Popular Post BOF Posted March 29, 2017 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted March 29, 2017 6 minutes ago, villarocker said: It really doesn't bother me that he plays for the Villa. In fact, if Coleman had done the same to Taylor I wouldn't have said that he meant it either. It has been an interesting few days being an Irish Villa fan in all of this. Without exception in this whole debate no matter which side I've been discussing it with, if I hold an opinion that's different to theirs then I'm immediately dismissed as being biased. It's like you couldn't possibly hold a different opinion to their one without there being some underlying prejudicial motive behind it. Talking amongst my Irish friends, I'm accused of wearing claret & blue specs if I don't villify him enough. Talking on here I'm accused of Irish bias if I come across as being too critical of him. It's actually quite sad (and quite revealing) that people i) struggle to look at something like that impartially, and then ii) refuse to believe that someone else might have that ability and might disagree with them on it. "Oh you don't agree with me? You don't validate my opinions? Well I'm certainly not wrong so you must be biased." Ego intact. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astonaidan Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 7 hours ago, villarocker said: Seriously, I can't believe the reaction to Taylor for that tackle. If Coleman got up and walked away from it nothing would have been said about it. But, because of the injury people have gone mental about it like Taylor is some kind of new Roy Keane, a player who definitely went out to injure other players. Taylor went for the ball but Coleman was too quick and more aggressive than him. It is as simple as that. He went for the ball my arse. Chris Coleman cleary told his lads in the second half leave a mark on them, thats exactly what Taylor did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, BOF said: It has been an interesting few days being an Irish Villa fan in all of this. Without exception in this whole debate no matter which side I've been discussing it with, if I hold an opinion that's different to theirs then I'm immediately dismissed as being biased. It's like you couldn't possibly hold a different opinion to their one without there being some underlying prejudicial motive behind it. Talking amongst my Irish friends, I'm accused of wearing claret & blue specs if I don't villify him enough. Talking on here I'm accused of Irish bias if I come across as being too critical of him. It's actually quite sad (and quite revealing) that people i) struggle to look at something like that impartially, and then ii) refuse to believe that someone else might have that ability and might disagree with them on it. "Oh you don't agree with me? You don't validate my opinions? Well I'm certainly not wrong so you must be biased." Ego intact. Is that because I suggested that you might be biased towards Coleman, even though I believe that to be a natural human reaction? I'm probably biased towards Taylor. As you might appear to be when discussing the incident with your Irish friends because it's also natural to slip into 'devil's advocate' mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 29, 2017 Moderator Share Posted March 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: Is that because I suggested that you might be biased towards Coleman, even though I believe that to be a natural human reaction? I'm probably biased towards Taylor. As you might appear to be when discussing the incident with your Irish friends because it's also natural to slip into 'devil's advocate' mode. I have never played devil's advocate in this discussion. My position hasn't changed. Only the position of those I'm discussing it with changes from person to person, and if my view isn't as extreme as theirs in one direction or the other then I'm put down as biased towards whichever side they disagree with. And while yes you were one, you were one of many. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 I hope he plays Saturday if he is in the right mind. The team is so much better and balanced when he is in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 10 hours ago, astonaidan said: He went for the ball my arse. Chris Coleman cleary told his lads in the second half leave a mark on them, thats exactly what Taylor did. Agree. Very few players want to actively snap the opposition player's leg, but in every sport that involves contact, players will quite often go hard at a player to "make him earn it". Taylor put making him earn it ahead of the safety of his fellow professional with a disastrous result. Taylor will live with the reputation of that for the rest of his career most likely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Grasshopper Posted March 30, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 30, 2017 I see it as follows 1) Taylor blocks cross 2) ball runs loose feels responsible for it 3) checks/hesitates 4) see's Coleman going for it 5) Commits to a challenge 6) Coleman goes for shot - loose ball - just outside box - goes for it 7) Taylor in momentum goes to block/win the ball - goes over the top of ball - speed and commitment has him out of control - rather more a reaction than a decision (Imho) Taylors commitment to the challenge is 100% Colemans commitment to kicking/shooting is 100% Outcome will only be in favour of the sturdy party. The kick in a forward movement has really nowhere to go when being blocked so Coleman can only come worst off Unfortunate - combination of 2 factors that if they connect someone is going to come out of it badly. I can feel so sorry for both - Coleman for the breaks - Taylors for the consequences 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparrow1988 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 I don't know exactly what this means but the headline doesn't read well. Apparently FIFA are opening proceedings against Taylor.... http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/fifa-opens-proceedings-against-neil-taylor-following-horror-challenge-that-broke-seamus-colemans-leg-35578919.html Quote FIFA has opened proceedings against Neil Taylor following the Wales defender's challenge on Republic of Ireland defender Seamus Coleman.. Everton defender Coleman needed surgery on a broken tibia and fibula after being injured in the 69th minute of Friday's World Cup qualifying match at the Aviva Stadium, which finished in a goalless draw. Coleman faces months on the sidelines and Taylor, who will definitely miss Wales' next qualifier away to Serbia in June, faces the prospect of having his automatic one-match ban extended. I don't know whether it is to do with additional games been added to the ban or actually seeking financial compensation as they are now paying Coleman's wages. Also, this could be sensationalist headline writing as the Irish Indedpendent is essentially a tabloid posing as a broadsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 30, 2017 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, sparrow1988 said: I don't know exactly what this means but the headline doesn't read well. Apparently FIFA are opening proceedings against Taylor.... Whatever it means, it'll most probably be limited to his international appearances. Although it's unavoidable that the impact of the whole saga will have an effect on his form overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astonaidan Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 32 minutes ago, BOF said: Whatever it means, it'll most probably be limited to his international appearances. Although it's unavoidable that the impact of the whole saga will have an effect on his form overall. Be surprised if it had a impact on playing for Villa. As I said I think it was a scumbag tackle meant to leave a mark on Coleman. But I dont think he thought to break his leg. For me a ban that affects club career should be racist comments or admitting he meant to break his leg. Something proper malicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post dont_do_it_doug. Posted March 30, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 30, 2017 Just now, astonaidan said: Be surprised if it had a impact on playing for Villa. As I said I think it was a scumbag tackle meant to leave a mark on Coleman. But I dont think he thought to break his leg. For me a ban that affects club career should be racist comments or admitting he meant to break his leg. Something proper malicious As you said. Over and over and over again. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astonaidan Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said: As you said. Over and over and over again. Atta boy, add nothing to the conversation, like you have done over and over again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 30, 2017 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, astonaidan said: Be surprised if it had a impact on playing for Villa. You misunderstood me. I meant that the whole saga, particularly a protracted FIFA investigation, would affect the person, not his availability for Villa. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astonaidan Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Just now, BOF said: You misunderstood me. I meant that the whole saga, particularly a protracted FIFA investigation, would affect the person, not his availability for Villa. My bad, in that case Id presume it would, I dont see it being a protracted one though. He will get a 3 game ban for dangerous play, maybe 5 if they think there was intent to damage which could happen with the quickness in the way the ref reacted. It shouldnt take more than one meeting tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 30, 2017 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 minute ago, astonaidan said: My bad, in that case Id presume it would, I dont see it being a protracted one though. He will get a 3 game ban for dangerous play, maybe 5 if they think there was intent to damage which could happen with the quickness in the way the ref reacted. It shouldnt take more than one meeting tbh Hopefully. I just don't like the term "opening proceedings" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Can only assume FIFA are also opening proceedings against Glenn Whelan for a deliberate elbow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 56 minutes ago, bobzy said: Can only assume FIFA are also opening proceedings against Glenn Whelan for a deliberate elbow? probably not, that would undermine their referee who missed it is there precedent for this? im assuming it will mean a 1 match ban turns in to a 3 match ban, anything else would be a bit daft and set a dangerous precedent IMO they cant start judging bans by the injury the tackle caused Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 30, 2017 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2017 A facebook mate has made the quite valid point that if they're going to throw the book at Taylor for that tackle then they should be throwing it at Bale as well. His tackle on O'Shea was every bit as bad. In fact I'd say it was worse. It just didn't have the same consequences. How dangerous a tackle is shouldn't solely be dependent upon the result. O'Shea had a load of stitches and was inches from a potential career ending injury too. But then Bale doesn't play in the 2nd tier and he somehow got away with a yellow. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 hours ago, sparrow1988 said: I don't know exactly what this means but the headline doesn't read well. Apparently FIFA are opening proceedings against Taylor.... http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/international-soccer/fifa-opens-proceedings-against-neil-taylor-following-horror-challenge-that-broke-seamus-colemans-leg-35578919.html I don't know whether it is to do with additional games been added to the ban or actually seeking financial compensation as they are now paying Coleman's wages. Also, this could be sensationalist headline writing as the Irish Indedpendent is essentially a tabloid posing as a broadsheet. FIFA have to keep the outgoing costs down so they can always keep up with the "Brown Envelopes" demand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astonaidan Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 39 minutes ago, villa4europe said: probably not, that would undermine their referee who missed it is there precedent for this? im assuming it will mean a 1 match ban turns in to a 3 match ban, anything else would be a bit daft and set a dangerous precedent IMO they cant start judging bans by the injury the tackle caused Doesnt matter that the ref missed it, he should still get some punishment. I woudlnt be shocked if they went passed a 3 match ban tbh. The way the ref reacted coupled with many reports coming out about Messi getting a 4 match ban and Taylor only getting a 3 match one might mean he gets a harsher ban than justified Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts