Muscat gone for 8

[spookism]

The thing that has annoyed me about Muscat is the fact that he's doing that sort of stuff almost deliberately, and almost always when the side is being defeated. I wasn't at the derby as I am overseas (waiting to come back right now actually) but am I correct in saying that muscat already had a yellow card? If so, pretty much regardless of how he took Zahra, he was almost guaranteed getting sent. Good leadership there.

Additionally, he got himself sent off 6 times in 287 English League matches and was not sent off for his 22 games in Scotland. So how has he got himself sent off 5 times in 122 A-League games since returning to Australia? He is going around twatting blokes. Jamie McMaster v2, Adam Hughes v6, Adrian Zahra v6

That's not leadership. I told Sainter during our game bs Sydney that Brebner was a far better leader. He does all the hard work, without doing stupid s**t. That sums muscat up, hard player, good skills, but does completely stupid ****ed things.

Ps our defense is probably better off without him for the rest of the year, and Franjic impressed me bs Sydney too.

Would of had Leckie too if Surat Sukha hadn't beaten him to the punch, they were lining him up that night

 

[spookism]

Zahra has done his ACL so that along with a broken leg is the worst leg injury you can get. It was a filthy tackle that doesn't belong in any sport and Muscat is a filthy individual who should be taken for all his wealth.

Here's hoping there is a another settlement

 

[Seriously]

Would of had Leckie too if Surat Sukha hadn't beaten him to the punch, they were lining him up that night

He did take out Leckie that night, it lead to our first goal.

 

[ErnieSigley]

Not only did Muscat cause Adelaide to lose the gf 6-0, the champion league final but I bet he was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Not only did Muscat cause Adelaide to lose the gf 6-0, the champion league final but I bet he was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.

And somehow in a thread about Muscat, you brought up Adelaide. Your AUFC membership is on its way.

 

[that_dood]

Not only did Muscat cause Adelaide to lose the gf 6-0, the champion league final but I bet he was on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.

What does that have to do with this thread?

 

[ErnieSigley]

What does that have to do with this thread?

About the same as some of the other comments on this thread
It's a muscat thread but now somehow he contributed to Leckies injury, why stop there?

 

[ErnieSigley]

And somehow in a thread about Muscat, you brought up Adelaide. Your AUFC membership is on its way.

No need, I know you like me.

 

[Zidane98]

About the same as some of the other comments on this thread
It's a muscat thread but now somehow he contributed to Leckies injury, why stop there?

Apparently Muscat is responsible for Vidmar's pissant outburst and Muscat is responsible for AUFC'S 5-0 hammering at the hands of Gamba Osaka. While we are at it let's blame Muscat for the 2004 tsunami

 

[Zidane98]

He did take out Leckie that night, it lead to our first goal.

Taken out? My god you crow eaters are soft, you see dozens of similar fouls like that every week but because it is Muscat he "took him out".

 

[Seriously]

Taken out? My god you crow eaters are soft, you see dozens of similar fouls like that every week but because it is Muscat he "took him out".

lol ok he tackled him hard that lead to the first goal, sound better?

 

[twentydollarnote]

Anyone think 8 was not enough? I suppose on world standards 8 is harsh but i'd like to think that we could do a little better for a player that deliberately tries to injure another player. Something like 15-20 matches would be appropriate.

 

[Zidane98]

Anyone think 8 was not enough? I suppose on world standards 8 is harsh but i'd like to think that we could do a little better for a player that deliberately tries to injure another player. Something like 15-20 matches would be appropriate.

8 is more then enough for a tackle that was dangerously excessive and horribly mistimed. Unlike the Roy Keane tackle Muscat didn't go at the player with his studs up and had eyes on the ball. Anyone that is suggesting that Muscat 100% went in with the sole purpose of injuring and nothing else is deluded. If that was the case he would have made sure that he caught Zahra with studs which he didn't.

 

[twentydollarnote]

I think he definately went in to injure/take out, if he good intentions and simply mistimed the tackle his first reaction would be to put his hand up and check if the player he got was alright.

Even if you want to debate that point (only really he knows) i think a certain duty of care when assessing punishment for tackles like that rules out the "it wasnt intentional" line of argument. If that were a requirement he'd have a big fail in that category.

 

[Zidane98]

Compare it to the Keano tackle though and Keano has eyes only for the man and goes in purposefully with his studs up. Musky at least had eyes for the ball and didn't go in with his studs, that's part of the reason why Inge Haaland's leg was snapped in 2 nearly and Zahra's wasn't. You have to admit that if one purely wanted to injure one would tackle with their studs.

 

[mojito]

Anyone think 8 was not enough? I suppose on world standards 8 is harsh but i'd like to think that we could do a little better for a player that deliberately tries to injure another player. Something like 15-20 matches would be appropriate.

I would have liked to have seen a larger ban myself, but given he's pushing on 40 and was mulling retirement before Thursday night, I'm not surprised that the FFA didn't go to town on him (so to speak).

 

[twentydollarnote]

"You have to admit that if one purely wanted to injure one would tackle with their studs."

Thats one way of doing it, there’s no hard and fast rule.

As i said " if he good intentions and simply mistimed the tackle his first reaction would be to put his hand up and check if the player he got was alright."

 

[twentydollarnote]

I would have liked to have seen a larger ban myself, but given he's pushing on 40 and was mulling retirement before Thursday night, I'm not surprised that the FFA didn't go to town on him (so to speak).

I doubt his retirement has anything to do with it, the precedent has been set now anyone in the future will get around that mark.

I just think we could set a better example. lots of the overseas rules like 3 matches for almost amputating a leg, no video replays or goal line technology and no match review panel, these are the sort of things which if they dont want to do it overseas good on them but theres no reason why we cant.

 

[Schulzenfest]

8 is more then enough for a tackle that was dangerously excessive and horribly mistimed. Unlike the Roy Keane tackle Muscat didn't go at the player with his studs up and had eyes on the ball. Anyone that is suggesting that Muscat 100% went in with the sole purpose of injuring and nothing else is deluded. If that was the case he would have made sure that he caught Zahra with studs which he didn't.

Umm ... when you're in a biased position and you hold a position that is contrary to pretty much EVERYONE else, even some other people who share your biased position, maybe you're the one who might be deluded? Just sayin

And the studs thing is stupid. You may as well say 'if he really wanted to injure him he would've elbowed him in the face Ben Thatcher style'. There's lots of ways to intentionally injure somewhere.

 

[Fossie 32]

Reasonable penalty compared to when Colisomo did Archie's knee [no penalty] and injuries to Robbie Kruse [was it Tiato tackled him from behind resulting in him being out for a fair while with an injured shoulder - no penalty - and forget who crunched him off the ball causing a serious leg injury just before finals last year..... what did he get, one week?]

 

[DB10]

to be fair everybody hates Tiatto as well and nobody would object to him getting a life ban anyway.