A question to Manchester City fans: why is Pearce defending Thatcher?
I have a lot of respect for Stuart Pearce and I can understand what he is trying to do by talking to the media and shielding Ben Thatcher, but the fact is that this is not the first time the Manchester City defender has done something like this. He may be a nice guy but if you execute pre-meditated assault on a player AND you have a history of doing so, being sorry is not enough - heck, it’s not even an option.
Believe me, Thatcher is very, very lucky to have gotten away with that elbow on the pitch. If he had done this to a Manchester United player the team would have mobbed him during and after the game.
And I expect backlash here, with people telling me stories of Rooney and Roy Keane. Listen - Keano’s deliberate tackles are not condonable, and they can never be accepted as part of the game. Similarly, you cannot accept that pummelling an opposition player like this can be justified as being part of a contact sport. It’s ridiculous, and while I doubt that the police should get involved the player MUST get a serious ban.
The referee (Gallagher) is going to be demoted to the Championship because he only gave the player a yellow card. Demoted! And what about the player himself then? What punishment is there for assault here?
To the FA: Please, for once, don’t hide behind officiousness and legalese - take action and resolve this as soon as possible.
He hasn’t
read this…
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchestercity/s/221/221696_thatcher_pays_the_penalty.html
erm…he’s hardly defending him! see link: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/manchestercity/s/221/221696_thatcher_pays_the_penalty.html
However in terms of the FA taking action its a nonsense. You can not change the rules no matter how ‘bad’ a mistake may be (I’m talking about Gallagher’s failure to give Thatcher a red card here). If you do that for an horrendous tackle, then where do you draw the line? Watford lost to Everton at the weekend due to the failure of the ref’ to make the right decision on two penalty incidents. That cost them 1 maybe even 3 points, which in turn could cost them millions at the end of the season. To conclude Gallagher saw the challenge and used his judgement. The fact that his judgement was flawed is irrelevent. To overrule that judgement now would be opening a can of worms.
Like Pearce, I’m not defending Thatcher- it truly was a terrible challenge- but any further punishment should be meted out by Manchester City (as it surely will). Anything else would just be a farce.
you may want to read this, plus the discussion in the comments section.
http://www.thefootie.com/finally-some-backtracking-from-stuart-pearce-does-he-mean-it/
The point is, being fined wages and being suspended for something that is premeditated assault is not good enough.
He’s remorseful and guilty, they say. Is that why he has this maniacal look on his face before and after the attack?
See the vid again. http://soccerlens.com/thatcher-mendez-elbow-video/1822532.html
Pearce is right about one thing - it’s indefensible. But then why are they trying to explain things away by saying: ‘but he’s a good boy’ and all that?
It doesn’t matter if you’re a saint, if you go smash your elbow into a player’s face like this (and it’s not his first incident), then you’ve got a serious problem and that has to be dealt with.
The FA will not do much - the worst they can do is suspend him for a few months. Why should the football field be exempted from police law?
phil
the ‘can of worms’ you’re talking about HAS to opened, although not just for this case. I’m sick and tired of hearing about football being stuck in ‘dubious’ decisions mode because we think that the authority of the referees will be undermined or that the game’s flow will be disturbed if we restructure the system.
There are a lot of ways to deal with the incompetence of referees. That’s a separate matter, but it HAS to be dealt with as well.
That’s fine Ahmed, if the rules need to be changed then the FA (or actually in this area more accurately, FIFA) should change them. However, you have to consider all the implications of such a change and be prepared to deal with them.
Thatcher’s challenge was awful, but he’s not the first and he won’t be the last to have a ‘rush of blood’ or whatever, so let’s not get silly about it.
ahmed. in one of your previous posts you refer to what thatcher did as “pre-meditated assault”. what do you base this on? surely if it was pre-meditated, then he would have known exactly what he was doing, what the consequences were and he wouldnt have had a maniacal look on his face before and after the challenge?
it was an awful challenge, but its the referees job (and the FA) to decide on punishment. Not the media
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/cgi/NGoto/157550162?-1808
hardly defending him.
Ahmed the discussion about the football field being above the law is handled elsewhere far more eloquently than I can. If this goes to the police then you can kiss all forms of rugby, american football and ozzie rules football goodbye, all of them have players on the pitch in the understanding that they might get hurt. This was not premeditated - Ben did not go on the pitch after half time with the intention of damaging Mendes which is more than can be said of another player in a previous match (who has since admitted that his attack was pre-planned). Scenes like this are part of football, they’re not a nice part but stuff like this does happen, more usually in the lower leagues. If you don’t like it switch to tennis.
he isn’t defending thatcher, you numpty. do your research.
I beg you to see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFpvJMTrjk4
and tell me how this is acceptable in football.
Bad injuries are an unfortunate consequence of rash tackles.
This wasn’t a rash tackle. He raises his elbow at the last moment, when he has no need to raise it to his FACE.
Pearce and Man City know that FA and FIFA can’t do much worse than a ban, whereas if the police becomes involved he is, quite frankly, fucked.
Thats as deliberate as King Eric’s karate kick. A 7 month ban is the least he deserves.
We’ve heard Pearce’s comments and he doesn’t defend Thatcher for a single instant. Your article is based on another numptie blog site. The MEN piece describes what he said. It’s probably available on the BBC site seeing as I heard it on 5Live.
The initial premise of your article is based on a falsehood and then you pontificate on that basis. Inevitably, the result is gibberish, just as everyone is saying.
Yet another mistake for this site. Must be double figures since Monday. Looks like another apology is forthcoming, Ahmed. Will you ever get anything right while you are making “a concerted effort to ensure that our readers are not served misleading and untrue news”?
The BBC video is linked off http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/5281686.stm
Also, why is this article addressed as a question to Man City fans? What’s it got to do with them?
Sid,
I advise you to check your facts mate - you have a habit of jumping the gun and seeing everything through jaundiced eyes.
Pearce, after the match, said that it could have been an accidental collision.
The manager is defending his player after the match while everyone else on the ground and at home can see that this was deliberate?
It is only the day after that Pearce calls the incident unacceptable. That is ridiculous. He’s reacting to public pressure, just as Man City are doing by dropping and banning the player.
All we’ve heard from Man City is how sorry Thatcher is - the ban is purely a reaction to the media and an attempt to soften any eventual punishments that will be meted out by the FA.
The article you’re linking mate, was written AFTER I wrote this piece.