On a lighter note, can Danny Guthrie please recieve a 10-match ban for that shocking attempt at a tackle, which it turns out today has broken Craig Fagan's leg... Fancy clapping the fans on the way off, w*nker...
Won't happen.
It was just an unlucky challenge.
After Taylor got away with breaking Eduardo's leg last season, there's no way Guthrie will be punished.
I agree Taylor didn't intend to do the damage he did. Neither did Guthrie. But I still think the severity of the outcome is relevant. The punishment for abh and manslaughter are different, although the intention to hurt in either case might be the same.
Sorry, only just caught up on this thread.
Comparing the intent behind Taylor's tackle on Eduardo and Guthrie's is utterly ridiculous. Eduardo's injury was very unfortunate, but Taylor did not intend to hurt Eduardo. Guthrie tried to hurt Fagan. If you honestly believe that they are comparable then you're more deluded than some Newcastle fans.
Call me deluded then
Taylor didn't intend to break Eduardo's leg, but he intended to stop him, and didn't care if he took ball, man, or both. He would have been quite happy to hurt Eduardo, to make playing against him easier for the rest of the game. It's one of the reasons for tackling. Hurt the guy and make him your bitch.
Guthries tackle was worse because the only reason for it was frustration. But I'm still sure that he didn't kick him with the intent of breaking his leg, so the defense is the same.
IMO the consequences of the tackle are as important as the intent behind it. If I'm speeding, I can get done and get points. If I speed and hit someone, breaking their ribs, I lose my licence, and possibly suffer a jail sentence. The consequences are relevant to the outcome, not to the intent.
Guthrie should have suffered more serious consequences than he did, but for that to happen, Taylor needed to be punished more in the first place.
I'm not likening the intent behind the tackles, I'm likening the consequences.
Author