Jump to content

Joe Bennett


Si.

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Dick said:

I bet Warnock said Sane dived. Prick. 

Just heard his interview. BBC

 

 

But Bennett's boss Neil Warnock said such tackles should be expected in English football.

Warnock was responding to Man City manager Pep Guardiola's criticism of Bennett's foulwith Sane set to be out injured as a result of it for up to a month.

"They dished it out a bit, they had one or two naughty tackles," Warnock said.

"He (Guardiola) is in England, what do you expect?

"I suppose when you're like that, you want everything to be nice, pretty and perfect.

"But you don't get that here, you get different challenges."

Edited by av1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, I don't think the challenge is intentionally a leg breaker.  He should've been sent off for it, of course, but he's clearly just trying to end Sane's run, not injure him.

Naturally, the latter happened and it was a bad tackle - but "hope he gets a very long suspension" is bonkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bobzy said:

In fairness, I don't think the challenge is intentionally a leg breaker.  He should've been sent off for it, of course, but he's clearly just trying to end Sane's run, not injure him.

Naturally, the latter happened and it was a bad tackle - but "hope he gets a very long suspension" is bonkers.

His intention is irrelevant imo. If you go in that recklessly with your studs up, you should know that you're probably going to injure him very badly. "Well, I didn't mean to" doesn't really come into it. It's the recklessness that's being punished and not the malice behind it that may or may not be there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

His intention is irrelevant imo. If you go in that recklessly with your studs up, you should know that you're probably going to injure him very badly. "Well, I didn't mean to" doesn't really come into it. It's the recklessness that's being punished and not the malice behind it that may or may not be there.

When you're running at full pelt and making a last ditch challenge it's rare, in my small and unqualified opinion, that you have time to think at all.

You just do, and occasionally you get it wrong.

Red card yes, but that's where it should end, I'd suggest that 99% of bad tackles are not premeditated in any way, you have to go back to Roy Keane's days to find intentional leg-breakers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

His intention is irrelevant imo. If you go in that recklessly with your studs up, you should know that you're probably going to injure him very badly. "Well, I didn't mean to" doesn't really come into it. It's the recklessness that's being punished and not the malice behind it that may or may not be there.

I agree that intent shouldn't' be a factor, whichever way you look at it.

You can't be let off a horror challenge because you didn't mean to, if nothing else for the reason as how would you ever prove it?

Similarly you can't punish someone for a less rash challenge because you think they were trying to do more damage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

His intention is irrelevant imo. If you go in that recklessly with your studs up, you should know that you're probably going to injure him very badly. "Well, I didn't mean to" doesn't really come into it. It's the recklessness that's being punished and not the malice behind it that may or may not be there.

Right - which is why I've said I thought it should have been a red card.  It's just not that bad a tackle, though.  On a scale of 'standard red card' to 'horror tackle', it's completely at the 'standard red card' end of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Right - which is why I've said I thought it should have been a red card.  It's just not that bad a tackle, though.  On a scale of 'standard red card' to 'horror tackle', it's completely at the 'standard red card' end of things.

I don't know, it's pretty bad on my scale. It's not Suarez two-footer level bad, but it's pretty bad.

Even if you take intent into account, you can't even really argue in Bennett's favour either. If indeed he simply wanted to impede Sane there were less dangerous ways he could have done it.

The most common and least malicious (and probably the easiest) way is to clip his legs from the side or from behind if you're too far back like Lansbury tried to do when he got sent off. Even if you mis-time it like he did because he's slow as ****, the worst you'll do is maybe kick his shin if you're coming from the side like Bennett was. Yellow card at worst.

But what does he do? He goes straight in, studs up with the opposite leg. You can make a good case for malintent there tbh. You could make a case for going for the ball like that, but the ball was already gone. If he was aiming squarely for the player, that's a pretty nasty way to do so imo.

Edited by Keyblade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Bennet went straight out on Twitter and apologized to Sane and City.

Still it's a horrible challenge and it's pure luck that Sane isn't out for the season and the WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

I don't know, it's pretty bad on my scale. It's not Suarez two-footer level bad, but it's pretty bad.

Even if you take intent into account, you can't even really argue in Bennett's favour either. If indeed he simply wanted to impede Sane there were less dangerous ways he could have done it.

The most common and least malicious (and probably the easiest) way is to clip his legs from the side or from behind if you're too far back like Lansbury tried to do when he got sent off. Even if you mis-time it like he did because he's slow as ****, the worst you'll do is maybe kick his shin if you're coming from the side like Bennett was. Yellow card at worst.

But what does he do? He goes straight in, studs up with the opposite leg. You can make a good case for malintent there tbh. You could make a case for going for the ball like that, but the ball was already gone. If he was aiming squarely for the player, that's a pretty nasty way to do so imo.

I think you're mis-remembering the incident tbh.  Sane is absolutely rapid and is going past Bennett.  Bennett jumps in from, basically, behind and to the side of the player.  He has zero intent on trying to win the ball, it's gone.  The only way he can catch him is using the leading leg, which he does.  I don't, personally, think he intends to catch him with his studs - he's just trying to end his run.  It's a red card, but the fuss is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Compare this to the Harry Kane and Dele Alli challenges against Man City.  Those are horrible, nasty tackles.  Kane's in particular - from memory, he goes for the challenge then deliberately shoves his studs further into... maybe Sterling?  This is nowhere near that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I think you're mis-remembering the incident tbh.  Sane is absolutely rapid and is going past Bennett.  Bennett jumps in from, basically, behind and to the side of the player.  He has zero intent on trying to win the ball, it's gone.  The only way he can catch him is using the leading leg, which he does.  I don't, personally, think he intends to catch him with his studs - he's just trying to end his run.  It's a red card, but the fuss is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Compare this to the Harry Kane and Dele Alli challenges against Man City.  Those are horrible, nasty tackles.  Kane's in particular - from memory, he goes for the challenge then deliberately shoves his studs further into... maybe Sterling?  This is nowhere near that.

Nah I watched it again before posting. It's possible that he already missed the window for cleanly tackling Sane due to Sane's speed and/or his own slow reactions. That window was here:

QmZaC3r.png?1

Clip him with his right leg and he gets a yellow card for impeding and Sane likely doesn't get injured. But he took an extra step after this, and maybe he misjudged how rapid Sane was but at that point if the only option left is a very dangerous tackle...is it worth it? Poor decision, and obviously calls for a 10 game ban are crazy...but **** me if it wasn't dangerous and nasty.

Agreed about the 2 Spurs tackles. There seemed to be intent behind both of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
×
×
  • Create New...
Â