07 Mar 2025 16:51:29
Away from WH for a moment, I meant to comment on it, if no one else did, regarding the goalkeeper of Millwall charging out at Mateta last Saturday, I thought he would be charged immediately by the FA and banned for the season, it was GBH. As far as i'm concerned, just ridiculous, if you watch it in slow motion, for me, the Goalkeepers intention is the player not the ball. Millwall have a nerve to appeal against any forthcoming punishment, which is likely

1.) 07 Mar 2025
07 Mar 2025 22:23:07
GBH good comparison. got to be one of the worst fouls seen in football.
Was very much like Harold Schumacher for Germany v France in the 82 World Cup if anyone can remember that!

2.) 08 Mar 2025
08 Mar 2025 14:51:03
Come on. He INTENDED to kick the player in the head? Not for me. No speed of the film can reveal what’s in the goalie’s mind, but IMO it was a bad, reckless challenge. Very dangerous yes, but intentional, no.

3.) 08 Mar 2025
08 Mar 2025 16:10:24
Can’t see any human being intending to perform GBH in front of thousands of people at the ground and millions watching later on TV. As Tinlegs says it was reckless and dangerous but the intention was to play the ball …. for me anyway

4.) 08 Mar 2025
08 Mar 2025 16:29:51
Intentional or not, doesn’t matter, what’s in someone’s head doesn’t matter either, it was very dangerous, contrary to reports, player has received 32 stitches ear and side of head, the keeper, must be punished, ridiculous tackle, if he doesn’t get long ban, it will open the door, for more events, like that, it’s football, not martial arts

5.) 08 Mar 2025
08 Mar 2025 22:23:09
Sorry mate, but you are wrong. For it to be GBH, there has to be an intention to cause serious injury. The goalie clearly went for the ball, not the player as you suggest. In fact, he got the ball first. We all agree it was a dangerous thing to do, but there was no intention to cause injury. It was just reckless and a six match ban is right.

6.) 09 Mar 2025
08 Mar 2025 23:22:34
You are welcome to your opinion, And I will keep mine, Mateta is what 6 ft 3 inches tall, and the keepers boots are at that level, how is that not ludicrously reckless, it’s a nothing punishment, for a serious misdemeanour, if he had of jumped to clear with his hands or fist, and made contact, with the player, that’s been seen before, and can be just coincidental to the game, that challenge wasn’t, could have caused brain damage, Parish of Palace is spot on, I will close my posts on that now, everybody’s entitled to their opinion, and I’ve given mine, nothing more to say

7.) 09 Mar 2025
09 Mar 2025 10:18:40
Yes, we agree that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am puzzled, however, that you now say it was reckless, which is what Dabber and I have been saying. There is a difference between recklessness and intention. That is why there are different levels of assault (Section 18 GBH - intentional, and Section 20 Reckless and Malicious Wounding - unintentional.) As for the punishment, the goalie was given double the usual suspension, yet you refer to it as a ‘misdemeanour’ - a minor infringement. A serious misdemeanour is a contradiction in terms.
Back to the start, differing opinions make the world go round, but facts are facts. Let’s just leave it that we agree to disagree.

{Ed001's Note - were you a lawyer or a career criminal Tinny? You seem to have far too much knowledge of how the justice system works.}

8.) 09 Mar 2025
09 Mar 2025 10:41:06
Agreed, we agree to disagree,

9.) 09 Mar 2025
09 Mar 2025 10:52:15
Ed - I was trained in the law. Had I been a criminal, I’d be much better off than I am! ?

{Ed001's Note - just checking.}

10.) 11 Mar 2025
11 Mar 2025 09:32:04
We all saw the actus reus.

Man’s head/mens rea. Discuss