I guess you have to accept that there are many more times when someone waves a hand or nods a head in the general direction of an opponent whithout actually trying to hit them then there are times when there is real intent.
It's where the phrase 'handbags' comes from I believe.
Looked like Lita just had a little nod in the general direction of the defender, who thrw himself to the ground. It didn't look like Lita made any real move at him - all a bit of a fuss over nothing IMHO.
Leroy's headbutt
Regardless of whether Leroy made contact or not, the "intention" was there and this intention debate has gone around all season long, even from the opening game of fixtures when Steven Gerrard was given a penalty when there appeared to be minimal contact yet the intention from Chris Morgan was there.
Accept the charge, take the 3 game ban and learn from this Leroy, and be prepared to fight for your place.
Accept the charge, take the 3 game ban and learn from this Leroy, and be prepared to fight for your place.
Behindu I guess you have to accept that there are many more times when someone waves a hand or nods a head in the general direction of an opponent whithout actually trying to hit them then there are times when there is real intent.
It's where the phrase 'handbags' comes from I believe.
Looked like Lita just had a little nod in the general direction of the defender, who thrw himself to the ground. It didn't look like Lita made any real move at him - all a bit of a fuss over nothing IMHO.
Your last bit there sums it up. He did it but Kerkouri made a meal of it and is probably the more guilty of the two.
However, everyone knows that even if you just make a slight movement with your head like that you'll be very lucky to get away with it. Same if you swing a punch, like Scholes the other week against Liverpool, even if you don't connect or even mean to do any harm, it's still violent conduct.
RG30 Regardless of whether Leroy made contact or not, the "intention" was there and this intention debate has gone around all season long, even from the opening game of fixtures when Steven Gerrard was given a penalty when there appeared to be minimal contact yet the intention from Chris Morgan was there.
Accept the charge, take the 3 game ban and learn from this Leroy, and be prepared to fight for your place.
Pretty much spot on, except trade the word 'intent' for 'attempt' and you've hit the nail on the head.
Attempt to strike an opponent goes down as violent conduct in the laws of the game, and Leroy should be ready to face his three match ban because of this. Contact is totally and utterly irrelevant.
andyhallsRG30 Regardless of whether Leroy made contact or not, the "intention" was there and this intention debate has gone around all season long, even from the opening game of fixtures when Steven Gerrard was given a penalty when there appeared to be minimal contact yet the intention from Chris Morgan was there.
Accept the charge, take the 3 game ban and learn from this Leroy, and be prepared to fight for your place.
Pretty much spot on, except trade the word 'intent' for 'attempt' and you've hit the nail on the head.
Attempt to strike an opponent goes down as violent conduct in the laws of the game, and Leroy should be ready to face his three match ban because of this. Contact is totally and utterly irrelevant.
"attemption" ?
-
Royal Lady
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 13760
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
- Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.
-
el_presidente
- Member
- Posts: 138
- Joined: 17 Sep 2006 21:06
-
Don Finch
- Member
- Posts: 237
- Joined: 14 Apr 2004 17:19
- Location: Eating a dirty burger outside the East stand
From the OS
Boss amazed and defiant over Lita's charge
Royals boss Steve Coppell has admitted he is bewildered by the FA's decision to charge Leroy Lita with violent conduct.
Referee Graham Poll missed an incident involving Lita and Talal El Karkouri during Monday's game at Charlton, but the official has since reviewed video footage and deemed Leroy's actions to be worthy of a red card.
Coppell has since reviewed the video footage himself, and he spoke openly to the press today about his amazement that a charge has been brought.
In addition, he explained that he may be forced to leave Lita out of our game with Fulham, regardless of the outcome of Friday's hearing.
The full press conference, in which Steve is very forthright and emotive in his views, is available on our online TV station Reading World now, as well as footage of the incident itself.
Steve explained, "Somebody said to me after the game that there may have been an incident, but I certainly didn't see it. It didn't appear to be highlighted until later on Match Of The Day.
"I've since seen the video footage and to be honest I'm amazed by it. It's so difficult to get a proper view of what happened, so for him to be charged and for the ref to say he'd have sent him off? We will be contesting it, 100%.
"It's ridiculous. I've seen it 50 times and you can't see what happens. You can't say categorically what happened.
"There's a confrontation there and perhaps I shouldn't say a great deal further until the ruling comes out.
"You can see there's an incredible reaction. I'm amazed he [El Karkouri] played on considering the death roll after the alleged contact. I felt there was an over-reaction, but he might have broken his nose in five places and I've just not been told.
"I don't want to pre-empt what's said in the hearing, but if you look at the incident El Karkouri confronts him, he turns around to face him and Leroy goes like that [moves his head to the side].
"Leroy says he's protecting himself because he didn't know what El Karkouri was going to do, so he scrunched up.
"If Leroy wanted to butt someone, they wouldn't fall sideways and they wouldn't get up. That's the wrong way to look at it because I don't want to slur Leroy as that type of person. Realistically though if he wanted to cause damage I don't think the player would continue the game.
"This is not a refereeing thing, I believe it's the compliance unit. We don't know who the unit are, it's a grey area. It's good to supplement the referees, but why is it so shady? It's like a hidden militia.
"I complement a lot of these decisions - if there's video evidence, use it. Fine.
"The ref has seen it and said he would send him off, but I've looked at all angles and you can't see it. There's no way you can say there was contact, although that's suggested in the fall. There's no way he definitely hit him.
"He's going like that [moving his head to the side.] For me, a headbutt is straight on and a case of bang, cop for that. Here, he turns to one side.
"I've not got my head in the sand. If I think one of my players headbutted someone, I'd punish him myself."
Lita's availability
The hearing takes place on Friday afternoon, and regardless of the outcome Steve may be forced to leave Leroy out of his plans for our game with Fulham.
He said, "Whatever happens, it disrupts our preparations. I have to think carefully if he can play. We do our set pieces on a Friday morning and I may have to exclude him from selection.
"As far as I'm concerned he's innocent, but by nature of the hullaballo he might get punished [regardless]."
In addition, the boss was asked about Graham Poll's signal to Alan Pardew during the game on Monday, and he said, "It was wrong, that's all I'll say. I'll save that for another day, I don't want to muddy the waters.
"I want to be specific on the Leroy thing. He didn't do anything."
Boss amazed and defiant over Lita's charge
Royals boss Steve Coppell has admitted he is bewildered by the FA's decision to charge Leroy Lita with violent conduct.
Referee Graham Poll missed an incident involving Lita and Talal El Karkouri during Monday's game at Charlton, but the official has since reviewed video footage and deemed Leroy's actions to be worthy of a red card.
Coppell has since reviewed the video footage himself, and he spoke openly to the press today about his amazement that a charge has been brought.
In addition, he explained that he may be forced to leave Lita out of our game with Fulham, regardless of the outcome of Friday's hearing.
The full press conference, in which Steve is very forthright and emotive in his views, is available on our online TV station Reading World now, as well as footage of the incident itself.
Steve explained, "Somebody said to me after the game that there may have been an incident, but I certainly didn't see it. It didn't appear to be highlighted until later on Match Of The Day.
"I've since seen the video footage and to be honest I'm amazed by it. It's so difficult to get a proper view of what happened, so for him to be charged and for the ref to say he'd have sent him off? We will be contesting it, 100%.
"It's ridiculous. I've seen it 50 times and you can't see what happens. You can't say categorically what happened.
"There's a confrontation there and perhaps I shouldn't say a great deal further until the ruling comes out.
"You can see there's an incredible reaction. I'm amazed he [El Karkouri] played on considering the death roll after the alleged contact. I felt there was an over-reaction, but he might have broken his nose in five places and I've just not been told.
"I don't want to pre-empt what's said in the hearing, but if you look at the incident El Karkouri confronts him, he turns around to face him and Leroy goes like that [moves his head to the side].
"Leroy says he's protecting himself because he didn't know what El Karkouri was going to do, so he scrunched up.
"If Leroy wanted to butt someone, they wouldn't fall sideways and they wouldn't get up. That's the wrong way to look at it because I don't want to slur Leroy as that type of person. Realistically though if he wanted to cause damage I don't think the player would continue the game.
"This is not a refereeing thing, I believe it's the compliance unit. We don't know who the unit are, it's a grey area. It's good to supplement the referees, but why is it so shady? It's like a hidden militia.
"I complement a lot of these decisions - if there's video evidence, use it. Fine.
"The ref has seen it and said he would send him off, but I've looked at all angles and you can't see it. There's no way you can say there was contact, although that's suggested in the fall. There's no way he definitely hit him.
"He's going like that [moving his head to the side.] For me, a headbutt is straight on and a case of bang, cop for that. Here, he turns to one side.
"I've not got my head in the sand. If I think one of my players headbutted someone, I'd punish him myself."
Lita's availability
The hearing takes place on Friday afternoon, and regardless of the outcome Steve may be forced to leave Leroy out of his plans for our game with Fulham.
He said, "Whatever happens, it disrupts our preparations. I have to think carefully if he can play. We do our set pieces on a Friday morning and I may have to exclude him from selection.
"As far as I'm concerned he's innocent, but by nature of the hullaballo he might get punished [regardless]."
In addition, the boss was asked about Graham Poll's signal to Alan Pardew during the game on Monday, and he said, "It was wrong, that's all I'll say. I'll save that for another day, I don't want to muddy the waters.
"I want to be specific on the Leroy thing. He didn't do anything."
-
Katie Marsden
- Member
- Posts: 384
- Joined: 19 Sep 2006 20:11
- Location: wokingham
-
RoyalBlue
-
Hob Nob Subscriber
- Posts: 11680
- Joined: 13 Apr 2004 22:39
- Location: Developed a pathological hatred of snakes on 14/10/19
Dawn Just had a text from the club which says:
"Coppell confirms that we'll contest the "ridiculous" charge against Lita"
On a point of principle that's the right thing to do but it will probably prove to be disastrous for us, given the FA pratts that adjudicate in such hearings.
And being a Scouser, Sir Steve is well qualified to judge whether there was a real head butt or not!
andyhallsRG30 Regardless of whether Leroy made contact or not, the "intention" was there and this intention debate has gone around all season long, even from the opening game of fixtures when Steven Gerrard was given a penalty when there appeared to be minimal contact yet the intention from Chris Morgan was there.
Accept the charge, take the 3 game ban and learn from this Leroy, and be prepared to fight for your place.
Pretty much spot on, except trade the word 'intent' for 'attempt' and you've hit the nail on the head.
Attempt to strike an opponent goes down as violent conduct in the laws of the game, and Leroy should be ready to face his three match ban because of this. Contact is totally and utterly irrelevant.
Are you sure? If so, how come this season in particular we have seen players only receive a yellow card for actually deliberately (ie with intent) shoving an opponent in off the ball incidents? The explanation given by those supposedly in the know is that refs have been told that as long as the shove is not to the head or face it is only a yellow.
Last edited by RoyalBlue on 12 Apr 2007 17:10, edited 1 time in total.
-
Katie Marsden
- Member
- Posts: 384
- Joined: 19 Sep 2006 20:11
- Location: wokingham
RoyalBlueDawn Just had a text from the club which says:
"Coppell confirms that we'll contest the "ridiculous" charge against Lita"
On a point of principle that's the right thing to do but it will probably prove to be disastrous for us, given the FA pratts that adjudicate in such hearings.
And being a Scouser, Sir Steve is well qualified to judge whether there was a real head butt or not!
You've got Liverpool confused with Glasgow.
Now if Leroy had sliced someone up with a blade..
-
biscuitsrus
- Member
- Posts: 644
- Joined: 28 Mar 2006 16:07
-
weybridgewanderer
- Hob Nob Regular
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: 19 Nov 2005 23:08
- Location: is it time to go home?
I think if Pardew got a "nod" from Poll that Song was in trouble its only fair that Coppell should have got a "nod" from Poll that Lita was in trouble.
The fact Poll didn't see this incidentat the time means he now thinks he should retrospectively punich the incident. Well does that mean that we could retrospectively sub Lita before he retrospectively gets his red card?
The fact Poll didn't see this incidentat the time means he now thinks he should retrospectively punich the incident. Well does that mean that we could retrospectively sub Lita before he retrospectively gets his red card?
-
Mr Optimist
- Hob Nob Regular
- Posts: 2133
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004 13:31
- Location: Colwyn Bay Royals - Membership no.000001,
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: WestYorksRoyal and 545 guests
It is currently 19 Apr 2024 20:52