issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
Ok.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
uneducated view on it apologies, was more of an example that it would carry a charge and no a slap on the wrist
The footage on tv doesn't tell the story at two or 3 players were kicking the shirt out of him whilst he was on the floor, would like the club to release the footage they show from all different angles when I goal is scored I would think thsat tells a different story
The footage on tv doesn't tell the story at two or 3 players were kicking the shirt out of him whilst he was on the floor, would like the club to release the footage they show from all different angles when I goal is scored I would think thsat tells a different story
But Taylor kicked out at the keeper before all the hand bags started.
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
Ok.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
uneducated view on it apologies, was more of an example that it would carry a charge and no a slap on the wrist
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
Ok.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
No bodily harm received so ABH or GBH out of the question. Potential assault but that's as far as it could possibly go.
There is precedent of course - Duncan Ferguson was convicted of assault for a head but and before that Chris Kamara was convicted of GBH when he elbowed Jim Melrose - but he did break his cheek bone so bodily harm was received.
There were a group of Stanley players intimidating the lino - not really clear why this was allowed to go on? If Solly hadn't been there I'm not clear how far they would have gone.
Why they all stayed on the pitch is beyond me?
I think there was the undoubted potential for it to lead to a homicide.
At the very least it would have been a violent attack on the linesman.
Thank god for Solly.
Deserves a knighthood.
Think they'd been taking lessons off Millwall.
Maybe he shouldn't have got involved then the ref might have sent a couple more off - just so long as there were 8 on the pitch afterwards!
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
Ok.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
No bodily harm received so ABH or GBH out of the question. Potential assault but that's as far as it could possibly go.
There is precedent of course - Duncan Ferguson was convicted of assault for a head but and before that Chris Kamara was convicted of GBH when he elbowed Jim Melrose - but he did break his cheek bone so bodily harm was received.
Knew about Duncan Disorderly but didn’t realise Kamara had been convicted too, Wiki says it was a punch after the whistle so a bit different from an on the field incident.
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
Ok.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
No bodily harm received so ABH or GBH out of the question. Potential assault but that's as far as it could possibly go.
There is precedent of course - Duncan Ferguson was convicted of assault for a head but and before that Chris Kamara was convicted of GBH when he elbowed Jim Melrose - but he did break his cheek bone so bodily harm was received.
The charge is not whether bodily harm result but whether the action was "with intent to cause grievous bodily harm". The action was clearly with intent and should be punished accordingly. The question as to the amount of force employed is also dependent upon the resiliance of subject "applied to". Stampting on Peter Czech's head were there is a former fracture and which he protects with a guard might have a differnet result to stamping on a strong boned skull. That is why the charge is of "intent". Their is no charge of "potential assault" it is of "assault with intent to cause GBH".
Did the two Stanly players intend to do this? Of course since if there was no intnent they wouldn't have done it and there is no way for them to know how strong Lyle Taylor's Skull, cheekbone , teeth, eye socket was.
issue with finley if someone done that outside a pub on a saturday night on the street - you would be looking at attempted murder, imo a 12 match ban would suffice. and a significant fine should be implemented from stanley
Looking at attempted murder? Not condoning what Finley did, and hope he gets a retrospective ban, but if that was attempted murder then every rugby player would be locked up.
few things
1.) this isn't rugby 2.) stamping on someones head - would be given abh/gbh minimum imo 3.) there was absolutely no need for it to come charging over like alexander the great - prick
GBH means Grievous Bodily Harm i.e really serious bodily harm. Given Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and went off the pitch without any aid, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered GBH.
ABH means Actual Bodily Harm i.e. a lesser offence but includes things like broken teeth, broken nose etc. Given that Taylor was up and grinning within seconds and neither he or the club have mentioned any injury whatsoever, I am struggling to understand why you believe he suffered ABH.
as football fans we are meant to watch the action on the pitch and enjoy it, running over to deliberately stamp on someones head which you have no threat to do - walking down the street late at night you see 2 mates have a row one falls over you run over and try to stamp on his head - what would happen? would you be let off without charge,.
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
Ok.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
No bodily harm received so ABH or GBH out of the question. Potential assault but that's as far as it could possibly go.
There is precedent of course - Duncan Ferguson was convicted of assault for a head but and before that Chris Kamara was convicted of GBH when he elbowed Jim Melrose - but he did break his cheek bone so bodily harm was received.
The charge is not whether bodily harm result but whether the action was "with intent to cause grievous bodily harm". The action was clearly with intent and should be punished accordingly. The question as to the amount of force employed is also dependent upon the resiliance of subject "applied to". Stampting on Peter Czech's head were there is a former fracture and which he protects with a guard might have a differnet result to stamping on a strong boned skull. That is why the charge is of "intent". Their is no charge of "potential assault" it is of "assault with intent to cause GBH".
Did the two Stanly players intend to do this? Of course since if there was no intnent they wouldn't have done it and there is no way for them to know how strong Lyle Taylor's Skull, cheekbone , teeth, eye socket was.
You are confusing the word 'intent'.
There is no offence of 'intending to cause grievous bodily harm' - the offence is 'causing grievous bodily harm with intent to grievous bodily harm'
ABH is 'Assault occasioning actual bodily harm'
ABH or GBH are not relevant therefore when no bodily harm, grievous or otherwise, is occasioned!
At about 5 seconds u seen him use his foot but in no way was it a red
Sadly I can see that being enough justification for the card to be upheld. There's plenty of other footage out there for charges to be brought against more than one of the AS players though!
Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Violent conduct my arse. At the very least they should have reduced the suspension to one for ungentlemanly conduct or something, it'd still be very harsh but I could just about accept it, but a three match suspension for that is utterly ridiculous.
Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Violent conduct my arse. At the very least they should have reduced the suspension to one for ungentlemanly conduct or something, it'd still be very harsh but I could just about accept it, but a three match suspension for that is utterly ridiculous.
Taylor kicked out so its a red card, the fact he kicked as hard as Simon Church has nothing to do with it, players seldom get sent off for pushing another player in the chest, which is what their keeper did. I do think however, that Taylor should have just received a one match ban, but thats probably because I support Charlton.
Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Studs are a bit nastier than hands
If you stamp, not if you push out. The issue there wasn't to potential to cause injury, it was that Taylor gave physical response to the lying on top of him, but if the crime is reacting, then the keeper is guilty of that too. Its the inconsistency that I can't get my head around - either they're both let off or banned or let off, I just don;t see how you come to conclusion that the two of them should be treated differently.
Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Violent conduct my arse. At the very least they should have reduced the suspension to one for ungentlemanly conduct or something, it'd still be very harsh but I could just about accept it, but a three match suspension for that is utterly ridiculous.
Taylor kicked out so its a red card, the fact he kicked as hard as Simon Church has nothing to do with it, players seldom get sent off for pushing another player in the chest, which is what their keeper did. I do think however, that Taylor should have just received a one match ban, but thats probably because I support Charlton.
It's not a kick - how is it a kick, just cos he moved hos legs doesn't mean he was kicking - do you kick out at the ground every time you stand up from a chair?
Comments
i couldnt give a shit about stanley - fuck em let em get relegated but a 3 match ban is not severe enough - when you look at it potentially costing us a league position.
But why did you think it was GBH or ABH.
There is precedent of course - Duncan Ferguson was convicted of assault for a head but and before that Chris Kamara was convicted of GBH when he elbowed Jim Melrose - but he did break his cheek bone so bodily harm was received.
Did the two Stanly players intend to do this? Of course since if there was no intnent they wouldn't have done it and there is no way for them to know how strong Lyle Taylor's Skull, cheekbone , teeth, eye socket was.
There is no offence of 'intending to cause grievous bodily harm' - the offence is 'causing grievous bodily harm with intent to grievous bodily harm'
ABH is 'Assault occasioning actual bodily harm'
ABH or GBH are not relevant therefore when no bodily harm, grievous or otherwise, is occasioned!
Can we re-appeal?
You can also see Sykes clearly getting a few swings in. How is he not being charged...
Also notice him swearing at the crowd in the end. What a classy team they are.
Have to say whether you say a "kick" or a "push with his foot" it looks like a foul to me.
Dont actually know what Maxtead does there to earn a red card other than drag Taylor to the ground (Yellow at most?)
Taylor shouldnt have kicked out
Keeper then get up and pushes Taylor using his hands.
Tyalor's red upheld. Keeper's is rescinded. What's the difference between the two actions though?
Violent conduct my arse. At the very least they should have reduced the suspension to one for ungentlemanly conduct or something, it'd still be very harsh but I could just about accept it, but a three match suspension for that is utterly ridiculous.
I do think however, that Taylor should have just received a one match ban, but thats probably because I support Charlton.