Another perspective on the Morgan affair

Just my personal view but I really think we should leave it now. I think we are right to be angry but i don't think we are achieving anything by pursuing this. I also don't agree with incidents that happen on the footballing incidents being dealt with through the law courts. It sets dangerous precedent and could ultimately ruin the whole game of football as we know it.

Was it intentional? Yes in my opinion. Should the FA have dealt with it in the same way as the Thatcher/Mendes incident? Yesin my opinion. The FA needs to act to protect players and they haven't in this instance but they aren't going to change their mind and its arguably not as clear cut as the Mendes incident. I also understand that the severity of injury can not affect the punishment in football terms for the act. Should a bad tackle that breaks someone's leg by given a longer ban than the same tackle that causes bruising?

As for Morgan he shouldn't be thrown out of the game. Is it worse than Andy Johnson's elbow on Santos? Do you think Andy Johnson should have been kicked out of the game or faced legal action? Should legal action be taken against Hume for the horrible tackle he got sent off for against Coventry which could easily have broke their players leg?

We are right to feel angry but by taking it too far we will rapidly lose the sympathy we and Hume have in the footballing community.

 

We should pursue them as far as we possibly can.

Sheffield United are the last club that can complain if we use non-football channels to make our case.

Go get the club and the player.

 

Understand your points, but....

....the danger is that if the FA and a 'bigger club' are allowed to **** all over the likes of Barnsley, as they have done here, it sets a very dangerous precedent. Watershed moment?? Possibly, but I don't think it's unreasonable to make a very strong stand off the back of this decision. In real terms, nothing will happen - I never thought it would - but if we can shout loud enough to ensure that the whole world see the FA for the cowardly bunch of spineless, clueless tossers they are, then all the better. The bully bonus is that Sheff Utd's hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see - any public sympathy they may have had over the Tevez affair has long gone.

 

It will run and run for months, maybe years .....

......... there's a real chance that Hume's career may be over (I sincerely hope it isn't) and if that's the case he will be chasing a hefty compensation payment through his lawyers. Also BFC have potentially lost the 1.2 million pounds that they paid for him, so they will also be wanting their money back in some sort of compensation package.

It's really quite irrelevant what the fans on this board do in terms of either keeping it in everybody's minds or dropping it, as you suggest. I'm afraid it's time for the Legal eagles to take over now

 

To be fair to Sheff Utd they were the club wronged in the Johnson / Santos incident and despite making a lot of noise they didn't pursue it through the courts

 

There is also another consideration - what chance would we have of getting "invited" if/when the Premier League create a second division ?

My personal opinion is that we should highlight ALL the injustices in football and not just the one involving Morgan. Yes, it is important that Iain Hume gets compensated for his injuries and Morgan is punished for causing them, but to get the full support of all football supporters, we should be seen to be acting for the best interests of the game.

 

the precedent has already been set though.

and what you are advocating is that a football pitch is an arena where the rule of law does not apply. I imagine this is more dangerous.

 

I'm not sure what everyone wants

I want Hume to recover. I also wanted the FA to punish Morgan in the form of a fine and a ban to show that such a challenge is not acceptable in football. If, heaven forbid, Hume's career is curtailed then I want him to receive compensation equal to what he can have expected to earn throughout his career. I'd also want Barnsley to be compensated for the money they spent on him. Wouldn't insurance cover this?

What does everyone else want? What is justice?

 

No one wants this to go to court, that's why the FA should be doing its job and sorting it out.

As the FA has washed its hands then in order to get justice it has to be taken higher.

 

Double amputation for Morgan

Make the dirty fecker play without arms. Actually, make that legs.

 

Funny you should say that - 'Jinky' Jim Smith ....

Tony Want was a player in the Morgan mould, who had ended the careers of more than one player and had boasted about it on the quiet around various circuits. When Birmingham City played at Newcastle (must have been 1970s), 'Jinky' Jim Smith was on the Newcastle team and Tony Want was left back for Brum. 'Jinky' had an old score to settle on behalf of a friend whose career had been mashed by Want. It was around Newcastle at the time that Smith would 'fix' Want. He did it within the first ten minutes of the game, getting sent off for his trouble and causing a double fracture of Want's leg.

This is the sort of thing which should not be happening on football fields, as the authorities' actions should be enough to render it unnecessary. I just wonder how many players who know Iain Hume, or have just suffered similarly against Morgan, but who will honour the professionals' code not to speak to the press about a fellow professional, will feel like Smith did that night?

It could all have been settled, had the FA taken, even quite lenient, additional action. It is now an unclosed sore, which will go on until some form of closure, if that ever happens.

 

Nope. Balls to 'em.</p>

Up sticks and at the Blunt b@stards!
</p>

 

totally disagree.

 

But those costs will be covered by insurance nt

 

Your kind of logic

Gives people who kill kids in their cars a £30 speeding ticket.....oh and 3 points

 

RE: Your kind of logic

Thank you for that glib response

 

RE: Your kind of logic

Franky your assertation that the extent of the injury should not be taken into account in the punishment is the whole point of this debate.

Chris Eagles head butt, frankly he should have walked, but those decisions come and go.

I dont' think I've ever seen anyone fracture a skull on a pitch, although I did see a tottenham player (Klinsman?)get a broken jaw, but De Zeuw ( I think ) was actually going for the ball.

this is the whole point - The FA, and I assume you, by saying we should leave it be, are saying that a fractured skull is not exceptional.

Jesus wept

 

Jay

A beacon of wisdom and common sense.

Personally would have liked to have seen Morgan hit with a lengthy ban.

As that's not going to happen I'd like to see Hume and Morgan in a civil court, have lawyers calling witnesses like D'Urso asking him to explain his decision and at the end have the severity of what Morgan did publicly acknowledged and then see Morgan get a very hefty fine.

For me the most important thing is that the injustice of it all is recognised by the powers that be.

 

So what are you views of the tackle example

So for example an horrific tackle that is fully intended but luckily only causes a player to miss a week should result in a small ban but if it breaks the player's leg should result in a longer ban?