Other Games 16th/17th March

[PTP]

he's on the phone, been on for about 10 minutes....unbelievable stuff - mcmanaman was right to go for the ball, 'the lad will be playing again next week', wasn't high, won the ball, referee saw it and didnt give a free kick, press have made it look worse by freezing it a bad moment of collision, whelan says he could freeze it a split second earlier and it looks like a good tackle -saying all kinds

[PTP]

jim white was like - "wtf"

[PTP]

dave whelan - "that's football, get over it and move on"

[Kenneth]

It was clearly dangerous but I do have some sympathy with mcmanaman. The ball was there to be challenged for and I think it was a genuine attempt to connect with the ball. And it probably does look worse in freeze-frame. But then I'm contrary.

[Maxiedge]

I do believe there was no malice but it was a shockingly clumsy challenge that should have the same punishment as to whether he meant it or not.

5 game ban for me

[Kenneth]

5, really?

[Shaggy]

I thought 5 too. It was practically assault.

[Kenneth]

Pretty bog standard red for me. So the customary three games. You might be right and the reaction might bump it to five.

[Maxiedge]

5, really?

I think they should set a precedent. Challenges like that, that could end someone's career, should be 3+. Needs to be more proportional to what the victim has to endure.

[Kenneth]

I don't agree with punishment based on the consequences. A deliberate foul should be punished more than an accidental one for example, irrespective of the outcome for the recipient.

In this case, I don't think it was deliberate, it was only the backspin on the ball when it bounced that stopped macmanaman's swing from ****ting the ball into 'row z'. A three game ban for dangerous play seems appropriate to me. Longer bans should be reserved for malicious incidents, which I don't think this one was.

[Maxiedge]

I don't agree with punishment based on the consequences. A deliberate foul should be punished more than an accidental one for example, irrespective of the outcome for the recipient.

In this case, I don't think it was deliberate, it was only the backspin on the ball when it bounced that stopped macmanaman's swing from ****ting the ball into 'row z'. A three game ban for dangerous play seems appropriate to me. Longer bans should be reserved for malicious incidents, which I don't think this one was.

No it wasn't malicious and it wasn't deliberate and, yeah, you can say there might have been an erratic spin on the ball but, for me, if you're mis-timing tackles to such an extent where you can snap someone's leg in two and keep them out for 9 months, then in retrospect you deserve extra punishment for just being so rash and clumsy.

I guess that's the main point we disagree on.

[Gibbo]

What would this bloke get then.

[ame]http://youtu.be/2q4ZCElfwLU[/ame]

Not for the squeamish this, at all. Nasty leg break,

[Kenneth]

Thanks for that

[Muddled]

Is he just randomly playing football with goalkeeping gloves on?

[Chazza]

How the **** has he got away with it

Telegraph Sport @TelegraphSport
Callum McManaman will face no action from the FA for his knee-high tackle on Haidara