Should players face life bans for reckless tackles?

Sepp Blatter, the Fifa president, in an exclusive interview with The Times today, argues that players guilty of reckless tackles should face criminal prosecution and not be allowed to play professionally again.

But what do you think? While Martin Taylor's tackle which broke the leg of Eduardo, the Arsenal striker, was certainly ill-advised, was it really malicious? Even Arsene Wenger, the Arsenal manager, retracted his earlier remarks made in the heat of the moment about there being no place in the game for players like the Birmingham veteran and accepted the central defender's apology.

Our question to you today is: Should players who make reckless tackles face prosecution and be banned for life? Please cast your vote and leave your comment at the bottom of this page.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments

[Tom]

people seem surpised that blatter is coming out with yet another pointless comment on an issue that was discussed weeks ago
maybe its time for the head of fifa to be a man with experience of football
where was he when steven hunt kicked cech in the head?
or when hunt attacked that man city defender(cant remmember which one)?
3 match bans are not long enough for some offences, but a life ban is ridiculous

[xtzheng]

All these talk about intention is just fuzzy logic.
Reward and punishment should be mete out based on RESULTS not intention. The result of Taylor's kick on Eduardo is obvious for everyone to see.
For the FA and FIFA to implement any constructive improvement to the game, they have to look at the results and stop pussy-footing or trying to second guess what was the intention of the offender.

[NJ]

The problem is that You just can't reliably judge intent - I don't recall Arsene Wenger proposing a lifetime ban for Kolo Taure when he nearly kicked off John Terry's head in the CC final.

[Stephan Andrews]

If a player commits a reckless or malicious tackle which well ends someone's career, he SHOULD certainly be banned. Life ban is a bit harsh but a ban without pay for the same amount of time the injured player is out would go down fine with most civilised people in this world.

[john]

Could somebody working at the Times please tell me how much longer we will have to put up with the highly disturbing, close-up and voyeuristic image of Eduardo's agony which accompanies the "bad tacklers" poll? Thank you.

[Dave]

I think the ultimate sanction of a life ban should be on the menu, to be administered only in the most egregious of cases. An example of such a case would be where it is clear that a player deliberately intended to injure another player. Keane's tackle on Haaland falls into that category - simply because the eejut admitted as much. A life ban should include all aspects of the professional game, including management.

In the Eduardo case a life ban on Taylor would be excessive, although 3 games is totally insufficient. I don't think it can be established that Taylor intended to break Ed's leg, but I think it's clear from the footage that he wanted to impede Ed with a reckless challenge knowing he had been beaten for speed. In such cases, I believe Taylor should have to bear the consequences of his rash judgement and be banned for anywhere from 10 games to a full season - something significant for a very bad foul.

As to the question of legal procedings, I'm afraid the time has come for this to be considered for what, in most other walks of life, would be viewed as assault.

[D. Bonsu]

I voted yes not becasue I thought that Taylor's challenge in particular was deserving of prosecution or life ban, but because there have been instances where that should have been the case. It is rather unfortunate for Taylor that this discussion has only surfaced after his, in my rather humble opinion, simple missed-timed challange. Now, I am a Gooner through and through, but I don't believe for one second that he went out to break Edu's leg, I would never accept that arguement.

That said, there have been instances where footballers have been able to get away with what would amount to GBH simply because it happened on a fooball pitch. The most sickening example of this was the Roy Keane tackle on Haaland. I distinctly rememeber when watching that game live and he made that tackle, I said to my father that he meant to kill him. Some time later, he then admits that it was intentional. And what happens? He gets a few games ban whilst the victim never played again except for one match. He should have faced criminal action at the very least. Had it been a guy on the street who perfromed that same challnge and done that same damage, they would still be in prison right now. But Keane, a footballer, was able to walk around a free man.

Now, I am a criminal lawyer and I find it infinately infuriating when I see footballers get away with serious assault, and in some cases the intent is so obvious even a two year old can see it, but they get away with a red card, if that even.

What I hate is the one rule for some and another for others that is so pertinent. If you commit an assault or GBH, be it in the street or on the pitch, you SHOULD face justice as the law demands, not hide behind the facade of 'its part of the game' nonsense.

[xtzheng]

All these talk about intention is just fussy logic. Punishment should be mete out based on RESULTS, not intentions. In this case of Eduardo, the result of Taylor's tackle is clear for all to see.
No effective change will ever be implemented if decisions are going to be made based trying to second-guess the intention of the offender.

[Al]

If they ban reckless tackles that's the end of English football as we know it. It goes under the guise of a 'mans game' but all it basically is, is a player with little or no real skill trying to hammer a skilful opponent out of the game.

How often have we heard commentators and ex pro's during a game saying 'that was never a foul, or free kick', yeah you're right, 20 years ago it was never a free kick but now, today, it is.

The authorities are trying to drive this kind of tackle out of the game and the question of intent is largely a red herring. Is there intent when a guy drives his car down the high street while drunk and runs someone over?

Taylor should be banned for months, at least until the end of the season because his tackle was reckless and it did result in a player snapping his leg in two.

[Gavin Hall]

I am not entirely sure Mr Blatter's comments are much to do with the Eduardo tackle. I want everyone to try and remember the last time they saw a player intentionally injure an opposition player? Taylor on Eduardo, was unfortunate, but even if the manager had said that they should tackle hard, i'm sure he didnt say to specifically target any players especially not to hurt them badly. If you can prove intent to hurt a player, whether the other player was injured or not, then a severe ban should be handed out (5 or 10 games) but I would love to see the fall out after the court case by the player, after he sues the premier league for unfair dismissal!

[Paul Smith]

Ive played football for 20 years and I think that as soon as you show your studs then you change the dynamic of the tackle. In my opinion I would support a season ban for bad tackles not a life ban. Those sort of tackles as seen on Larssen, smith and eduardo can end careers and there has has to be a serious enough penalty for the foul player to ensure that this sort of tackle is eradicated from the game.

[monsieur rioux]

"The issue isn't black and white enough to answer yes or no.

I think any late or wild challenge that results in a serious injury to another player should be punishable by a ban, but the length depends on the player and the situation."

******

Agree with the first bit but not the second. Identical tackles don't always have the same result. You could actually have a tackle that was more reckless than another, but by good fortune the player escapes injury.

[Harry]

It's very simple. Increase the mandatory bans for reds earned for Serious Foul Play, and for cautions accumulated for reckless play. Take the model of driving bans, that ought to be reckless or dangerous driving.

Remove the amnesty for cautions accumulated for reckless play. These offences should not be wiped for at least 12 months, so any player who is continually endangering opponents or using excessive force to intimidate them are a disadvantage to managers and clubs.

They need to be forced to bring their conduct into line or ship them out to club in a league where they can keep up with the speed of the game.

Referees and disciplinary committees should explain clearly the indications of reckless and serious foul play - lunging/jumping into challenges up against an opponent, the hight of a foot, or movement of an elbow, studs showing, especially backed by a straight-leg that maximises the impact, or taking out a players standing foot.

At least FIFA are raising this at IFAB. The FA seem more concerned with increasing a player's ban for a trivial instance of unsporting behaviour that the referee was obliged to classify as violent conduct, but never risked harming anyone.

[fg]

Blatter is entirely right, there can be no excuse for breaking two bones and dislocating an ankle during a game.

[Barrie Collins]

If this type of ban had been in effect years ago, Roy Keane and Paul Scholes would now be living in a retirement home. I'll guarantee that SAF is not in agreement with Mr. Blatter, as it would have considerably decreased Man U's effectiveness in the Premiership.

[gerry]

Typical. People defending bad tackles. As someone said, the least ban should be until the injured player recovers.

People say accidents happen, well if I cause an 'accident' to happen in any other walk of life I would be open to a serious sanction ranging from a caution to inprisonment. Why not on a football pitch?

[Lassie]

I agree with the comments that you cannot measure "intent". However, I disagree that some tackles (Martin Taylor etc) were "clearly not intentional". How can we tell? Blatter actually says "reckless", which means even if you didnt intend to maim, you were negligent and reckless. A lifetime ban is a bit steep for that, but perhaps the resulting damage will be taken into account?

[Paul]

Another genius idea from the genius Bladder. If only someone would recklessly tackle him and end his career.

[Steven Hamilton]

Blatter so often shows himself up that I am not surprised he has made such a short sighted and ill informed comment. He obviously enjoys creating a stir and seeing himself in the news, why can't those in the upper echelons of football see to get rid of this self-interested gentleman? What has he done that might be regarded as his legacy when he is no longer around?

[Gilbert Phiri]

Intent must not come into the argument at all. Nor should the issue of mistiming. A lot of exceptions to any rule ultimately neutralize its effect. A tackle, whether intentional or not, that borders on the savagery in the Martin Taylor mould must receive the ultimate sanction of a lifetime ban pending criminal prosecution. This will simplify how to effect the rule. This rule will enable savages decide what career path to take early in their teens!

[eric brown]

I think it would be a good idea if the tackler was removed from playing until the injured player can resume.

[Laura]

The issue isn't black and white enough to answer yes or no.

I think any late or wild challenge that results in a serious injury to another player should be punishable by a ban, but the length depends on the player and the situation.

I agree with comments made previous about intent to harm - in these cases, especially if a player has a reputation for "mis-timed" tackles and is a known trouble maker and there's obvious, or at least reason to suspect intent, then longer bans are warranted. Prosecution is a separate matter, because at the end of the day there is contact in sport and when you put yourself on the pitch you've got to expect some risk of unforseen occurance. Again, it comes down to evidence of intent.

In Roy Keane's case, I believe he shouldn't have played again, at least not after he admitted aiming to harm Haaland and since he had made that admission, he should've been prosecuted. Same should apply to anyone in a similar position.

In the case of Eduardo it was obviously innocently mistimed and as far as I'm aware there was no trouble between the two players that might suggest any foul play. So perhaps a slightly longer ban of say 5 games would be enough to drive home the importance of safe tackling in the future.

Having said all that, I think all players should be shown the video of Eduardo's leg breaking in two and then perhaps they'll all think twice about lunging in.

[david]

There is an argument that players can mis-time tackles. Depending how you see it you may just describe such challenges as reckless. However, players come under instruction from the dressing room and are guilty of trying to kick skillful players out of the game on purpose. English mentality allows for this thuggery because physicality is appreciated in this country over skill. What a shame to the nation who invented the game that we have so many teams in our Premier League with hench men who just cannot compete on a high skill level and dont actually want to play the game. Some even find Arsenal's beautiful game offensive and try to intimidate the players turning the whole event into a scrap. Quite simply English refereeing is to blame. It allows the kickers to rule under the banner that football is a mans game. Yes of course it is a mans game and we are priveleged to have great foreign internationals over here to help our league rule the world, the time has come to protect these great professionals from the thugs.

[Tim H]

If it is deliberate (ie not attempt for the ball) then not a life ban but a season maybe. But if it is admitted to be pre-meditated or the player demonstrates lack of remorse - like Roy Keane did on Haaland then yes, a life ban. Eduardo's one wasn't a deliberate attempt at injuring him. Just an accident.

[Frank Maker]

Banned for life, never, at the very most the player making the tackle could be banned until the tackled player is fit to play again.