Koeman pledges support for Coleman

Onwards and upwards, Seamus – a true blue!

According to 606 earlier, Williams remonstrated with the referee after the red card, possibly not immediately understanding the gravity of the injury. There were also comments about him as captain of Wales, and Coleman as captain of Ireland, both playing for Everton, and actually being fairly close.

But let's examine your contention that Williams should cry off playing. Firstly, you don't know his view of the tackle. Mass hysteria on social media has labeled it horrific – and the resulting injury was, but it should be clear to anyone who watches the video carefully, that it is in fact Coleman who strikes Taylor's leg and the ball simultaneously with tremendous force, and that's what causes the leg break.

Massively unfortunate, but Taylor's action was not intended to maim, as has been claimed by so many on here. The tackle looks so horrible because of what happens next, but both players were going for a 50/50 ball. I suspect Williams knows this and as a professional footballer will have no problem in playing with Taylor.

If the studs are not there, Seamus cannot connect with them. Taylor goes in with the studs showing.

Bottom line, Seamus is too honest in his approach to the 50-50. One player protected himself and one player didn't.

Your assertion that 'Taylor's action was not intended to maim' is in itself completely subjective and entirely without merit. It was not 'massively unfortunate' as you claim but was in fact entirely avoidable.

Your waffle about the cause of the injury being Coleman striking Taylor's leg and the ball is akin to the defence 'she was asking for it as she had a short skirt on your honour.' Shameful.

The 'tackle' was so late and high (the ball was on the ground and Taylor's straight foot was half way up Seamus's shin) . Taylor went over the top. It doesn't matter that Seamus got their first, Taylor was always going to snap his leg whether he meant it or not. You are an embarrassment to all Evertonians and you should apologise or resign now.

I am amazed at the vitriol being directed at MK for his comment above.

He makes the point after closely watching the video replays.

He is expressing an opinion, one which, in a free world he is entitled to have and to hold, based on his judgment of events.

It will do you well to remember the words of 'Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often wrongly attributed to others), ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If you want to start censuring people for having and expressing an opinion different to your own, then calling for resignations are pointless, you may just as well close down this and all similar websites.

Taylor should get a lengthy ban for his dangerous tackle on Coleman, as it was intentional and reckless.

Anyway, far more importantly, here's hoping Seamus can make a good full recovery as soon as possible.

So fuckin' sad what's happened to him, I was actually reading about him playing with the Down Syndrome team the day before the match and thinking as I've done a fair few times before re his community work, how he seems to genuinely get involved time after time with these projects, making you think this guy not only 'gets us' but actually feels part of his extended family.

And – despite so many transfer rumours (especially to Man Utd) – was seemingly never thinking of leaving us.

I just hope and pray he comes through and out the other side of this trauma to carry on exactly where he left off... In fact, I just know he will.

It has to be Holgate surely given he's looked relatively promising, I just hope he won't be overwhelmed with the next two games but these could be the making or breaking of the lad.

I sincerely hope Koeman doesn't even go near the insane suggestions of some by playing Mori there, who barely has his boots on the right feet at the best of times.

Jagielka is way too immobile to play right back these days and will get ripped apart.

Pennington way too inexperienced.

Bad times.

These things happen and it's very disappointing for Seamus but he's got the mentality to come back from this, although he may have to adjust his game; maybe further forward.

Only watched the incident on my phone and it looked bad, albeit in shitty quality video. Obviously Coleman got badly hurt so the tendency is to paint Taylor as a thug. From the look of it, he goes in high, studs up (which is to protect himself, rather than hurt the opponent) and what probably would have been a nasty foul and straight red was transformed into a horrific injury as Seamus went in with force himself (though clean).

This is precisely the reason that high, studs-up challenges are banned. Absolute nonsense to claim Taylor intentionally went out to hurt Coleman. The extent of the injury shouldn't be a factor in considering length of a ban.

A 50/50 challenge for the ball where I think Taylor knew he was going to hit Seamus no matter if he'd won the ball or not.

To suggest though he deliberately tried to break his leg is taking it too far for me. Only Taylor would know that.

However, MK and others on here who take a different view should be allowed to express their opinion without being hounded by the emotional majority.

I'm no Angel, but I've been moderated on TW for comments that aren't as insulting as some I've read on this subject.

Aren't you doing the same?

The right to free speech doesn't mean the right to a particular platform. Nor does it mean a right to not be criticized.

Michael has a right to free speech, but that same right extends to the person who wants to reply to his comment to tell him he's an idiot who should "resign" (from a website?).

Free speech is about being able to say what you want to say. It has nothing to do with a right to have what you said treated with any respect.

I thought it was more of a factor of bad timing and over-zealousness on both behalves, as opposed to blatant recklessness and malicious intent. I am sure Seamus would be the first to forgive and forget, such is his gentle and kind nature,

As for Taylor, I am pretty sure he feels as gutted as most and has surely passed a sleepless night. As for Bale's tackle on O'Shea, I thought there was a lot of malice in that one, but thank god O'Shea didn't suffer the same fate.

All we can do now is hope Seamus makes a full recovery. IMO, if he comes back even 75% of the player he was, that will do for me. It will still be 25% more than some of his teammates that he carried throughout many a game.

As far as I am aware my post has not tried to censure anyone, but just pointed out to those that were clamouring for censure and resignation have every right to disagree with what MK said, but should not try to censure him for saying it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall (28 September 1868 – 13 April 1956), who wrote under the pseudonym S G Tallentyre, was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire entitled The Life of Voltaire, first published in 1903. She also wrote The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often mis-attributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. Hall's quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

Just clutching at straws maybe, but we'll see...

Terry Underwood (#25) a nearly crib from an earlier poster on another thread, but I suggest a rousing "60 grand" in the the 23rd minute.

Good luck, Shay; the road is long...

Yes, you are, you are criticising their opinion, not just disagreeing with it. In my opinion, Taylor knew exactly what he was doing, he did not intend on breaking Seamus's leg but he definitely wanted to slow him down to gain an advantage in the latter stages of the game.

Not trying to reapportion blame, just establish an accurate description of the horrific event, so that we don't all go off on emotional rants calling for the death penalty. Oh... too late.

There are plenty of other examples where the fouling player's action directly breaks the leg (look at those awful YouTube videos that come up along with this one). That did not happen in this case, no matter how many people want to say that it did.

The video shows that his studs never made contact, that Taylor was (by virtue of the lunge) actually over the ball when Coleman made contact with it and him him. So who actually got there first and who was actually late?

Of course it makes no difference to the horrible result. But it does render as shameful so many of these embarrassing rush-to-judgement calls for Taylor to be hung, drawn and quartered. Two players going in far too aggressively for a 50-50 ball.

Taylor's challenge is pretty common. You can't get there on your feet (as Seamus did), you can't get your body into a position to tackle properly, so you stretch to get there front-on. That's the reckless bit.

I don't think for a second that Taylor intended anything but a hard challenge, but it was dangerous and well worth a red. It's also a challenge that is still allowed in the game when executed well.

My view is that you can't ban injuries, you have to target the challenge. That sort of front-on challenge should be a straight red regardless of outcome. It can cause serious injuries if mistimed. Get there in time or stay on your feet.

And no, I don't hold any particular ill will towards Taylor. People mistime things. By all accounts he's gutted, as you would expect.

Also loved his cameo when he ran up the pitch doing keepy uppies against the Arse and then the drag back in the same game. Such a talented, tough, fast, hard working lad and a proper pro. Love him.

That said, I subscribe to Liam's (#28) description of the tackle as "stupid and reckless." Taylor is a veteran professional of nearly 300 appearances. He understands the responsibility of protecting the opponent, and he abrogated that responsibility.

Intention, or lack thereof, is almost beside the point – drunks don't intend to kill or injure someone when they get behind the wheel, but calling it an accident is no defense.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we drew a home cup match against Villa next season.

It looks to me more like he went in to block Coleman's leg as he was striking the ball to reduce the power of the strike, and if he didn't realise that the consequences of this would be the possibly breaking a leg, then the kindest we can be is to give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he is simply a naive idiot.

Lo and behold a few short hours later, Hartson is back in the studio going to extraordinary lengths to slam the tackle.

It's truly a sign of the state of football when, a few years ago, some of the MOTD pundits were revealed to be on 㿔k a week. More money than Hansen and Lawrenson ever earned in their time as top players. Also a reason why players now, who should already be minted, prefer to take the punditry rather than coaching / managerial route post-career.

Firstly, you will note that in my first post, I made no reference at all to tragic injury suffered by Seamus as, in the context I was commenting on the incident was irrelevant, as is, therefore, your entire second sentence.

Secondly, notwithstanding the above, you cannot possibly know what was in Taylor's mind at an specific time, you can only assume you know.

Thirdly, I didn't openly criticise the opinions expressed.

If you read my first post again, I said I was "amazed" and suggested that if folks wanted to censure contributors for having an opinion different to their own, then we may as well abandon sites like TW.

I didn't call for anyone to be thrown off the site or to resign as a member, so I don't think I am guilty of what you accuse me of.

I also didn't at any point say they couldn't or shouldn't hold the opinion they had, of the central incident, only that they shouldn't try to censure anyone for having a different opinion.

I don't think Taylor meant to break his leg, but would have wanted strong physical contact. Taylor has been unlucky, Coleman has been extremely unlucky, but physical contact is part of the game. No-one goes to work expecting serious injury or worse, but it happens, despite health and safety regulation.

Seamus won't be forgotten, he is an Everton player. If he can come back he will do so with all of our support and good wishes.

If anyone would be doing any censoring, it would be MK himself, but that isn't what the poster was calling for.

FIFA have made international competition a joke with waste of time qualification groups like Malta and Lithuania in with England and finals held in a countries such as Qatar and Russia.

I dread international weekends, it is an unwelcome distraction from players focus on domestic games and breaks momentum.

I'm glad Ross didn't play yesterday, I couldn't give a toss for England FC they should keep to playing RS and continue to fail at every real test against mediocre countries.

Some of the excuses regarding Taylor's behaviour that have appeared here are totally ridiculous. Perhaps I can best explain with an analogy.

Car A recklessly pulls out of a junction onto a main road. Car B ploughs into it and is written off. The driver of car B asks the driver of car A why he acted so recklessly and the other driver replies that it wasn't only his fault as if driver of car B hadn't been driving down the main road it would never have happened. What would the insurance company make of that?

It wasn't a 50/50 ball as MK suggests, there was no way Taylor was going to get to the ball fairly. That was why he had to lunge as he did in the first place. The fact that Seamus broke his leg by 'kicking' Taylor's leg is irrelevant because that in itself would not have happened if Taylor's leg had been where it should have been on the ground rather than over the ball. Remembering a bit of the physics I studied 50 years ago, assuming both players weigh about 12 stone and were running at about 10mph then the combined force of the impact was about 1.8 tons! Now, I wouldn't expect a footballer to be making that kind of calculation before a tackle but I would expect him to realise just how much damage such a lunge could cause.

On hearing about this, the first place I looked for information was The Guardian online which also offered comments from readers. There were people on there who knew a lot more about Taylor than I do including Villa supporters one of whom was honest enough to say that Taylor is a bit of a 'nutter', quite famous apparently for the use of his elbows he apparently broke Tadic's nose. There can be no suggestion that Taylor intended to break Seamus' leg and it would be ridiculous to say so but there was no doubt he was prepared to be as reckless as he thought was necessary and in doing so neglected his duty of care to another player and for this he should be punished beyond the FA's normal code of practice regarding sanctions.

If what I have written here means to some that I am 'frothing at the mouth' then so be it. But actually I am not. I know what I saw and consequently I know what I think about it. The tackle was horrendous because it had the effect that is always a possibility when players behave like that. More often than not (thank god) the effects are not so awful and we tend to forget. But this one was not only unforgettable but also unforgiveable.

What did you think of Bale's challenge on O'Shea then? Just a few stitches fortunately but do you think he deserves a lengthy ban also? I mean the way he went in, studs up, shin height on O'Shea's standing leg wasn't it just total luck he didn't catch him and do serious damage? It didn't look too different from Shawcross's infamous foul on Ramsey.

Stomping on another players foot is also another dirty trick and needs dealing with and should be more than a yellow card.

Bale should have been sent off also as should Whelan.

Will you or any other Everton supporter care one bit if an Everton player slides in studs up and puts the ball in the back of the net come Saturday to win the game or draw the game?

I put it out there that the only way anyone would care is if the referee disallowed it. It's a funny old game!

Your're right about the first part. I thought the ball landed about equidistant from each player as they both approach it, but in fact it spins off Taylor's arse and bobbles about 8 feet away from him as he turns and decides it's his ball. At that instant, poor Seamus is at least 25 feet away. So no, I was incorrect. Not 50-50... more like 70-30 in Taylor's favour.

That's what makes you (and pretty much everyone else who has criminalized Taylor) totally wrong about the second part. At the instant Taylor saw where the ball had gone, he was way way closer to the ball and had every right to believe it was his, it having just come off his arse.

You probably don't believe this part, so please freeze the frame at 4 seconds in and measure it off yourself:

YouTube Video

But Seamus has seen an opportunity and was building up a head of steam; he obviously decided in that fateful split-second he could make up the ground with the advantage that the ball was bobbling towards him and away from Taylor. In general parlance, that's a classic 50-50 ball as it then becomes a lottery who gets there first.

Taylor has probably misjudged the motion of the ball being in favour of Coleman and decides he has to lunge in to get what he thought was his, the ball being way closer to him initially. He overstretched in compensation and probably lost balance as his body shape is all wrong, but look where his leg is going. It's toward the ball – not the man. Sadly, his leg is high, directly over the ball as Coleman steams in and puts his full force into kicking the ball forward toward goal. At no time do Taylor's studs make any contact with Coleman.

A horrible, horrible accident. Both players going in way too strong for a 50-50 ball. Not the vicious, malicious, disgusting, pre-meditated, two-footed, head-on, career-ending dreadful tackle of a player who is now deemed to be clearly "like that", because of the end result.

I'm sure Taylor will be severely punished because of the populist furore whipped up against him, and the pathetic reluctance of Sky to actually provide the video they have that would, I feel sure, exonerate him of the ridiculous charges so many have laid against him. I hope he's not punished any more than the inevitable 3-game ban because, despite the horrific outcome, I think that will be dreadfully unfair.

Firstly, you don't measure 50/50 balls with a fucking tape measure you measure them by the only way a player can reach the ball. Seamus was going to reach it while on his feet. The only way Taylor was going to reach it was by lungeing recklessly which is precisely what he did and breaking another player's leg in doing it.

And what does 'sadly his leg was a bit high mean'? His leg wasn't just sadly a bit high it was fucking DANGEROUSLY a 'bit' high in other words it was one of the most pernicious and risky fouls in the game .the type of foul that has finished many a career. I remember Jimmy Husband's career being finished in a similar way. And what has the fact that the lack of contact with studs got to do with it? Do you mean such a dangerous tackle is ok as long as it's not the studs that cause the damage? For fucks sake I've heard it all now if that's what you mean.

You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, Michael, and I will always respect your right to present it but don't start to defend yourself when others point out that they feel you are most definitely wrong.

While there, they talked about Shane Long comforting Seamus. I've not read all this thread but that really was an emotional few moments in his initial shock and pain, so I imagine Long will be given a good reception next time he comes here.

Blame TW! It defeaults to spelling Everton in the url address with a capital E - Everton.

So the CORRECT url in your link, for example, should be:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-seamus-coleman-fifa-wages-12802834

However, it appears as:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/Everton-seamus-coleman-fifa-wages-12802834

That is enough to misdirect someone to an error page, rather than the article proper. So much for artificial intelligence, eh?

Simply correct the spelling of Everton with Everton in the URL any time you encounter this problem, refresh the page and you get to the linked article.

BTW, the FIFA initiative has been established for 5-6 years now, as the article mentions.

I have no need to defend myself, so I'm a little puzzled that you would need to make it personal. I'm appealing for some balance in reviewing the evidence against Taylor. The kangaroo court of public opinion on here has fabricated much of it to fit their need to entirely blame Taylor for what was an (albeit horrific) accident in a contact sport. I think his intent has been grossly misstated by what I can only imagine is a massive emotional reaction that seems for many to have obscured the reality of this situation.

I'm convinced now it was an accident rather than even a dangerous tackle. The direction Taylor was moving was completely in line with the ball, not the man. He lunged in because he had misjudged the relative movement of himself and the ball, may even have his lost balance, which is why his foot ended up over the ball rather than studs on the ball.

Imagine, if he had contacted the ball, Coleman would have still hit his leg and probably broken has ankle or foot instead. People have said it was a dangerous tackle because it was late. Yet how do you explain his foot being well over the ball at that moment of impact if he was late?

I mention his studs because many seem to believe that his studs did the damage... I'm sure they did not. What did the damage was Coleman striking Taylor's outstretched leg with tremendous force. No-one seems to deny that – apart from one idiot on here who has likened it to inviting rape... unbelievable.

At the angle in which Taylor was approaching, it was impossible to tackle Coleman and the ball. I think he went for the ball, missed it because he was over-extended, perhaps off-balance. An accident. Not a dangerous tackle.

Radio 5 Live say he is due an automatic one-match ban... which may be extended to three if Fifa review it. I thought it was three automatically for a dangerous tackle?

He has apparently been to see Seamus in hospital. Perhaps we will hear from Coleman as his recovery progresses, when emotions have subsided a little.

You seem unable to discuss this without getting upset, Dave, and claiming that I am defending myself. I assure you, I have absolutely no need to do that, despite your claims to the contrary.

I am glad that you offer some balance on this issue, having felt that Lyndon was extremely out of order for his almost racist attack on poor Taylor. May I ask though, is it your perception of the facts or an attempt to gain some perspective on the matter from the editorial team?

While I'm not calling for a firing squad at dawn, I do think it was a pretty bad mistake, although I'm sure it was an accident in the sense that he obviously wasn't setting out to hurt him.

In my opinion, he got carried away by the atmosphere of the game, and made a pretty bad error.

You can try and sugarcoat it as much as you like, but those sort of tackles have no place on a professional football pitch.

The tackle was over the ball and that's a foul even if there is no contact.

It was a reckless lunge that lacked the expected duty of care as per the rules of the game.

Good on him if Taylor has been to see Seamus in hospital but then they all do that don't they?

Finally I have not retrospectively adjusted anything regarding my view of 50/50 balls. The fact that a ball is equi-distant between two players does not give one of them the right to act recklessly and dangerously in order to ensure he gets to it first.

To finish, maybe you are right; maybe if Taylors foot/leg had not been so dangerously high then Seamus might well have caught it at ankle height and broken that. But then the tackle might not have been so reckless then would it and perhaps Taylor might not have been sent off and we would not be expressing these differences of opinion. But the fact is the tackle was high, over the ball and the referee saw it and took appropriate action at the time.

The worst fouls in football are reckless head-on lunges with no regard for the safety of the opposing player irrespective of whether there is any intention to maim and that is exactly the foul that Taylor committed and that is exactly what he needs to be sanctioned for, otherwise such events will continue to occur.

Lyndon is much more active on social media than I am, and it seems the early responses were driven by a deep emotional shock to events, with the palpable need to nail Taylor as the obvious and massively guilty party.

I came late to it, having missed the game, and assuming I was going to see some absolutely hideous assault on Coleman that I too could wade in on, guns blazzing, so livid was I at hearing the news of Seamus's horrendous injury. I was not a little surprised to find that was clearly not the case, as I found out from James Marshall's sensible posts, and later viewing the lousy video. I was just astounded at how the mass hysteria had grabbed so many on here.

I should know by now this is how people react but I live in hope that the instant availability of 'the facts' – in terms of video of the event, in this case – would at least cause people to pause and reassess before jumping in. Silly me... look at the new treatment of alt-facts and the denial of reality all around us in favour of downright lies, and the squeamish who couldn't bear to watch it. No wonder people were talking such arrant nonsense.

My position on this is not an editorial one: I feel no compunction to balance what Lyndon has posted. It's a direct response to the countless incredibly idiotic 'first responders' who filled our threads with such imbecilic nonsense. But they don't like being called on it, so I'd better retract that before I now get bombarded...

But just one last word on your 'racist' jibe. Sorry but there is not one scintilla of racist undercurrent in what Lyndon wrote, and that is a truly shameful accusation. He was reacting against the nonsense that is international football, and how utterly needless this injury was. An injury that denies us Coleman's services, denies him of playing the football he loves. And (I hope not) possibly threatens the rest of his career. That's the really sad part of this whole sordid business that we at least all (hopefully) agree on.

Patented "Ricardo IS a real person, I promise" rubbish, as per usual. There was absolutely no racist undertone or overtone inherent in Lyndon's words on the subject of Coleman's injury overall or in reference to the person who inflicted it.

Here's what Lyndon had to say about 'poor' Taylor:

"Of course, despite rumbling on for over two years on the back of suspect treatment under the Roberto Martinez regime, McCarthy's situation pales compared to that of Coleman who was literally cut down at the peak of his playing career by a horrific tackle from someone who was accurately described on these pages as a “third rate no mark playing in the Championship”.

Taylor's tackle that fractured both of the bones in the Irish skipper's leg was horrific and worthy of a lengthy ban — Luis Suarez was kicked out of international football for months for leaving a few teeth marks in Giorgio Chiellini's shoulder — not the mealy-mouthed “he's not that kind of player” remarks from manager Chris Coleman afterwards". 

What part of that borders on racism? There's no derogatory reference to either his nationality or ethnicity. Calling him "a third rate no mark" might be a slight on his ability, but it can in no way be construed as a racially motivated slur, nor can it be claimed to carry any sort of racist connotation. Any claim that the player is referred to as such simply because he puts a Wales shirt on his back can be instantly slapped down by pointing out the deliberate reference to him plying his trade in the "Championship". The league he currently turns out in is clearly what has led whoever said the words originally (as they weren't Lyndon's, although he obviously agrees with the sentiment) to take a pop at Taylor's playing prowess, not which national anthem he comes over all 'Lip Sync Battle' because of.

The same stands for many claiming they couldn't give two shits about an International game unless it, in some way, negatively impacts upon Everton. It wouldn't matter if it was Wales, Ireland, England, whoever. The identity of the two nations taking part isn't the issue at all, but rather the possible knock-on effect and postponing of the only football that matters to them personally.

For someone who recently railed against what he saw as the never ending deluge of "dickheads" making idiotic accusations on here, you've done a damn fine job of jumping straight to the head of the queue.

Eamon Dunphy backtracks on criticism of Neil Taylor after tackle on Seamus Coleman

"My initial response was one of outrage and I was angry with Taylor. But, when I cooled down and thought about it, I had more sympathy for the Welshman."

"It wasn't a premeditated or calculated assault on Coleman. Taylor was desperate to get to the ball, and intended to go in hard. But that's not unusual. Players go in hard in challenges all the time."

But what does this mean:

"Coleman was unlucky enough to have his foot on the ground when Taylor came over the top and has paid a heavy price."

Coleman having his foot on the ground is not what broke his leg. Why is it so difficult for people to say that Coleman kicking the ball full force is what actually broke his leg? Is that because it takes the blame away from Taylor, even though it's true? Taylor must be vilified because he caused the incident with his outrageous lunge... And back around we go.

It would appear that pundits from both sides of the argument are swapping trenches.

Having defended Taylor on the night, John Hartson popped up on TalkShite the next morning stating "I cannot make a case for him".

Tackles are like beauty, they are in the eye of the beholder... and what was beautiful on the night often seems pug ugly in the morning.

In truth, Taylor was guilty of nothing more than recklessness, which can be tough to accept, since the harm to Coleman was so great. It offends our sense of justice to think that so much damage can have been caused by something so banal. The instinct to impute malice and to assign blame is strong.

I'll have to think on this one... I admit I did feel that instinct very strongly... but I hadn't seen the incident. As soon as I saw it on video, I knew the reactions were completely over the top. Yet they were so widespread and, I am sure for most, are now locked in and will not be reversed.

What's more puzzling, many had seen it live, or presumably seen the clip, and some even claimed that I was wrong because I was missing the context of the game???

Perhaps if I'd studied psychology at Uni instead of civil engineering, I'd have more answers to life's endless puzzles...

I just read Dunphy's dialling down of his initial criticism and damn...couldn't he have chosen his closing words a bit better given the context? "Give Taylor a break"?

There's sure to be people at both extremes of the argument nodding their head to that sentiment.

A particularly crass choice of phrase given what happened.

Touché, Chris... got me there. No doubt makes you feel even more proud of your smartarse rape analogy earlier on this thread. What a guy.

https://www.joe.ie/sport/watch-evertons-tribute-seamus-coleman-simply-fantastic-583130

This from the Wales online website might help explain more

"There could have been other red cards shown, possibly to Bale, definitely to Whelan.

It seems to some that at half-time someone inside the Welsh dressing room said the players had to start standing up for themselves, because a couple of the Irish challenges just before were horrific.

Unfortunately, Wales lost their own way in the end and the Taylor tackle overshadowed everything.

Wales played into Irish hands by getting dragged into a dogs of war kind of fight..."

Chris Leyland [#20] Your waffle about the cause of the injury being Coleman striking Taylor's leg and the ball is akin to the defence 'she was asking for it as she had a short skirt on your honour.' Shameful.

Really? Proud of that one, are you? No-one has refuted that "waffle" as yet.

I hope the pair of them are proud of themselves today. Though somehow I doubt it. The only victim in all this Is a good honest dedicated cracking lad. Let's hope our players realise this and go out and win that game for him on Saturday.

Though I won't hold my breath on that... More likely they'll do it for Moran's memory. Fortune has somehow always smiled on them.

Best 㿨k this club has ever spent.

Whilst I don't completely agree with anyone's views on here so far, I feel Michael has to be commended for the more objective view he has taken. Basing his opinion on the facts as we can see them rather than making snap judgments over players intentions. I love Seamus as much as any of us, but I don't believe that the tackle was deliberate, reckless yes but to see some opinions on here over the last few days, is ridiculous.

And as a small aside, I doubt very much Chris Leyland and his over-the-top-reaction pals would be on such a moral high-horse if it were that dancing prick over the park who got his leg broken...

I'll accept anyone's interpretation that it was an 'assault' or a 'thug act'. I just don't happen to agree with it. It's not that black-and-white.

I think it was a bad, reckless challenge but fairly common (with a fairly uncommon result)... watch this weekend's games and count how many times a defender launches themselves straight at a striker who is about to shoot. If someone wants to campaign for those challenges to be made illegal then fair enough, but you can't just outlaw the injuries.

Seamus, a wonderful person in so many ways is going through quite an ordeal. He has probably pondered whether his career is over or is at least negatively impacted by the injury. I hope not. I really admire the man. He has the character to fight through this, and that is half of the battle.

If you are reading this, Seamus (probably not), I cannot wait to see you out there again, fighting with all your heart for OUR team and giving that quality, that in my opinion, has made you the stand-out right-back in this league for the last several years.

How many full-backs provide assists and score goals for fun like you? You are invaluable!

"... having felt that Lyndon was extremely out of order for his almost racist attack on poor Taylor"

John Daley (93) does a very good job by way of riposte on my behalf but I'd love to know towards whom I was being almost racist.

Taylor and the Welsh? With a name like Lloyd, that would involve a certain degree of self-hatred and ensured that my five years at Swansea University were akin to living among the enemy.

Martin O'Neill and the Northern Irish... who are also part of the United Kingdom?

Roy Keane and the Irish? My Irish great-grandparents would be tutting in their graves.

It's clear that my article was written from an emotive standpoint and, again, I make no apologies for it and I wasn't writing on behalf of anyone other than myself. But Ricardo's interpretation of it is utterly ridiculous.

I will admit, with the benefit of hindsight and repeated views of the video up until the two players collide, that a call for Taylor to be banned for any significant period of time would be a little OTT. I'm not sure there was malice in the tackle but you cannot view the incident in isolation; the antagonism and feistiness in the game that could have been tempered had Bale been red-carded absolutely created the conditions for Taylor's actions.

That is where I disagree with Michael. It undoubtedly was a reckless challenge in my eyes. He leaves his feet, lunges in for a tackle I don't think he can win without risking serious injury to his opponent and though I've watched it a number of times, I'm not sure how anyone can determine what part of his leg/foot makes contact with Coleman or that Seamus kicked the ball. It's too grainy.

But contact was made by a player who had lost control in the challenge and that, for me, is the crux of the matter and why it wasn't a 50-50 tackle.

If you can stomach watching it again, follow the direction and speed of the ball, which zooms off in the exact direction of Coleman's kicking foot – his right foot.

Perhaps people do really think Taylor actually caught Coleman's right leg. But that would have pushed him away, whereas Coleman cartwheels over his leg, with the ball flying off in front of him. No way could Taylor have imparted that motion to the ball.

Or they think that somehow Coleman's foot was planted – that could only be his left foot. But that leg was not impacted.

I have no idea what a 50-50 tackle is... aren't they all 50-50??? 50-50 refers to the chance of either player getting to the ball, not the tackle. How does a player 'losing control in the challenge' then make a 50-50 ball into not a 50-50 ball? Makes no sense.

Not in this case. Taylor's foot is travelling over the ball at Coleman's leg. Gives him somewhat less than a 50/50 chance to win the ball and somewhat more to break a leg.

"I'm not sure how anyone can determine what part of his leg/foot makes contact with Coleman or that Seamus kicked the ball. It's too grainy."

The Sky Sports footage of the pundits after the match includes a ground-level clip where you can clearly see Coleman coming and striking the ball very hard. I'm astounded you can't see that.

There's also a still with Taylor's leg over the ball at the moment of impact, and Coleman's right leg striking Taylor's leg at the exact point of the break.

Taylor's trailing leg does then catch Coleman and spins him over, but the hideous break has already happened. No studs contact from Taylor on Coleman, as many seem to believe.

Just about everything's been said by now, including my own views earlier.

I have to take issue with something though: the video that you linked disproves the very thing you took the trouble to highlight in bold. Taylor's foot did not go toward the ball, nor was it directly over the ball - it was past the ball by about a ball width to the right, from his perspective.

He basically fired right past the ball toward the line of Coleman's path, it was a clean-it-all-out tackle. James Marshall posted a video first (and got flamed for it). That version was a little clearer and magnified, but it's no longer viewable.

Difference of opinion in what we see is one thing. I'm afraid you're not even seeing what's right there. And no, he didn't "Lose balance"!

At 37 secs you can clearly see that the ball has gone -- it's a blur here going forward away from Coleman when they stop the action -- before Taylor makes contact with Seamus's leg. His trailing leg doesn't have anything to do with it as far as I saw.

I'm not saying his studs caught Coleman and never did (although others have) but he went in with enough force with his leading leg to do the damage he did. He was rash and late, ergo not what I would interpret as a 50-50 tackle.

Let me ask you this:

Did the direct force of Taylor's reckless tackle, coming in side-on, break Coleman's leg?

Or, did the action of Coleman's swinging leg, striking the ball hard and then striking Taylor's wildly outstretched leg, result in the break?

Will (#117), you may be right about Taylor's leg position relative to the ball. It may be slightly to the right. I'm not sure that makes any difference.

"Taylor makes contact with Seamus's leg... he went in with enough force with his leading leg to do the damage he did."

Yet Coleman's action of kicking the ball and then striking Taylor's leg is what results in the break. Not any direct force from Taylor's leg on Coleman.

At the angles involved, and with the motion of the players and the ball (which you said you didn't think Coleman kicked), I can't see any other possible interpretation.

But sadly, it was actually Coleman who broke his own leg by kicking the ball so hard as Taylor came in. That sounds crass and I guess that's why no-one can bring themselves to say it... Taylor created the situation by lunging in but I think his intent was to block the ball, not clean-it-all-out, as Will maintains. He made a horrible misjudgement.

Actually, James Marshall called it exactly right on the first thread, and yet he got relentlessly slammed for it by many people on here. That's what I don't understand.

However, just to say I'm totally with Michael K on this one (all posts – he says it way better than I can, and clearly has more time!).

I also thought he was going in to try and block a cross at the time, and having read 90% of the posts debating this, I still think that. After all – Seamus's crosses are now an established weapon in his team's amoury as witnessed for EFC, so I'm sure there was a strong emphasis to prevent them. Hence Taylor's recklessness.

Some of the comments on here, though, and the other thread have gone beyond the featherbrained although in fairness there have been many good comments from all angles.

The red was clearly the right call, there was no intent to injure, and a 3 match suspension and a hefty fine fair punishment (not euthanising). But most importantly, I join everyone in offering my best wishes to Seamus for a speedy and successful convalescence.

There is a clear case for very strong punishment here, to act as a deterrent against lunges that can threaten another player's career.

This will be my last comment on this because I'm mystified by what you're seeing versus what I am.

MK, I thought you were initially arguing that the two players met the ball simultaneously. Your inference here, however, is that Coleman broke his leg on the ball and that, by extension, Taylor's presence had nothing to do with it, which is absurd.

But you also say in comment 120 that it was the act of swinging his leg into Taylor's that caused the break. So which is it, in your opinion?

It should be the latter, of course, based in the video showing that the ball has already gone by the time Taylor gets there.

Now, if we can establish that as a basis for discussion: even if all the momentum that causes the break is from Seamus's swinging leg, what earthly difference does it make?

I think you're arguing that there should be enough whacking force from Taylor's own leg to warrant the red card and the outrage. But the fact that he was late, missed the ball and made contact high on Coleman's shin (not from the side, by the way, but full on) is mine and most other people's issue. Even if he provided no momentum in his own leg at all (he didn't neeed to, his body provided it given how he lunged in), it was still reckless and dangerous given the velocity they were going.

The prosecution rests.

● 50-50 ball (not 50-50 tackle!), bouncing between two players.
● Both players 100% determined to win the ball.
● Coleman steaming in to fire it forward (or make a deep diagonal cross)
● Taylor lunging in recklessly at an angle (not full-on) to block or drive the ball away to the left... but he's high, over (and just to the right of) the ball.
● Taylor's foot, studs, leg do not making contact with Coleman (yet).
● Coleman's foot, in full swing, connects with the ball and propels it forward.
● And Coleman's leg, in full swing, with tremendous force and momentun, smacks into Taylor's outstretched leg.
● It's that impact (and nothing else) that breaks Coleman's leg instantly.
● Taylor's follow-through and trailing leg catch Coleman's standing left leg, launching him into the air.
● Referee correctly shows instant red card.
● The tackle was horrendous... not late (he's well over the ball) but coming in too hard, too high... red card all day long.

How on earth you conclude at any stage of this that I am saying "Coleman broke his leg on the ball" is beyond comprehension. Coleman broke his leg by striking Taylor's leg... a millisecond after he strikes the ball. Massive distinction.

"What earthly difference does it make?" It makes no difference to poor Seamus, obviously. His fucking leg's busted, whichever way it happened. But in terms of vilifying Taylor for any and all 'normal' bad-tackle components (studs up, clean-it-all-out, head-on, damage the man, cut his standing leg, etc etc) – none of these things actually happened. Coleman breaking his leg was a freak accident triggered by a series of events that included a horrendously reckless tackle, and included Coleman kicking the tackler's leg with tremendous force.

Yes, Taylor's actions absolutely caused the situation, no question... but it also needed Coleman to kick that ball as hard as he did. Taylor's actions were reckless. Coleman's were understandable... but perhaps just a little foolhardy – can he see Taylor steaming in? Can he see the leg extended in front of him? But he still kicks through the ball anyway with tremendous force. Sadly, in the context of the game, he could do nothing else... he was 100% committed, as you would expect. There is no way he could have pulled out.

I hate 50-50 balls for exactly this reason. But in the heat of a 'derby', this is the kind of action 95% the fans love. This is what gets the blood pumping as long as no-one gets seriously hurt. Then, it all changes.

Taylor was distraught at what had happened, yet your beloved social media destroyed him in no time flat, for what was in fact a horrific accident. I think that makes a huge difference. 99 times out of 100, you see people fly in like Taylor did and there is no broken leg.

If they'd seen decent video coverage, perhaps they'd have understood this better... but somehow, given that so many on here rejected James's clear and precise analysis, I doubt it.

That's it, I'm done. (As long as you promise to actually read what I've written and not make things up or claim I've said something I haven't.)

"... based in the video showing that the ball has already gone by the time Taylor gets there."

In this case, we are definitely watching different videos. The accident occurs because Taylor is not in any way 'late'. His outstretched leg is over the ball at the instant Coleman kicks through the ball and strikes his leg.

Watch it again.

Now I'm really done!!!

I see now, based on your subsequent comments, that I misconstrued this line of yours in comment 123 :

"But sadly, it was actually Coleman who broke his own leg by kicking the ball so hard as Taylor came in."

Although you muddy it again by saying:

"Coleman who strikes Taylor's leg and the ball simultaneously"

I've watched it again... and again. He doesn't strike them simultaneously – he strikes the ball and then Taylor's leg, which I still contend was coming at him front on (if it's side-on, the tackle is worse, IMO, because then he is definitely late).

If Taylor's not late then he's too high. If he wasn't, he would have blocked the ball but he didn't because he was going in too high. Either way, he's at fault.

And now I'm really done!

Does this mean Taylor is a thug? I don't know, can't be proven, so I'm not going to judge him on that front. I assume the heat-of-the-moment 'character references' that "he's not that type of player" are given in good faith but self-contradictory, so they don't really mean anything.

Although sickened by the challenge, and more-so by the outcome, I think the bad challenge on Anichebe a few years ago was more clearly in the 'assault' bracket for which the player (forget his name) was sued for damages...

Let's move on and give Seamus all the support we can.

In hindsight I was rather rash with my assertion that you were "almost Racist". Emotions were running high on both sides of the argument and I unfortunately chose the wrong words, which I can only apologise for. I have always felt that you are reasonably balanced in your writing and was caught up in the moment as I felt you were unusually severe with your criticism of the Welsh player, Taylor.

I still however feel that the tackle was not malicious and that the unfortunate outcome has cost us our best right back in many a year.

Why didn't you post earlier and save a lot of unnecessary waffle. Your post is the best proposed on the subject. For me, it says everything.

I hope he gets back sooner rather than later. We will miss him but I have no doubt he will get back. He had / has aspirations of captaining Everton and this will be a mighty motivator for the Donegal man.

Personally, I couldn't give a flying fuck about Ireland / Northern Ireland or international football in general (We ain't ever going to see a side like Brazil 70, or a Maradona again!) but I appreciate the opinions of those who enjoy it, particularly the small nations for the reasons the likes of Shane and others have expressed in a different thread.

I don't agree with you, Shane, regards your thoughts on McCarthy and O'Neill – I think both were highly irresponsible to put it mildly.

Back to that tackle and in my opinion...

I don't believe Taylor intended to break Coleman's leg. I do believe he was protecting himself by lunging in. I do believe it was a badly-timed tackle and yes, over the top, as he was lunging in. We all know if you are sliding or lunging in, you are more protected than the guy standing up agreed ?
We also all know as I have said before football is a contact sport and when tackles go wrong (let's say) this can be the outcome.

Taylor makes a split-second decision that he can get the ball cleanly, as does Coleman, but Taylor was never going to get HIS leg broke, if you get me.

Seamus Coleman was as brave as they come because – make no mistake – he knew what was coming and still went for it fully committed. Lesser players would have skipped over Taylor.
In fact I suggested to a friend of mine yesterday (who was at the match) just exactly that and he reckoned that would have been the smart thing to do but had he done that , the fans wouldn't have been happy!

So I suggest that Coleman was more courageous in more ways than one that perhaps we don't fully appreciate – instead of being sensible and getting the fuck out of the way.

Get well soon, Seamus.

The tackle itself is something we see almost every time we watch a game these days. Moments before this incident, there should have been another sending off for Bale, another injury requiring medical attention.

The recent three week ban of Spurs' Ali for this same offence says volumes for me. He is a player that is often targeted himself in similar fashion, so even the skillful are not immune from brain snaps themselves.

It is a criminal offence in a footballer's handbook for me, aimed at putting an opponent out without any thought of the consequences and more often than not the referees are not helping the victims.

The ironic part of this whole drama for me is that the coward who admitted to crippling a fellow footballer and ending his career in one of his literary ramblings, Keane, he had to put his twobobsworth in. How that person was never banned for life from football escapes me. I wouldn't have him near players of any age or level.

Our Manager has high expectations and support for Seamus and his family and that is great. I pray all our thoughts and good wishes are not in vain. God bless you young man, you are inspirational to countless football supporters all around the code. God bless your recovery.

Posted at 11:29

Fifa has opened proceedings against Wales defender Neil Taylor after his challenge which broke Republic of Ireland's Seamus Coleman's leg last Friday, Press Association Sport reports.