangerous tackle and he should be banned for a very long time, LIFETIME? i do not think so but for some time. That was a all peggs up stamp mini slide tackle he did. regardless of wining the ball or not first.

[elan]

Problem with this is to ban a man for life for that Tackle is ridiculous.

how dangerous a man get tackle cannot be measured on how much the player get injured.

The man was going for the ball Edurado get to the ball first move it out of the way but his foot was in position.
end result injury

this happens a million times in football at all levels but the injury is a random thing.

It was not like the man run up to him with an intentional doubles or an intentional kick.

Very rare in football I see another player trying to break a next man foot.

the word i looked at was Dangerous! a player can be a hard but clean tackler. And i think thats where the difference lies... Not killing your point KND but such tackle on that Aresenal player was a dangerous tackle and he should be banned for a very long time, LIFETIME? i do not think so but for some time. That was a all peggs up stamp mini slide tackle he did. regardless of wining the ball or not first.

The tackle was dangerous, buut was it criminal I think not. I have noticed that many English [layer tackle like Taylor did. Tackling like that is a pway to protect yourself from being injured yourself. If you look at tapes teaching tackling they teach that technique just not with your studs up.
Taylor's tackle was not intentional. It happened.

Splatter need shut up and stick to counting he tief money.

[andre samuel]

Sepp Blatter outta place in my opinion!!

www.skysports.com

Fifa president Sepp Blatter has launched a stinging attack on Martin Taylor and revealed Fifa could impose a further ban on the player.


Blatter hasy described the tackle by Birmingham defender Taylor which left Arsenal striker Eduardo with a broken leg as an "attack" which has "nothing to do with football".

Blatter admitted new regulations will allow Fifato review decisions such as the Football Association's mandatory three-match ban for Taylor, with a view to imposing their own more substantial punishments.

Taylor's challenge on Arsenal striker Eduardo last month - came in for especially outspoken criticism from Blatter, who revealed Fifa will ask the Football Association for its report on this specific incident so that they can consider whether further action can or should be taken.


Shocking
"It is shocking when you see how this player was attacked. It is not football," he told Sky Sports News.

"Football is a contact game, but it is a game with rules.

"You have to have respect - and what we witnessed there has nothing to do with football.

"This is to destroy another player, and that is not the aim of our game."

"Our game is there for entertainment, for emotions and even a little bit of passion but not this way.

Blatter is adamant more stringent penalties are required for certain instances of foul play.

"Such players should not only be suspended for a certain time - they should be banned until they have realised they have done something absolutely wrong," added Blatter

"How can you imagine in any other profession - that a dentist would try to demolish a dentist, or a painter a painter? Whatever it is not possible.

"On the field of play as well, no this is a game please, this is an appeal to everybody to stop this."

"I think three matches I should have the report of the referee and match observers that okayed that.

"We will do it. Ask the league through the FA to give us the report on that and give it to our disciplinary committee to have a look on that and we will come back on that.

"We will have a look on that I was very much shocked by seeing that."


Forgiven
Eduardo's injury is expected to keep him out of football until the end of the year - but his fellow Arsenal forward Emmanuel Adebayor is prepared to accept that Taylor had no intention of inflicting such a serious injury.

"We have to forgive him," he said.

"Whatever happened, I cannot believe he had it in his mind to turn the ankle of another player.

"He did not do it on purpose," Adebayor told Sky Sports News.

[weary1969]

Y he eh ban heself 4 being dotish

[Filho]

Problem with this is to ban a man for life for that Tackle is ridiculous.

how dangerous a man get tackle cannot be measured on how much the player get injured.

The man was going for the ball Edurado get to the ball first move it out of the way but his foot was in position.
end result injury

this happens a million times in football at all levels but the injury is a random thing.

It was not like the man run up to him with an intentional doubles or an intentional kick.

Very rare in football I see another player trying to break a next man foot.

the word i looked at was Dangerous! a player can be a hard but clean tackler. And i think thats where the difference lies... Not killing your point KND but such tackle on that Aresenal player was a dangerous tackle and he should be banned for a very long time, LIFETIME? i do not think so but for some time. That was a all peggs up stamp mini slide tackle he did. regardless of wining the ball or not first.

Must agree with KND. If Blatter going to put his money where his mouth is, he have to ban every highly dangerous tackle, even if the recipient or would-be recipient got out of harm's way. I have seen worse tackles than Taylor's where the tackler just didn't make the kinda contact that could seriously injure a player. And you'd have to prove without a doubt that malice was intended, and that is a slippery slope. Blatter being extremely irresponsible. The head of FIFA should not try to publicly shame an individual and pass judgement like judge and jury. He wants to compare a dangerous tackle like any other attack, then he must also follow some sort of judicial due process and act as though Taylor is innocent (of malice..not of a dangerous tackle) unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

[Bakes]

Must agree with KND. If Blatter going to put his money where his mouth is, he have to ban every highly dangerous tackle, even if the recipient or would-be recipient got out of harm's way. I have seen worse tackles than Taylor's where the tackler just didn't make the kinda contact that could seriously injure a player. And you'd have to prove without a doubt that malice was intended, and that is a slippery slope. Blatter being extremely irresponsible. The head of FIFA should not try to publicly shame an individual and pass judgement like judge and jury. He wants to compare a dangerous tackle like any other attack, then he must also follow some sort of judicial due process and act as though Taylor is innocent (of malice..not of a dangerous tackle) unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

I disagree.

I think the end result of the tackle is very pertinent to the penalty irrespective of intent.  It is very rare that a man goes out there and tackles dangerously with the expressed intent of causing injury.  The point isn't to penalize the intent but to penalize the inherent recklessness of the play.  As I said in another thread, if you assault someone then the penalty is one commiserate with assault.  If your victim should die of his injuries then the penalty is escalated appropriately...irrespective of the intent.  So it's not as though there isn't precedent for adjusting the penalty according to the outcome...instead it is very commonplace that the penalty is made proportional to the harm.

Players must know to act under control when on the pitch, and saying "I didn't mean to" afterwards won't absolve you of punishment when your actions puts a man's life or career in jeopardy.

[Filho]

Must agree with KND. If Blatter going to put his money where his mouth is, he have to ban every highly dangerous tackle, even if the recipient or would-be recipient got out of harm's way. I have seen worse tackles than Taylor's where the tackler just didn't make the kinda contact that could seriously injure a player. And you'd have to prove without a doubt that malice was intended, and that is a slippery slope. Blatter being extremely irresponsible. The head of FIFA should not try to publicly shame an individual and pass judgement like judge and jury. He wants to compare a dangerous tackle like any other attack, then he must also follow some sort of judicial due process and act as though Taylor is innocent (of malice..not of a dangerous tackle) unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

I disagree.

I think the end result of the tackle is very pertinent to the penalty irrespective of intent.  It is very rare that a man goes out there and tackles dangerously with the expressed intent of causing injury.  The point isn't to penalize the intent but to penalize the inherent recklessness of the play.  As I said in another thread, if you assault someone then the penalty is one commiserate with assault.  If your victim should die of his injuries then the penalty is escalated appropriately...irrespective of the intent.  So it's not as though there isn't precedent for adjusting the penalty according to the outcome...instead it is very commonplace that the penalty is made proportional to the harm.

Players must know to act under control when on the pitch, and saying "I didn't mean to" afterwards won't absolve you of punishment when your actions puts a man's life or career in jeopardy.

I don't disagree that the end result is pertinent. In fact, if Taylor had executed the same tackle and completely missed Eduardo, or got all ball he may never have even gotten a card. But I believe that once we are speaking about banning someone for life from football, you should have to prove intent and you have to have some consistency across all reckless tackles that endanger a player's health, even if they don't result in harm. If a man shoots someone on purpose and he dies, it is murder, if he shoots at someone on purpose but misses or just harms, he can still be charged with attempted murder. The punishment for each may be different, but at the end of the day..just as in real life... 1) Intent has to be proved and 2) you doh get a bligh if your 'murder' attempt' doesn't harm anyone.

[giggsy11]

If he wants to impose life time bans or sh!t ends up in court yuh have tuh prove intent. Yuh could tell when a man tryin tuh tackle a man tuh break him up. keane tackle on dat Man City player was a criminal act. He was tryin tuh take him out! Even he say he would be in jail tuh day if he was playin under Blotter's proposal about imposing a life ban. Taylor's tackle was mistimed and caused the ultimate damage. Blatter acting like did the first time a footballer geh hurt from a tackle, wey he was all dis time? Oh dats right he was to busy coverin up for Jack. He lacks zero credibility!

[Bakes]

I don't disagree that the end result is pertinent. In fact, if Taylor had executed the same tackle and completely missed Eduardo, or got all ball he may never have even gotten a card.

Not true.  Yellow cards are often given out for such plays even when no contact is made.  Let's not forget that the tackle was studs up and shin high.

But I believe that once we are speaking about banning someone for life from football, you should have to prove intent and you have to have some consistency across all reckless tackles that endanger a player's health, even if they don't result in harm. If a man shoots someone on purpose and he dies, it is murder, if he shoots at someone on purpose but misses or just harms, he can still be charged with attempted murder. The punishment for each may be different, but at the end of the day..just as in real life... 1) Intent has to be proved and 2) you doh get a bligh if your 'murder' attempt' doesn't harm anyone.

I should have prefaced my statements by saying that I don't agree with the hard and fast lifetime ban proposal...each situation must be examined on it's own merits, and I agree that there must be extenuating circumstances (such as deliberate intent) before a player is banned for life.

I don't quite follow your murder scenario, but we can leave that alone...I think we agree on the major point.

[Filho]

I don't disagree that the end result is pertinent. In fact, if Taylor had executed the same tackle and completely missed Eduardo, or got all ball he may never have even gotten a card.

Not true.  Yellow cards are often given out for such plays even when no contact is made.  Let's not forget that the tackle was studs up and shin high.

Bakes..I said he MAY not have gotten a card. I know that players do get cards for reckless challenges even when no contact is made. But it is also possible that he may not have gotten anything if he had completely missed Eduardo or taken only the ball. I've seen that scenario too where I thought to myself..'dat woulda be nasty if he didn't collect all ball'.

But I believe that once we are speaking about banning someone for life from football, you should have to prove intent and you have to have some consistency across all reckless tackles that endanger a player's health, even if they don't result in harm. If a man shoots someone on purpose and he dies, it is murder, if he shoots at someone on purpose but misses or just harms, he can still be charged with attempted murder. The punishment for each may be different, but at the end of the day..just as in real life... 1) Intent has to be proved and 2) you doh get a bligh if your 'murder' attempt' doesn't harm anyone.

I should have prefaced my statements by saying that I don't agree with the hard and fast lifetime ban proposal...each situation must be examined on it's own merits, and I agree that there must be extenuating circumstances (such as deliberate intent) before a player is banned for life.

I don't quite follow your murder scenario, but we can leave that alone...I think we agree on the major point.

Heheh..the murder analogy was to say that if Blatter wants to clamp down in such an extreme way on dangerous tackles, he can't just focus on those that cause bodily harm, but also where contact was non existent or minimal..ie..not just prosecute for murder, but attempted murder as well. Buh lewwe forget that one then

[Bakes]

I don't disagree that the end result is pertinent. In fact, if Taylor had executed the same tackle and completely missed Eduardo, or got all ball he may never have even gotten a card.

Not true.  Yellow cards are often given out for such plays even when no contact is made.  Let's not forget that the tackle was studs up and shin high.

Bakes..I said he MAY not have gotten a card. I know that players do get cards for reckless challenges even when no contact is made. But it is also possible that he may not have gotten anything if he had completely missed Eduardo or taken only the ball. I've seen that scenario too where I thought to myself..'dat woulda be nasty if he didn't collect all ball'.

But I believe that once we are speaking about banning someone for life from football, you should have to prove intent and you have to have some consistency across all reckless tackles that endanger a player's health, even if they don't result in harm. If a man shoots someone on purpose and he dies, it is murder, if he shoots at someone on purpose but misses or just harms, he can still be charged with attempted murder. The punishment for each may be different, but at the end of the day..just as in real life... 1) Intent has to be proved and 2) you doh get a bligh if your 'murder' attempt' doesn't harm anyone.

I should have prefaced my statements by saying that I don't agree with the hard and fast lifetime ban proposal...each situation must be examined on it's own merits, and I agree that there must be extenuating circumstances (such as deliberate intent) before a player is banned for life.

I don't quite follow your murder scenario, but we can leave that alone...I think we agree on the major point.

Heheh..the murder analogy was to say that if Blatter wants to clamp down in such an extreme way on dangerous tackles, he can't just focus on those that cause bodily harm, but also where contact was non existent or minimal..ie..not just prosecute for murder, but attempted murder as well. Buh lewwe forget that one then

lol, yeah he'd have to clamp down on the near misses too...but still different penalties (as I believe you said).  Also agree that it's anyone's guess whether a player would be carded for a dangerous play that draws no contact 

[dinho]

Blatter requests disciplinary file on Eduardo tackler

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/7886050/Blatter-requests-disciplinary-file-on-Eduardo-tackler

GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter will launch his own investigation into the defender who left Arsenal striker Eduardo with a badly broken leg.

Blatter, who has railed against "violent attacks" on soccer fields, will request the disciplinary file from the English Football Association on Birmingham's Martin Taylor, whose tackle last month sparked outrage.

Eduardo's leg is set to remain in plaster for at least another month and he will miss the June 7-28 European Championship. Arsenal has said Eduardo may be able to run within six months and be playing within nine after fracturing his left fibula and dislocating his ankle.

"We will ask for the file," Blatter said. "We have now the right to ask national associations to give us the file and, if we, the authorities, feel it (the suspension) is not enough, then we will come back on that."

Taylor got a red card for the tackle and a three-match ban.

Speaking after raising the issue at the annual meeting of FIFA's International Football Association Board in Scotland, Blatter said he is considering whether suspensions handed to the perpetrators of dangerous tackles should be linked with the period of time their victims are sidelined.

"I told the International Board that a player who is deliberately attacking another player and tries to demolish a player should be banned, and not only for three matches but temporarily banned or a life ban depending on the severity of the attack," Blatter said. "Why the hell should footballers demolish each other?"

Blatter has advocated life bans from soccer and prosecution for players guilty of deliberately reckless tackles.

[Bakes]

Why he doh request the financial files of the TTFF and he main sidekick instead?

[superoli]

they need a FedEx truck for that file.....

[Small Change]

Ban EACH player that induces a "dangerous, career ending tackle" for the same period of time the injured player is out. For example, Taylor should be banned for the same amount of time Edguardo is out. That's ony fair.....

[elan]

I still don't think the tackle itself was as harsh as everyone is making it out to be. The outcome was horrendous, but the tackle was not purposeful in causing harm. It happened. If the player did not recieve such threatening injury we would not be having this discussion right now.

Case in point.......look at the tackle from the 13th second mark of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Kt7eNSwYA

[JDB]

I still don't think the tackle itself was as harsh as everyone is making it out to be. The outcome was horrendous, but the tackle was not purposeful in causing harm. It happened. If the player did not recieve such threatening injury we would not be having this discussion right now.

Case in point.......look at the tackle from the 13th second mark of the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Kt7eNSwYA

Better yet watch Carvalho tackle at the end of the Barnsley game.

Foot just as high, just as forceful and much more deliberate in trying to get the player. No red card of course.

banning players for life for accidental injuries that result form tackles is a slippery slope. Especially when players pelting elbow and nothing happening.

[weary1969]

It is 10:09 TNT time aka EST Bake and Shark and I agree on something a Rhema moment