Liverpool FC Forum

by **taff** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:05 pm

Daws

This is a very bad challenge its got nothing to do with the game or getting the ball its all about hurting him as much as possible, forget the police stuff for now although there are precedents but this deserves more than a three match ban

by **Ace Ventura** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:09 pm

dawson99 wrote:the worst tackle ever? gimme a break!
They were both going full pelt, and mendes slid into the barriers. yes it was bad but u lot are talking about getting him done for GBH. The world has gone absolutely mad. What about a stomp? should police be involved for that as well? I remember stevie g doing one against everton, maybe he should have got community service for that right?
Rooney in the world cup, he should have got at least a suspended sentance.

It was a bad foul, but its football and this thing happens in every league every day.

3 match ban. nuff said

You have not seen the challenge, or you were p!ssed, for one thing in no way was it a tackle, another Mendes was not slipping, he was standing up running. The only argument Thatcher could have is that he was running so fast he couldnt stop, on the other hand you can see on his face that he meant it, you see him raise his forearm at the last minute, bringing it into Mendes's jaw. It was meant and due to the speed they were going was seriously dangerous, hence the fact that Mendes was kept in hospital overnight and needs a scan today.
Comparing it with Rooneys sliding tackle/stamp at the world cup is stupid beyong belief, in no way was Rooneys challenge as dangerous...even if he did intend it, Rooneys challenge was never going to leave his opponent semi conscious on the floor for over 5 minutes.

by **dawson99** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:13 pm

but if you want police invovlvement for one you need it for all.
The mendes thatcher thing was bad, real bad, but it was also at a lot of pace. Football has to be kept within, police cant be involved unless it is another dyer/bowyer situation. Thatcher hit mendes...ahrd, i dont deny it, but look at the pace as you watch it. its not gbh, its a bad tackle, and deserves a ban, but its got nothing to do with anyone outside of football, thats all im saying

by **taff** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:27 pm

supersub wrote:Ben Thatcher must be given a lengthy ban by the FA,after the horrific assault on Man City player Mendes,last night.Dermot Gallagher's performance and his pathetic previous record should be sufficient to get this useless inbred struck off the referreeing panel indefinitely.

Ok going back to the original point I agree a lengthy ban i.e. more than three games and the ref has to be accountable for this, there was no distraction, it was where the ball was being played and only the two players involved so if he didnt see it properly then what was he looking at, he aint good enough to ref. If he did see it then he aint good enough to ref

by **Ace Ventura** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:03 pm

dawson99 wrote:but if you want police invovlvement for one you need it for all.
The mendes thatcher thing was bad, real bad, but it was also at a lot of pace. Football has to be kept within, police cant be involved unless it is another dyer/bowyer situation. Thatcher hit mendes...ahrd, i dont deny it, but look at the pace as you watch it. its not gbh, its a bad tackle, and deserves a ban, but its got nothing to do with anyone outside of football, thats all im saying

I'm not one for getting police involved either but your comparison with Bowyer and Dyer was sh!te they had a fight which was naughty but this was an unprovoked and vicious attack, far far worse.
If the police got involved then i could see the reasoning, if it happened outside a kebabhouse by ours the attacker would get 2-3 years. The fact that it was on a pitch doesnt make players blameless.

by **dawson99** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:06 pm

but a stamp is just as bad, even worse as it is thought about. thatcher is just a brute and not a very good player. 5 match ban. final offer

by **Ace Ventura** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:49 pm

dawson99 wrote:but a stamp is just as bad, even worse as it is thought about. thatcher is just a brute and not a very good player. 5 match ban. final offer

Done

by **fivecups** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:28 pm

Ridiculous challenge. Could have killed him. The worst thing is because of the rules of football he may get off completely.

Due to the intent and sheer viscousness I'd ban him for 8 matches.

by **dawson99** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:29 pm

fivecups wrote:Ridiculous challenge. Could have killed him. The worst thing is because of the rules of football he may get off completely.

Due to the intent and sheer viscousness I'd ban him for 8 matches.

could have killed him?

it was a shoulder barge...sort of!

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:31 pm

dawson99 wrote:
fivecups wrote:Ridiculous challenge. Could have killed him. The worst thing is because of the rules of football he may get off completely.

Due to the intent and sheer viscousness I'd ban him for 8 matches.

could have killed him?

it was a shoulder barge...sort of!

Looked more like a "forearm shiver" to me. You know, old time WWF style...like Cowboy Bob Ornton with the perpetual arm cast with metal plate hidden inside. A shocking challenge in all seriousness and deserving of a lengthy ban.

by **66-1120597113** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:48 pm

That was a really rough assault,i guess it cant even be called a tackle!Its been one of the worst i can remember!

Im impartial really as i dont care too much for Pompey but i was thinking today...that could have easily been one of our lads on the recieving end!
If it was imagine how livid we would be,i'd be disgusted today!
For football in general and to set an example this Thatcher guy must be severely punished!None of this 3 match ban pussyfooting cr@p with a £5000 fine!
He deserves a lenghthly ban and to be shamed!

He stated today that he was concerned immediatly after the game for his 'victim' and penned a letter today in apology...This does'nt matter a fu.ck!

The worse thing was the pure intent to actually do damage....it was bang out of order annd no one wants to see this in football!

by **shanks72** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:51 pm

dawson99 wrote:football is for men

What a HORRIFIC challenge by Thatcher and if you look at it closely it wasn't even a challenge as it happened just after Mendes had kicked the ball away.
You can see Thatcher had no intention of going for the ball.

It was nothing more than a premeditated, blatant assault and I also wonder whether racist motives were involved.

As Ace Ventura has said if it happened off the pitch the guy would definately be done for assault.

Ok, so they were both travelling at speed, but the elbow could have been avoided, obviously Thatcher didn't want it to.
He probably hoped the speed thing would cloud people's judgement as to his real intention.

This sort of behaviour should merit the severest punishment, in my opinion.
No player should think they can put a man (or woman) in hospital by a premeditated physical assault and get away with it just because it is on a football pitch.
And what a great example Thatcher is setting to the youth of today, who may think 'if you can get away with it on a pitch perhaps you can off the pitch!

Do you really think a 3 or 5 match ban is a punishment, 'cause I don't.
This may sound drastic, but....Can they ban a player for life? If not, then perhaps it should be considered.
Accidents do happen, sure, but this was no accident and Thatcher didn't even bother to go over to see how Mendes was, he's just shown walking away.

Well that's my opinion, for what it's worth!

Oh and Daws, have you not heard of women's professional football?........(sexism....never far from the surface, eh, boy?)

by **The Manhattan Project** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:51 pm

This morning on talkSPORT, Alan Brazil was babbling on about how people are supposedly "overreacting" to this incident. He may have been drunk, but I'll address his main "arguments" (if we can refer to slurring speech as an "argument").

1- "We See Things Like This In Rugby All The Time".

Football is not rugby. It's arguable that a violent incident would even be permitted in rugby too. Besides, even if something is acceptable in one sport, doesn't make it acceptable in another. Ice hockey can be a violent sport, but if a figure skater slammed another figure skater into the sidewall, that wouldn't be accepted, despite the fact they are both winter sports.

2- "It Wasn't That Bad".

Mendes was knocked unconscious and suffered a seizure. Therefore, even if to drunken Scots, it didn't appear to "look" bad, it actually WAS bad, as supported by the evidence of Mendes' condition.

3- "We Have Seen Worse".

The fact we have seen worse incidents in football, does not mean that this incident is any more acceptable. In policework, a cop may see victims with 32 stab wounds, but it doesn't mean it's any better than seeing a victim with 33 stab wounds.

4- "The "Pansy" Argument"

Where the injured player is labelled a "pansy" because he went down after being elbowed in the face, and anyone who condemns this violent incident via phone or e-mail is equally called a "pansy". This is a sure sign of a weak argument.

5- "It Used To Happen All The Time In The Past..."

So did bear-baiting, so what's the point?

Just because violent hooliganism was also seen in the past, doesn't it make it acceptable today. The back-pass was seen in the past, but isn't today, because the game changes.

6- "Mendes' Injuries Were Caused By Hitting The Advertising Board".

Incorrect. Video replays show that his head never actually makes contact with the advertising board. The injuries were entirely caused by being violently struck with a forearm/elbow.

7- "Football Is A Physical Game..."

Striking a player in the face doesn't fall into the parameters of "physicality" as allowed by the rules of the game. It's why stamping on a player's face or ripping off his left ear would also be considered unacceptable.

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:57 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:This morning on talkSPORT, Alan Brazil was babbling on about how people are supposedly "overreacting" to this incident. He may have been drunk, but I'll address his main "arguments" (if we can refer to slurring speech as an "argument").

1- "We See Things Like This In Rugby All The Time".

Football is not rugby. It's arguable that a violent incident would even be permitted in rugby too. Besides, even if something is acceptable in one sport, doesn't make it acceptable in another. Ice hockey can be a violent sport, but if a figure skater slammed another figure skater into the sidewall, that wouldn't be accepted, despite the fact they are both winter sports.

2- "It Wasn't That Bad".

Mendes was knocked unconscious and suffered a seizure. Therefore, even if to drunken Scots, it didn't appear to "look" bad, it actually WAS bad, as supported by the evidence of Mendes' condition.

3- "We Have Seen Worse".

The fact we have seen worse incidents in football, does not mean that this incident is any less acceptable. In policework, a cop may see victims with 32 stab wounds, but it doesn't mean it's any better than seeing a victim with 33 stab wounds.

4- "The "Pansy" Argument"

Where the injured player is labelled a "pansy" because he went down after being elbowed in the face, and anyone who condemns this violent incident via phone or e-mail is equally called a "pansy". This is a sure sign of a weak argument.

5- "It Used To Happen All The Time In The Past..."

So did bear-baiting, so what's the point?

Just because violent hooliganism was also seen in the past, doesn't it make it acceptable today. The back-pass was seen in the past, but isn't today, because the game changes.

6- "Mendes' Injuries Were Caused By Hitting The Advertising Board".

Incorrect. Video replays show that his head never actually makes contact with the advertising board. The injuries were entirely caused by being violently struck with a forearm/elbow.

7- "Football Is A Physical Game..."

Striking a player in the face doesn't fall into the parameters of "physicality" as allowed by the rules of the game. It's why stamping on a player's face or ripping off his left ear would also be considered unacceptable.

Manhattan is spot on.

by **Kash_Mountain** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:06 pm

I've just seen the challenge (if you can call it that, more like an assault) for the first time.

Got to say IMO, it was deliberate, he went all out to knock Pedro Mendes's block off. Shocking challenge

Absolute total waste of space. Thatcher should be banned for at least 5-7 games and fined.

Listening to the sport on the radio, Man City Fans being interviewed. Even they are saying that he should be gotten rid off.

Liverpool FC Forum

Thatcherism - Bane of society

Who is online