Liam Roberts could be facing a longer ban for his challenge against Mateta
I've added a second slide where someone has shown examples of similar challenges that had the normal 3 match ban, thoughts? I don't personally think there's any malicious intent
Only the player doing the offence will know if there was intent or not
Its why its such a shit piece of wording to have in a lot of Footballing rules, and one of the reasons behind why there are so many inconsistent decisions from Referees
SofaChillReview on
Malice or not I suppose we have to look at the danger doing that. Shouldn’t be attempting that wherever Mateta is getting on the end of that or not
NeverGonnaGiveMewUp on
Yeah not sure I agree with this, being late in a challenge isn’t the same as being a thug.
Longer bans should be reserved for deliberate acts like when Suarez got hungry, not for being a bit shit.
anaughtybeagle on
Jesus, that photo! The person who took it just have been simultaneously thrilled and disgusted with how it came out.
cockaskedforamartini on
If you can’t play football to a decently safe level, you shouldn’t play football. Intent or not.
Accidents happen, but he had his studs at a standing person’s eye level. What the fuck did he think was gonna happen?
Instead of carrying water for one of your players, you should be doing the opposite. He represents your club. Hold him to a higher fucking standard.
Bearha1r on
Those other examples look completely different from the stills.
The Millwall keeper was flying out with his foot at head height and Mateta is 6ft 5. Absolutely ludicrous challenge and clearly dangerous play whether he made contact or not.
That said a 3 match ban for dangerous play seems fair.
WilkosJumper2 on
It would be justified. There’s simply no reason for him to go in with his foot like that. An example has to be set.
ricky9 on
Dael Fry against Blackburn in 2021 didn’t even get a free kick
-W-A-W-A-W- on
Personally I do think longer bans for extremely dangerous/reckless fouls should be considered.
There’s a difference between going in for a 50/50 or a freak accident happening and breaking someone’s ankle or even leg compared to someone studding you in the face at actual head height.
I think we can all agree/accept that footballers step onto the pitch and understand the potential injuries etc that could occur in the reasonable course of a game – some moron jumping to take the ball with their foot aimed directly at your head (whether intentional or not, most likely not intentional) should not be a risk anyone takes/has to consider.
He could have easily have blinded Mateta with his reckless actions – personally, I think it should be a sizeable ban.
If you can’t play the game safely, you shouldn’t be allowed to play the game.
hmsoleander on
Second slide definitely feels like some cherry picking. Those injuries were bad but just looks at the difference in placement when they connected – one is crouched and the other is on the ground already. To say “The game is gone” because they didn’t get treated as harshly, in completely different, retrospective situations, just reeks of bias. Why am I not surprised it’s coming from a twitter fan account
There is no situation where a keeper needs to do a studs-up, running jump and kick their foot 6.5ft into the air. Having changes to the rules for something like this isn’t something I think should be discouraged considering how genuinely dangerous it is, especially since this one is actively worse. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a challenge in my life as drastic or brutal at the one on Saturday. A 3 match ban is completely fair.
Certain_Pineapple_73 on
I’ve played my fair amount of rugby and football.
What Roberts did had malicious intent, but he didn’t want to injure him he just made an extremely thick 1 second decision. A 5 game ban sounds good to me:
The-Father-Time on
Will never forget the Liverpool fans saying Mane didn’t deserve a red
ElvishMystical on
This is not about malice. That was a dangerous, potentially career ending challenge.
Roberts’ position isn’t that relevant either because the challenge was made outside the penalty area. When the goalkeeper leaves his area like it or not he becomes an outfield player and needs to be judged accordingly.
This isn’t the same as a professional foul, upending someone or grabbing their shirt. It was an incredibly dangerous tackle. If a defender had made that tackle they would be seen as a liability. I don’t see how it being a goalkeeper makes it any less dangerous or reckless.
No player should be coming in on another player at a studs to the face kind of level. So what? We should have players wearing NFL style helmets? Some people really need a reality check.
Choices have consequences. A standard needs to be set and if this means a longer ban then so be it.
0100001101110111 on
It was a ridiculous challenge.
Flying studs up challenges at head height probably should be a lengthy ban tbh. Could have been a lot worse than 25 stitches.
5-6 matches wouldn’t be amiss.
tapoplata on
Don’t see why is wouldn’t be a longer ban. Was a horrendous challenge and he knew the dangers of it.
Keepers have a belief that they can go for a ball and clear out anyone in the way without consequence, happens all the time. They’ve been coached this way for a long time and the referees have reinforced the idea that it is okay for keepers to act that way by not punishing these fould more severely and by overprotecting keepers for any challenge on them
Internal_Formal3915 on
I’d just add an extra game on make it a 4 match ban don’t want to blow it out of proportion but at the same time it was disgusting, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Although I don’t think he intended to injure him so severely but he 100% wanted to leave something on him, and anyone who thinks it was accidental is bonkers… or a milwall fan
Flat_Professional_55 on
The length of ban shouldn’t be dictated by social media reaction.
Repulsive-Echidna-74 on
Used to be a contact sport
Anonymous-Josh on
The second slide challenges are slightly different as they aren’t as bad with it being a guy on the floor and a 6 foot keeper ducking down but I do think that mane’s probably should’ve been increased even if by a game or 2
TravellingMackem on
I think the picture is right tbf. It’s not a good tackle, but neither were the ones above either. There’s a host of other ones too – Defoe on Craig Gordon, Peter Cechs injury, Jiminezs injury, which were all caused by leaving a foot in around the head or face area. Not one of those attracted the media attention of this one. And not one attracted anything beyond a 3 game ban. I don’t think this is a special case amongst that field of offences – all are very similar to me.
mowlds on
Keeper connects with the ball at waist/chest height and follows through very poorly. personally can’t see how this deserves any more punishment than any similar incidents we’ve seen in the past. the reaction has been a bit of a circus so i think the FA will go further though
Cov_massif on
Feels a bit like playing to the crowd here… silly challenge but it’s a standard ban no more, no less
downfallndirtydeeds on
There are very few things that happen on a football pitch that can genuinely kill someone, but this was one. He should get a long ban.
I’ve always thought the same about players who back into players jumping for a header – it’s so dangerous when you’re talking about potential violent head injuries and there’s no need to do it
MarcosR77 on
I don’t get this because yrs ago Mane for Liverpool kicked ederson in the head which was similar with both tackles were silly but the current ban is sufficient.
B_e_l_l_ on
Personally think it’s difficult to argue that the keeper was anything more than clumsy. I don’t think there’s any intent to hurt Mateta.
I think a 3 game ban is fair but I wouldn’t argue against it being 4/5 either.
I think calls for a ban longer than that come from people getting riled up by social media.
I-stupid-very on
It’s just a mistimed challenge, a 100% red card in so many ways but there is no malice/ total lack of control of himself he gets the ball and doesn’t see Mateta no extra ban is necessary
kysm41 on
That second picture is absolutely irrelevant. Strikers are entitled to use their leg to go for the ball. Why tf Roberts’ leg was up there at that height is beyond me.
bbuullddoogg on
Back in the day this wouldn’t have even been a foul. Even if they had crystal clear VAR to watch. He got the ball first.
Happy-Habit1255 on
The reaction is simply because the goalies a millwall player yeah it’s bad but people calling for 5 game bans, too never play again or my personal favourite arrested? 😂😂😂😂 grow up there was no malice involved was an accident
Hot-Fun-1566 on
Utter woke nonsense. There was nothing in it.
Izual_Rebirth on
For this one I don’t think intent is as important as trying to remove dangerous situations like this from happening in the future.
fatreddituser1234 on
Can we transfer the ban to Jensen, then we’re missing our first choice keeper so it’s a more harsh punishment.
billyboyf30 on
Slightly different scenario to the ones on the 2nd slide. Those ones have the players getting hit either crouching or lower to the ground, whereas mateta isn’t crouching and at about 6ft4 was still hit in the head with the keeper a good 3ft in the air. Whether there was intention or not it was extremely dangerous and reckless, it was also lucky that matetas head was to the side otherwise that’s straight to the face and likely career ending.
33 Comments
Only the player doing the offence will know if there was intent or not
Its why its such a shit piece of wording to have in a lot of Footballing rules, and one of the reasons behind why there are so many inconsistent decisions from Referees
Malice or not I suppose we have to look at the danger doing that. Shouldn’t be attempting that wherever Mateta is getting on the end of that or not
Yeah not sure I agree with this, being late in a challenge isn’t the same as being a thug.
Longer bans should be reserved for deliberate acts like when Suarez got hungry, not for being a bit shit.
Jesus, that photo! The person who took it just have been simultaneously thrilled and disgusted with how it came out.
If you can’t play football to a decently safe level, you shouldn’t play football. Intent or not.
Accidents happen, but he had his studs at a standing person’s eye level. What the fuck did he think was gonna happen?
Instead of carrying water for one of your players, you should be doing the opposite. He represents your club. Hold him to a higher fucking standard.
Those other examples look completely different from the stills.
The Millwall keeper was flying out with his foot at head height and Mateta is 6ft 5. Absolutely ludicrous challenge and clearly dangerous play whether he made contact or not.
That said a 3 match ban for dangerous play seems fair.
It would be justified. There’s simply no reason for him to go in with his foot like that. An example has to be set.
Dael Fry against Blackburn in 2021 didn’t even get a free kick
Personally I do think longer bans for extremely dangerous/reckless fouls should be considered.
There’s a difference between going in for a 50/50 or a freak accident happening and breaking someone’s ankle or even leg compared to someone studding you in the face at actual head height.
I think we can all agree/accept that footballers step onto the pitch and understand the potential injuries etc that could occur in the reasonable course of a game – some moron jumping to take the ball with their foot aimed directly at your head (whether intentional or not, most likely not intentional) should not be a risk anyone takes/has to consider.
He could have easily have blinded Mateta with his reckless actions – personally, I think it should be a sizeable ban.
If you can’t play the game safely, you shouldn’t be allowed to play the game.
Second slide definitely feels like some cherry picking. Those injuries were bad but just looks at the difference in placement when they connected – one is crouched and the other is on the ground already. To say “The game is gone” because they didn’t get treated as harshly, in completely different, retrospective situations, just reeks of bias. Why am I not surprised it’s coming from a twitter fan account
There is no situation where a keeper needs to do a studs-up, running jump and kick their foot 6.5ft into the air. Having changes to the rules for something like this isn’t something I think should be discouraged considering how genuinely dangerous it is, especially since this one is actively worse. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a challenge in my life as drastic or brutal at the one on Saturday. A 3 match ban is completely fair.
I’ve played my fair amount of rugby and football.
What Roberts did had malicious intent, but he didn’t want to injure him he just made an extremely thick 1 second decision. A 5 game ban sounds good to me:
Will never forget the Liverpool fans saying Mane didn’t deserve a red
This is not about malice. That was a dangerous, potentially career ending challenge.
Roberts’ position isn’t that relevant either because the challenge was made outside the penalty area. When the goalkeeper leaves his area like it or not he becomes an outfield player and needs to be judged accordingly.
This isn’t the same as a professional foul, upending someone or grabbing their shirt. It was an incredibly dangerous tackle. If a defender had made that tackle they would be seen as a liability. I don’t see how it being a goalkeeper makes it any less dangerous or reckless.
No player should be coming in on another player at a studs to the face kind of level. So what? We should have players wearing NFL style helmets? Some people really need a reality check.
Choices have consequences. A standard needs to be set and if this means a longer ban then so be it.
It was a ridiculous challenge.
Flying studs up challenges at head height probably should be a lengthy ban tbh. Could have been a lot worse than 25 stitches.
5-6 matches wouldn’t be amiss.
Don’t see why is wouldn’t be a longer ban. Was a horrendous challenge and he knew the dangers of it.
Keepers have a belief that they can go for a ball and clear out anyone in the way without consequence, happens all the time. They’ve been coached this way for a long time and the referees have reinforced the idea that it is okay for keepers to act that way by not punishing these fould more severely and by overprotecting keepers for any challenge on them
I’d just add an extra game on make it a 4 match ban don’t want to blow it out of proportion but at the same time it was disgusting, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Although I don’t think he intended to injure him so severely but he 100% wanted to leave something on him, and anyone who thinks it was accidental is bonkers… or a milwall fan
The length of ban shouldn’t be dictated by social media reaction.
Used to be a contact sport
The second slide challenges are slightly different as they aren’t as bad with it being a guy on the floor and a 6 foot keeper ducking down but I do think that mane’s probably should’ve been increased even if by a game or 2
I think the picture is right tbf. It’s not a good tackle, but neither were the ones above either. There’s a host of other ones too – Defoe on Craig Gordon, Peter Cechs injury, Jiminezs injury, which were all caused by leaving a foot in around the head or face area. Not one of those attracted the media attention of this one. And not one attracted anything beyond a 3 game ban. I don’t think this is a special case amongst that field of offences – all are very similar to me.
Keeper connects with the ball at waist/chest height and follows through very poorly. personally can’t see how this deserves any more punishment than any similar incidents we’ve seen in the past. the reaction has been a bit of a circus so i think the FA will go further though
Feels a bit like playing to the crowd here… silly challenge but it’s a standard ban no more, no less
There are very few things that happen on a football pitch that can genuinely kill someone, but this was one. He should get a long ban.
I’ve always thought the same about players who back into players jumping for a header – it’s so dangerous when you’re talking about potential violent head injuries and there’s no need to do it
I don’t get this because yrs ago Mane for Liverpool kicked ederson in the head which was similar with both tackles were silly but the current ban is sufficient.
Personally think it’s difficult to argue that the keeper was anything more than clumsy. I don’t think there’s any intent to hurt Mateta.
I think a 3 game ban is fair but I wouldn’t argue against it being 4/5 either.
I think calls for a ban longer than that come from people getting riled up by social media.
It’s just a mistimed challenge, a 100% red card in so many ways but there is no malice/ total lack of control of himself he gets the ball and doesn’t see Mateta no extra ban is necessary
That second picture is absolutely irrelevant. Strikers are entitled to use their leg to go for the ball. Why tf Roberts’ leg was up there at that height is beyond me.
Back in the day this wouldn’t have even been a foul. Even if they had crystal clear VAR to watch. He got the ball first.
The reaction is simply because the goalies a millwall player yeah it’s bad but people calling for 5 game bans, too never play again or my personal favourite arrested? 😂😂😂😂 grow up there was no malice involved was an accident
Utter woke nonsense. There was nothing in it.
For this one I don’t think intent is as important as trying to remove dangerous situations like this from happening in the future.
Can we transfer the ban to Jensen, then we’re missing our first choice keeper so it’s a more harsh punishment.
Slightly different scenario to the ones on the 2nd slide. Those ones have the players getting hit either crouching or lower to the ground, whereas mateta isn’t crouching and at about 6ft4 was still hit in the head with the keeper a good 3ft in the air. Whether there was intention or not it was extremely dangerous and reckless, it was also lucky that matetas head was to the side otherwise that’s straight to the face and likely career ending.