2019/20 Andre Gomes

[magicjuan]

Perhaps it’s not okay for me to use it. I’ll take it under advisement and be mindful how I use the phrase “innocuous challenge” in future.

I grew up on the likes of John Motson, Tony Gubba and Barry Davies using that phrase during commentary every week.

Yes, just a quick google and I find their names amongst Shelley, Byron and Keats and erm 'Keiran', renowed purveyors of literature, lingualism and wordplay.
I was brought up on scrabble, ker plunk and mastermind...

 

[Wotspur]

Spurs have acted shamefully in all of this.

They break a players ankle but now the narrative is the ref (who failed to award us 2 pens) cost them the 3 points.

I dunno who that guy Roberts is on twitter who used to play for them, but he seems lovely...

you don’t know who Graham Roberts is , I’ll assume you’re younger than 40 !
he was a collosus for us when we won the UEFA cup in 1984 , and was as tough as old boots , but was a fair player , who unfortunately they type has been drummed out of the game

 

[bilyaletdinov_]

If you’re receiving counselling, you do still have fleeting moments of joy and can laugh and joke too.

Maybe it’s a lesson to learn for Spurs social media team, they should have taken some pictures of him looking pensive and staring into the distance.

Totally understand that. Think your suggestion is a little bit overboard but perhaps they should have been mindful that if they as a club are painting one picture as to the mental state of Son it’s probably best to not seemingly contradict that with a series of photos on Twitter

 

[ToffeeTim]

Whether it should be or not is not the matter at hand: is that the wording/interpretation of the rules and laws of the game? We should try and be objective.

Genuinely, I am not wanting to appear obtuse (or be it) and I do understand your point, however my issue is that people are directly jumping to the consequence.

You talked about drink driving, so if you would let me put it into another context for you regarding law, where in each case a man dies, my point may be clearer:

1. A defendant takes a knife and in a pre-mediated attack stabs someone causing death.
2. A defendant takes a knife and in an unplanned attack stabs someone causing death.
3. A defendant in a pre-mediated attack repeatedly punches a defenceless victim, including when on the ground, causing death.
4. A defendant in an unplanned attack (confrontation etc.) punches the victim once causing the victim to collapse, bang their head and die.

The first three would be pushed for murder because the wording under common law is an intention "to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully.'

Big custodial for the first two, but the second while having no intent carries the likelihood that you will cause serious injury by acting in a manner.

That would either be murder or manslaughter - the push would be for the former and rightly. By using a knife, you must expect to cause serious injury or death.

The fourth, while causing death, would in many cases be involuntary manslaughter due to reduced mens rea - a reduced intention to do wrong and cause harm.

Basically, would all four actions justify the same punishment? All would likely to endanger the person and have ultimately caused the same result.

However, quite rightly the consequence is not the deciding factor and rather intent and many other mitigating factors are brought into a complex process.

I think where it boils down to is our perspective of the first challenge; personally while I have said it was rash, I simply do not think it meets the threshold for a red.

Did he in making the tackle, with reasonable forethought, have the intent to cause serious injury or did the tackle itself show a likelihood of causing serious injury?

For me, it's again a no because so many similar tackles happen in football all the time, where injury does not occur and if so no where near to that extent.

Why I mentioned the Mina scenario is simple: the offence and the consequence are not intrinsically linked, which has been my point throughout

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tack knowing it could injure and he did so, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a lengthy, lengthy ban.

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tack knowing it could injure but hadn't injured him, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a ban.

But because the first aspect is in my humble opinion not of that sort, then I don't feel that he is deserving of a ban. That's me trying to be objective.

If you go to ground after the man and not the ball then you are responsible for any injury they suffer. He could have pulled his shirt or pushed him over. He chose to leave one on him.

Your Mina example is irrelevant. Pushes are much less likely to cause serious injury than launching in off your feet. Just like pushing someone in the street is less likely to injure them than punching them.

If Son had done the normal cynical foul and dragged him down to stop the attack, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason he didn't, is he lost his head in a petty rage and tried to leave one on Gomes. Not necessarily injure him, but certainly get him back. When that's your mentality you are entirely responsible.

 

[Moomin]

The first step to what?

To become RAWK.

 

[ToffeeTim]

you don’t know who Graham Roberts is , I’ll assume you’re younger than 40 !
he was a collosus for us when we won the UEFA cup in 1984 , and was as tough as old boots , but was a fair player , who unfortunately they type has been drummed out of the game

I'm 26.

I haven't heard of him genuinely.

He seems very wound up on twitter. Not sure how he's found the moral high ground after a spurs player broke our player's ankle in a needless tackle.

 

[davids]

Rubbish.

You and I obviously watched different incidents. Don't care about Spurs or Son,but if referees change a card because of the injury outcome of a tackle then there has been a change in the laws of the game which along with VAR will finally ruin the game I used to love.

 

[Lob]

Waiting for the FA to issue a fine and ban on Gomes for deliberately trying to get a player sent off by breaking his own ankle.

And i bet you none of them cowardly bottlers at Everton would still bat an eye lid even if they did.

 

[tim cahill]

Sorry mate I disagree, if Gomes got up in no way was that red card

I agree. But he didn't, he's out for the season as a consequence of a deliberate foul.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

Yes, just a quick google and I find their names amongst Shelley, Byron and Keats and erm 'Keiran', renowed purveyors of literature, lingualism and wordplay.
I was brought up on scrabble, ker plunk and mastermind...

Hey, I didn’t profess to be articulate. Like i said, I’ll consider my use of that phrase in future and I appreciate the education.

Totally understand that. Think your suggestion is a little bit overboard but perhaps they should have been mindful that if they as a club are painting one picture as to the mental state of Son it’s probably best to not seemingly contradict that with a series of photos on Twitter

I think it’s all pretty innocent. I don’t think Spurs are trying to say that Son is mentally ill, just perhaps in a bit of shock. It’s not going to affect his ability to play Football but naturally, I think anyone would feel bad if they had inadvertently caused someone to be seriously injured.

I just think it’s mad that it’s upset so many people. It’s a few pictures on Twitter.

 

[Duncan Donuts]

Frankly, I'm sick of FA's decisions going against Everton. An Everton would have been given a several games ban had it been the other way round. One rule for one and another rule for Everton. VARS a joke and the FA a joke.

I think the first step is create a thread where we can record all the corrupt decisions made by the FA and their Officials so that we can never forget their illogical decisions.

Kopite behaviour.

 

[evertonarntwe]

Of Joey Barton, roy Keane,.Robbie savage etc had acted on anger like son and caused that injury you think the media would be all over it feeling sorry for them? They'd be crucified called bullies etc

Not arsed if son is a decent feller or not or that he probably didn't mean to cause tgat, he should just accept the ban and crack on with it

Acted with no dignity here at all

 

[Walken]

You are confused, i agree.

I really like how @Keiran posts what he thinks are real 'gotcha' moments, but in reality makes himself look dumb.

 

[Lanolin]

Whether it should be or not is not the matter at hand: is that the wording/interpretation of the rules and laws of the game? We should try and be objective.

Genuinely, I am not wanting to appear obtuse (or be it) and I do understand your point, however my issue is that people are directly jumping to the consequence.

You talked about drink driving, so if you would let me put it into another context for you regarding law, where in each case a man dies, my point may be clearer:

1. A defendant takes a knife and in a pre-mediated attack stabs someone causing death.
2. A defendant takes a knife and in an unplanned attack stabs someone causing death.
3. A defendant in a pre-mediated attack repeatedly punches a defenceless victim, including when on the ground, causing death.
4. A defendant in an unplanned attack (confrontation etc.) punches the victim once causing the victim to collapse, bang their head and die.

The first three would be pushed for murder because the wording under common law is an intention "to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully.'

Big custodial for the first two, but the second while having no intent carries the likelihood that you will cause serious injury by acting in a manner.

That would either be murder or manslaughter - the push would be for the former and rightly. By using a knife, you must expect to cause serious injury or death.

The fourth, while causing death, would in many cases be involuntary manslaughter due to reduced mens rea - a reduced intention to do wrong and cause harm.

Basically, would all four actions justify the same punishment? All would likely to endanger the person and have ultimately caused the same result.

However, quite rightly the consequence is not the deciding factor and rather intent and many other mitigating factors are brought into a complex process.

I think where it boils down to is our perspective of the first challenge; personally while I have said it was rash, I simply do not think it meets the threshold for a red.

Did he in making the tackle, with reasonable forethought, have the intent to cause serious injury or did the tackle itself show a likelihood of causing serious injury?

For me, it's again a no because so many similar tackles happen in football all the time, where injury does not occur and if so no where near to that extent.

Why I mentioned the Mina scenario is simple: the offence and the consequence are not intrinsically linked, which has been my point throughout.

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tackle knowing it could injure and he did so, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a lengthy, lengthy ban.

If I genuinely believe Son had committed a terrible tackle knowing it could injure but hadn't injured him, then rightfully I would demand that he'd get a ban.

But because the first aspect is in my humble opinion not of that sort, then I don't feel that he is deserving of a ban. That's me trying to be objective.

And that’s a perfectly logical and coherent argument. I’ve said a few times, I’m not trying to suggest my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. My only point has been that it clearly could be classed as a red card offence and to suggest otherwise is purely a subjective belief, not based on the actual wording of the law, as was being suggested.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

I really like how @Keiran posts what he thinks are real 'gotcha' moments, but in reality makes himself look dumb.

I like @Keiran

He plays devil's advocate supremely well and revels in being an arch contrarian.