Ben Thatcher tries to kill Mendez !!
- Thread starter bigbry
- Start date
lighterthief
Well-Known Member
twisted said:
It doesn't actually look that bad from the angle most of the news programmes have been showing it,does it? Obviously it's more the reports of Mendes being knocked unconscious and convulsing that are more shocking than the pictures.Magneze said:Saw this on the news. Didn't look that bad to be honest, is there something subtle I've missed?
e2a: oh, Ive just seen the clip again from another angle, it's the elbow.
i misread the headline 'Thatcher apologises to Mendes' as 'Thatcher apologises to Menezes', didn't realise it was in the sports section, and got very,very confused.
undercover
Chopping up Armadillos
Definitely no cause for involving the police in this one IMO. As mentioned above, not that it would set a precedent as they've been involved before, but i think everyone really knows when they should get involved, and I think those are situations which really stand out. Big Dunc's one springs to mind.
Reason being, when a tackle is combined with an arm being raised, as in this case, it's would be impossible to proof intent (facial expressions wouldn't really hold up methinks).
But the farcical rule where if the ref has punished the player at the time then no further FA punishment can be applied surely must be looked at.
I think it's mainly there to protect the refs anyway, so not to undermine their authority. If across the board post match video evidence was used for ANY offence I think it would be a good thing. Especially if the ref concerned was involved in the post match decision, as it would give them the chance to admit (and correct) mistakes, which I think would go a long way to help overall refereeing of the game.
Reason being, when a tackle is combined with an arm being raised, as in this case, it's would be impossible to proof intent (facial expressions wouldn't really hold up methinks).
But the farcical rule where if the ref has punished the player at the time then no further FA punishment can be applied surely must be looked at.
I think it's mainly there to protect the refs anyway, so not to undermine their authority. If across the board post match video evidence was used for ANY offence I think it would be a good thing. Especially if the ref concerned was involved in the post match decision, as it would give them the chance to admit (and correct) mistakes, which I think would go a long way to help overall refereeing of the game.
Some observations from the clip on YouTube - the first shot shows just how fast Thatcher is coming in. He's like an express train. The second angle, in slow motion, shows how hard he's hit him with his forearm. The combination of the two is devastating. The third shot, from behind, doesn't look too bad.
The old bill are involved because a number of people made complaints to them - fans, presumably. They have a duty to look into it. As far as I'm concenred, that was not a tackle, it was pre-meditated assault, and if Thatcher gets done for it I won't be sorry. The strange thing is that everyone says he's a lovely bloke, he just turns into a bit of an animal on teh field.
The old bill are involved because a number of people made complaints to them - fans, presumably. They have a duty to look into it. As far as I'm concenred, that was not a tackle, it was pre-meditated assault, and if Thatcher gets done for it I won't be sorry. The strange thing is that everyone says he's a lovely bloke, he just turns into a bit of an animal on teh field.
undercover
Chopping up Armadillos
g force
Affects Shatner's Basoon
I think Dunc was on a suspended sentence at the time.
The biggest problem as highlighted by a few people is the farcical rule that once the ref has made a decisions it cannot be changed. Okay, hoepfully, this sort of incident won't happen much, but a rule needs to be put in place so the FA can do soemthing to rid the game of brutal challenges.
The biggest problem as highlighted by a few people is the farcical rule that once the ref has made a decisions it cannot be changed. Okay, hoepfully, this sort of incident won't happen much, but a rule needs to be put in place so the FA can do soemthing to rid the game of brutal challenges.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
It could be enitely possible that Thatcher has put his arm up to protect himself because he was going fucking fast . From his track record it's not likely but all I can say is if most of the people on this thread were in a jury I wouldn't want to be the person standing trial before them !
undercover
Chopping up Armadillos
That's the thing, anyone who's ever played football knows that when you go into to tackle you're *almost* mentally preparing yourself to hurt the other player, otherwise you risk hurting yourself.
I've seen many players, normally of the not-liking-tackling-very-much category get hurt because they go in for a tackle with no heart, or pull out half way through.
Thatcher's is worse than that however, due to the raised arm, but I just can't see how that can be compared to an eight foot tall Scotsman nutting someone directly in front of him. And as Savage Henry said, it would be impossibel to prove as he was running in so fast. How would a court decide where the sport stopped and the offence began?
(Been trying to find a video of Dunc on youtube, but all i can find is tribute videos! Did he do that much there?!)
I've seen many players, normally of the not-liking-tackling-very-much category get hurt because they go in for a tackle with no heart, or pull out half way through.
Thatcher's is worse than that however, due to the raised arm, but I just can't see how that can be compared to an eight foot tall Scotsman nutting someone directly in front of him. And as Savage Henry said, it would be impossibel to prove as he was running in so fast. How would a court decide where the sport stopped and the offence began?
(Been trying to find a video of Dunc on youtube, but all i can find is tribute videos! Did he do that much there?!)
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Savage Henry said:
It's not likely from looking at the film, regardless of his track record. I don't think you'll see a more blatant forearm smash. Anyway, he hasn't denied doing it as far as I know.
Dr. Furface
One small step for me
Savage Henry said:
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
I watched the film several times especially the actuall contact . The arm did go up very late , wheter thats because he wanted to make sure he got his shot on target or thought " oh fuck I'm going to get hurt in this collision better try and protect myself , I know sticking my arm between me and mendes will help me " is something that cannot be answered . Everyone may think it's asualt and it may well be but can it be proved that it was pre-meditated and intentional . I'd say it can't so IMO even if this did go to trial I don't see how there could be a conviction .
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Dr. Furface said:
yes of course roll your eyes , but you can't prove the collision was intentional and it can't be proved that it was an accident either . I seriously hope this doesn't go to court because it will be a fucking waste of time !
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Savage Henry said:
I'd say it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, yes. I really can't see how anyone could not see that as deliberate. If you were going quickly and wanted to stop yourself you'd put your hands up, not swing your arm round like that.
In fact, I think you are the only person I've seen trying to claim otherwise, including Stuart Pearce and, as far as I know, Thatcher himself.
There's a good debate to be had on what should be done, sidetracking into whether he did it is a waste of time IMO.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
I think he did it deliberatly but you don't know his motivation and it can't be proved . It's easy to say someone wouldn't do that to protect themselves but I don't think it's easy to proove . And IMO since the police are looking at this then the likelihood of what would happen at a trial /wheter it goes to trial is a discussion about what should be done .
If the CPS believe there is enough evidence for him to stand trial with a high chance of conviction then I think he should stand trial . They will look at how easy it is to proove intention and what the charge should be so it makes sense that to debate what should should be done you need to view the situation the same way the authorities would !
The whole question of the FA having the rule that once a ref has made a decision it can't be added to is bollocks IIRC . I think thats a FIFA regulation which the FA have to follow ! Either way I'd like to see them examine all Thatchers incidents and produce a sentance which takes into account his incidents before this latest one !
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
snadge said:
Yes but can it be proven . I thought his reaction after was shite and showed him out to be a cunt , but it doesn't proove intention does it !
Surely if it had been unintentional then his first reaction would have been to go over to the player he had just smashed to the floor and say sorry. He doesn't even look at Mendez. Just gets up and walks away when even if it was an accident he must have known he'd belted him in the face at a ridiculous speed. It’s his total disregard for the health of a fellow professional that makes this incident so shocking in my eyes.
undercover
Chopping up Armadillos
He did it intentionally, of course he did, every tackle in football is fucking intentional.
And yes, it was an attrocious tackle. But that's all it was.
There's just no way he thought, right I'm gonna try and break that fella's neck. He just went in hard and got it wrong.
Players do try and hurt each other, retaliation or whatever reason (eg Keane/Haaland), but unless it's an out and out punch or headbutt, it's just part of the game.
On a lesser scale, watch Paul Scholes every time he tackles. He's just bad at it.
If I had a pound for every time some fuckers said to me on the pitch "I'm gonna break your legs", then got kicked up the air by him five minutes later, i'd be a rich man.
And yes, it was an attrocious tackle. But that's all it was.
There's just no way he thought, right I'm gonna try and break that fella's neck. He just went in hard and got it wrong.
Players do try and hurt each other, retaliation or whatever reason (eg Keane/Haaland), but unless it's an out and out punch or headbutt, it's just part of the game.
On a lesser scale, watch Paul Scholes every time he tackles. He's just bad at it.
If I had a pound for every time some fuckers said to me on the pitch "I'm gonna break your legs", then got kicked up the air by him five minutes later, i'd be a rich man.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Neva said:
Like I said , all that prooves is he's a twat ! His reaction doesn't automatically mean he intended to do what he did .
Savage Henry is right.
undercover
Chopping up Armadillos
I'm not condoning it mate, don't get me wrong. tackling with your arms up is wrong (especialy under todays girlie rules), plain and simple, but it happens in every single game, so it's acceptably wrong. Fuck's sake, Gazza built his career on upper body strength and elbowing people out the way.STFC said:
Are you saying he timed it to get his arm up into the guys neck? I just don't see that. He ain't Bruce Lee. If Mendez had been standing straighter it would have hit him in the chest, if lower, running slower, faster, any other variable, could have changed it.
just a hard challenge that went about as wrong as it could have. I don't believe the extremity of the outcome was his intention.
