Tuesday, October 17
i need, i need, i need to rant. really do. non-football-watching people, you have the right not to read this entry. but it's kinda interesting anyway i'd say, and i'll try to minimise the jargon.
so poor petr (cech, chelsea's keeper) was taken out by this reading midfielder steven hunt. he slid on the ground, and inexplicably bent down his knee, kneeing poor petr in the skull. it was a challenge that is, to put it most lightly, wildly reckless and at worst, blatant assault and an unmeditated attempt to cause grievous bodily harm.
draw your own conclusions but for me, biased or not, that deserved a red card whether he meant it or not. (clue: that prick was laughing and everything after it all.)
note: in this instance, the referee decided there was nothing wrong, and no card. (i can go on about the ref but i won't, for now.)
so poor petr, with a depressed fractured skull and out of action for up to a year (that's 365 days), you might think he would get some sympathy. let's see what the people are saying.
sky sports (who asked READING midfielder sidwell): no way was it intentional. i know him, and he wouldn't do such a thing. (so much for fair and reliable sources.)
teamtalk.com: cech is just making a meal out of it. (football-speak for "he's faking it")
professional footballers' association chief gordon taylor: hunt can sue mourinho (chelsea's manager) for saying that it's deliberate.
the daily mail: it is chelsea, not hunt, who needs to apologise.
now, i know people dislike chelsea, but this is getting a bit silly.
basically, everyone who thinks that it was an "accident" and just "tough luck for chelsea" (who, by the way, deserve the tough luck cause we are enemies of football) generally hide behind the lame reasoning that we cannot punish hunt cause it is too difficult to prove his intent.
and i say it's lame cause if you handle the ball in your box, your opponent gets a penalty, whether you meant it or not. if you tried to tackle and missed, catching your opponent, it's still a foul whether you meant it or not.
i cast my mind back to this tackle, a few months back:
yes, i would not deny it was a bad and reckless tackle. yes, i would not be biased and say he didn't deserve to get a red card, 'cause he did. and no, i wouldn't claim that he didn't mean to do it just because "i know him". (although i do, and he's an amazingly quiet and shy person who broke down in the aftermath of this incident amidst all the media pressure)
back then, everyone somehow knew for certain he deliberately intended to injure liverpool's hamann. the referee thought it was nothing too. but what happens? the newspapers, tv, radio, the vegetable seller and the pantry lady all roared in protest that such a travesty can happen without punity. so what does the FA (governing body of english football [my foot]) do? they "study the replays", and ban essien for 3 games anyway.
if anything at all, at least essien was closer to the ball than hunt ever got/could ever get. basically, in football, the further away from the ball you are when you make physical contact, the higher your culpability.
believe me, if it was john terry (england's and unfortunately, chelsea's captain) who made that challenge on a goalkeeper, we'd be seeing the replay daily and everyone will call for him to be banned for 20 games, his england captaincy stripped and given to gerrard (of liverpool, incidentally), chelsea to be deducted 5 points, fined 10 million pounds (roman can afford it anyway) and mourinho to be jailed for perjury when he said that terry didn't mean it. i would not be the least surprised.
rant over. damn. it's been long.