Based in London and writing for a global audience our aim is to produce EliteFootballTalk. Enjoy the site and feel welcome to join in our discussion on the beautiful game.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Danny Guthrie should have shame for causing broken leg of Craig Fagan

There are some things you see in football that you are instantly disgusted by. Fortunately they are few and far between, but watching Match of the Day at the weekend there was one such incident when viewing the Newcastle United v Hull City match.

With the game in its last minutes the Hull striker, Craig Fagan, had possession of the ball deep in Newcastle's half by the touchline. Newcastle midfielder, Danny Guthrie, made one petulant attempt to win the ball which was shaken off by Fagan, and then with no attempt to play the ball decided to run at Fagan and perform a vicious karate kick at the legs of the Hull forward.

Fagan went down and then instantly got up in shock and rage at the assault just committed on him. A few Hull teammates then ran towards Guthrie enraged at the blatant violence of the attack.

Guthrie was given a straight red card by the referee and for some reason decided to clap the fans when walking off the pitch.

I started talking to my brother about this incident and the pure violence of the challenge. It was a disgrace and had no place on the sports field. It was reminscent of the Ben Thatcher assault on Pedro Mendes and the Roy Keane tackle on Alfe Inge Haaland for its sheer violence with absolutely no intent to play the ball.

To hear the breaking news that Craig Fagan has a broken leg as a direct result of Danny Guthrie's assault which will keep him out for 6-12 weeks adds an exclamation mark to the disgrace of what took place on Saturday.

Just like the penalty received by Thatcher, the assault from Guthrie deserves the imposition of an aggravated suspension to demonstrate football's intolerance to unmitigated violence. Lets hope the FA acts quickly on this one.


Blogger Rob said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9/15/2008 4:43 pm

Blogger Rob said...

I couldn't agree more, he was trying to get Fagans boots and ankle over the top of the Stand. Shame there's no manager to give him the hairdryer

9/15/2008 4:43 pm

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now a three match ban for Guthrie.....Fagans left with 3 MONTHS out of action!

Its about time this blatant attacking was stopped!!

Guthrie should get a 6 month ban for such behaviour.He obviously isnt a good footballer at all if he needs to use tactics like that.

9/15/2008 4:51 pm

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel guthrie has been set up. If viewed from a different angle it is clear guthrie was in fact attempting to stamp on a wasp that was attempting to sting fagan.
Guthrie should be rewarded for his heroism.

9/15/2008 5:35 pm

Blogger alex butterfield said...

This whole thread could be copied and pasted from the Eduardo leg break last year.

It's just the same thing. To summarize those thoughts.

A 3 match ban is not sufficient for reckless behaviour. In neither case was the intention there to injure the player, but in both cases the aggressor acted with reckless abandon and this needs to be deterred.

This can only be removed from the game if substantial bans are enforced. I still think that some kind of system that bans players for at least as long as the injury lasts is the fairest way.

In defense of the indefensible - Guthrie did not intend to injure Fagan. He was frustrated with the time-wasting tactics of Hull, and was clearly, if irrationally, trying to put to a stop to Fagan's attempt to shield the ball in the corner.

That's no excuse though. Guthrie should not start his 3 match ban until Fagan has recovered. It's a shame because both players are important players for their clubs.

9/15/2008 6:13 pm

Blogger RedsMan said...

My goodness, can I say any more not already covered? Now Guthrie was a former LFC player, mainly in the reserves, and was there last season when Fagan stamped on Arbeloa at Anfield. Yes, whilst not spooted by the referee, footage curtailed Fagan at the hands of the FA. Fine, punishment meted out, over with. I cannot take in that Guthrie was exacting retribution for that.

Alex, you say it was not his intention to injure Fagan but he was reckless. Guthrie may have been frustrated with something said between the two or from elsewhere, as his first contact was made away from the corner flag. That to me makes me believe he was personally aiming for Fagan and wanted to dig at him rather than for time-wasting.

Still, it didn't make for appropriate viewing and was quite thuggish.

9/15/2008 6:22 pm

Blogger T said...

Thanks for your comments everyone - are appreciated.

Alex, good to have your opinion, but I do not accept there was anything reckless about it. There was an intent to commit a violent assault and maybe you can say Guthrie was reckless about the consequences - but for me that is a moot (and also arguable) point.

9/16/2008 9:26 am

Blogger Abdul said...

I was shocked by the fact that he was appluading the St James' crowd on the way off the field. What was that about?

I have just read that the FA are indeed considering lengthening Guthrie's ban. Here's hoping that the FA get this right.

9/16/2008 5:12 pm

Blogger alex butterfield said...

What I meant by 'reckless' was that he lashed out at Fagan with the intent to foul, maybe even hurt, but without thought of long term consequences.

I totally agree that it's a moot point. Recklessness needs to be punished for the consequences it could cause, just as malice is. The fact that the intent differs is only the same difference that exists in law between murder and manslaughter.

For both cases players must take responsibility for their actions, and be punished accordingly.

A 3 match ban is so insufficient for Guthrie - but I'm glad we dont have the ridiculous calls incited at the Eduardo injury, that were for life bans.

As for the applause, I'm not sure what was going through his head.

I sometimes think players confuse being sent off with being passionate. Guthrie seemed to be communicating to the crowd that he is willing to fight for the cause and applauding was like saying, I know you understand my passion, and I appreciate it. The truth is, he won't be there for at least 3 games, and most of the crowd will be annoyed by that, if not ashamed of the conduct of their player. But I bet you there are some fans, who at least at the time (before they knew that he'd actually broken Fagan's leg - he did jump up remember so it wasn't obvious how bad the foul was), thought, Get in there Guthrie. The Neil Warnock school of fans.

9/17/2008 1:57 am

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What does it matter about being teckless or intentional? He came in like they do in the town centre after a few beers and waded in like someone said as a thug, he's probably done it before without being found out. He should have kicked the bloody ball like that at the goal and then the magpies would have won the damn game. 3-match ban for straight red and two extra for violent conduct, the stupid cock.

9/17/2008 8:28 am

Blogger RedsMan said...

I agree. One way or the other, it was very despicable and a three-match ban for the straight red and the two extra games on top for violent conduct, or dare I stretch it to three? Six games out. Harsh but so was the impact on Fagan's leg and the impact of the conduct on young minds watching, much less anyone else. The authorities have to show a proper iron stance to such conduct and if you commit such an act then feel the force of the sanctions as a result.


9/17/2008 8:58 am


Post a Comment

<< Home


Locations of visitors to this page