Danny Guthrie

[King Street Loon]

Has he been taking lessons from Joey Barton???

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t...ity/7617057.stm

[Guest the shepherd]

The intent was clearly there from Guthrie to hurt Craig Fagan as he had a go at him just a few seconds earlier. No grovelling apology can make up for intending to wound a fellow professional. Animal.

[zig-a-zig-ah]

Absolutely disgusting challenges.

[Guest SS RED]

Terrible tackle, one of the worst I have seen.

[Dandyjam]

Saw it earlier - was an awful challenge and he should be hammered with a few more games suspension as the intent was there.

[fatshaft]

Has he been taking lessons from Joey Barton???

There has to be something in the water up there for sure. He was virtually ever present for the trotters last year, and that just wasn't his game at all.

[archiemacdougal]

Has he been taking lessons from Joey Barton???

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/t...ity/7617057.stm

 

Broke Fagan's leg and is out for 3 months.

 

Might be the worst since challenge since Thatcher v Mendes. The FA should throw the book at him in a similar fashion. 10 game ban.

[zig-a-zig-ah]

A bit over the top, there is no way Guthries challenge was worse than Thatchers.

 

He never said it was!

[zig-a-zig-ah]

Just been watching the replays again, the more you watch it the worse it looks.

 

Horrific.

[florin_raducioiu]

Shocking challenge. Worst since Ball stamping on Ronaldo. Terrible

[fatshaft]

Shocking challenge. Worst since Ball stamping on Ronaldo. Terrible

Allegedly Fagan had been on the wind up the whole game and Guthrie snapped it seems. There's no doubt it was premeditated obviously, but while Guthrie can threow himself about a bit, he was certainly not the malicious type.

 

And for those of you saying what a dreadful tackle, sorry but while it's turned out to be a leg breaker, it was no worse than a punch in my view. A Willie Johnston style stamp is worse, and a diving two footed lunge off the ground into someone's standing leg is a far worse tackle, and we saw plenty of those last year alone.

 

Deserves his ban upping though.

[K-9]

Allegedly Fagan had been on the wind up the whole game and Guthrie snapped it seems. There's no doubt it was premeditated obviously, but while Guthrie can threow himself about a bit, he was certainly not the malicious type.

 

And for those of you saying what a dreadful tackle, sorry but while it's turned out to be a leg breaker, it was no worse than a punch in my view. A Willie Johnston style stamp is worse, and a diving two footed lunge off the ground into someone's standing leg is a far worse tackle, and we saw plenty of those last year alone.

 

Deserves his ban upping though.

The ban shoud be for the tackle only and not for the consequence of the tackle later. Player A should not get longer ban for same tackle than Player B gets for same tackle just because the recipient of first tackle got bad injury.

[sheep_shagger]

It was a shocker, tried to kick him and missed but made sure he didnt miss him the second time.

 

Saw worse on Big League Weekend 2 last night though or whatever its called. Though due to no serious injuries (thankfully) and not as much press coverage they will always get away with it to an extent in the lower leagues. This is why you cant justify increasing a ban.

[Lang Bar]

He clearly had the red mist for something or other.

We never always see what is going on off the ball, to wind players up to that extent.

As Fatshaft suggests that this is out of character, let's not brand the lad as a thug.

Even genius footballers like Zidane get easily wound up for example but no-one ever hounded him out of the game.

[E-P-K]

The ban shoud be for the tackle only and not for the consequence of the tackle later. Player A should not get longer ban for same tackle than Player B gets for same tackle just because the recipient of first tackle got bad injury.

 

 

Understand your thinking , But is someone gets injured badly the authorities have to take that into consideration when they look at punishing him.

 

Just like if you punch someone in the face on a Friday night , You will get a stiffer penalty if the punch breaks his nose.

[K-9]

Understand your thinking , But is someone gets injured badly the authorities have to take that into consideration when they look at punishing him.

 

Just like if you punch someone in the face on a Friday night , You will get a stiffer penalty if the punch breaks his nose.

Should Simmy have been given long ban?

[E-P-K]

Should Simmy have been given long ban?

 

I take it you are refering to the Durrant tackle.

 

I can not defernd the undefendable.

Horrific tackle that should of resulted in a lengthy ban.

 

Tacles with intent to injure require long bans.

[Lang Bar]

Almost certain I've seen Dean Windass do something similar.

Deano - Hero or Thug?

[E-P-K]

Almost certain I've seen Dean Windass do something similar.

Deano - Hero or Thug?

 

 

[King Street Loon]

Almost certain I've seen Dean Windass do something similar.

Deano - Hero or Thug?

Judging by that tackle. Thug. Windass was always prone to doing stupd things. A flawed hero is not unusual.

 

Don't for a minute think this is usually in Guthrie's nature. Which is why i started this thread.

All humans have flaws and are prone to doing silly things. In any walk of life and any arena. Doesn't take away from the fact however on this occasion Guthrie intended to harm Fagan. More evident so after not getting him properly the 1st time.

[fatshaft]

The ban shoud be for the tackle only and not for the consequence of the tackle later. Player A should not get longer ban for same tackle than Player B gets for same tackle just because the recipient of first tackle got bad injury.

I'm not advocating upping the ban becase of the broken leg, I think that's irrelevant. It was the fact his sole intent was to kick his opponent, and he tried it twice having missed the first time.

[King Street Loon]

The ban shoud be for the tackle only and not for the consequence of the tackle later. Player A should not get longer ban for same tackle than Player B gets for same tackle just because the recipient of first tackle got bad injury.

Every act has a consequence. If that consequence is harmful,then punishment should reflect the intent and outcome.

[K-9]

Every act has a consequence. If that consequence is harmful,then punishment should reflect the intent and outcome.

Pretty sure Severin broke Michael Higdon's leg last term with what looked a pretty innocuous foul. Turned out his leg was broken. Are you suggesting Severin should be later banned for that tackle since his leg was broken and the "consequence was harmful"???

[King Street Loon]

Pretty sure Severin broke Michael Higdon's leg last term with what looked a pretty innocuous foul. Turned out his leg was broken. Are you suggesting Severin should be later banned for that tackle since his leg was broken and the "consequence was harmful"???

I don't remember the incident you refer to.

But don't for a second think that Severin set out to cause Higdon intentional harm.

Guthrie set out to do Fagan. Anyone can see that.

[davieb]

Pretty sure Severin broke Michael Higdon's leg last term with what looked a pretty innocuous foul. Turned out his leg was broken. Are you suggesting Severin should be later banned for that tackle since his leg was broken and the "consequence was harmful"???

 

I would imagine there would have to be obvious intent in the tackle to be dealt with in more serious manner

[E-P-K]

The Football Association says Newcastle midfielder Danny Guthrie will receive no further punishment for breaking the leg of Hull's Craig Fagan.

 

 

Crazy decision.

[fatshaft]

The Football Association says Newcastle midfielder Danny Guthrie will receive no further punishment for breaking the leg of Hull's Craig Fagan.

 

 

Crazy decision.

But put themselves in a spot after the JT decision haven't they?

[King Street Loon]

The Football Association says Newcastle midfielder Danny Guthrie will receive no further punishment for breaking the leg of Hull's Craig Fagan.

 

 

Crazy decision.

Say that they'll only act in exceptional circumstances.

 

Nonsense!!