Shaun Long

[Ian Royal]

Church didn't jump into the crowd at Bristol. Somebody else did and he took the rap.

Sometimes, Pearcey, I wonder if you are related to him.

Just telling it how it was. He went towards the crowd but someone else(I can't remember who) jumped in. He did nothing wrong but was booked for what his colleague did.
I just like his attitude. I have a lot of time for him.

Ran over to the crowd, got a shove in the back that sent him close enough to be hugged full on. Cisse leapt into the arms of the crowd.

So yes Facaldaqui is wrong about that.

BUT Church did learn, because when he ran over to the fans this time he stopped an extra couple of feet from the fans. Then when Karacan bundled into the back of him and shoved him forward he resisted and still ended up just out of arms reach so he couldn't be booked.

So Facaldaqui is right about that bit.

[tilehurstender]

i just wonder who the shit for brains people are that applauded this idiot after he got a deserved red card?? 4 game ban!! yeah well done mate nice one

[Gloria Gooner]

Long was a complete idiot to try jumping in like that in an area where it really wasn't necessary to do so and got the right decision from the ref. Got what he deserved and now has a 4 game ban meaning he'll miss Palace, Blackpool, WBA & Sheff Wed.

Such a shame his playing improvement wasn't matched by an improvement in intelligence, now we have to find another striker who can score goals from somwhere....

Sums it up for me.

[rhroyal]

I think people need to stop talking about "intent" when it comes to dangerous tackles. Yes, setting with the intention of hurting somebody is far, far worse than producing a mistimed, clumsy, stupid tackle.

We've all seen Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo. I'd say that there was very little intent in that tackle, Eduardo was too quick for him. However, his leg was high, his studs were showing; broken leg.

I don't think Long had much intent on Saturday. However, the fact of the matter is, it was a dangerous tackle. Had he made full contact with the player, who knows what could have happened. These dangerous tackles need to stamped out of the game with an instant red in every case. In terms of the ref's decision, intent should not be factored in when looking at career threatening tackles.

It's not like rules such as last man or handball where intent means so much more. Long deserved to go.

[philM]

It's an interesting one to look more closely at. His leading leg doesn't actually make any contact with the player when he just misses the top of the ball. Then he is already in the air when the other player steps into where his trailing foot is going to land, and as Shane's trailing leg/foot is turned to the side throughout the tackle he takes out the other player's leg as he lands. It looks like a rash challenge but Shane's target was the ball. He certainly didn't lunge over the ball and take the man. The lunging foot landed on the turf and made no contact. The trailing leg was heading for the turf too until the other player moved quickly forward to reach the ball.

[Ian Royal]

Then he is already in the air when the other player steps into where his trailing foot is going to land,

and thus has no control over what he's doing which is dangerous.

but Shane's target was the ball.

utterly irrelevant other than to say he shouldn't be charged with assault as well.

[philM]

Then he is already in the air when the other player steps into where his trailing foot is going to land,

and thus has no control over what he's doing which is dangerous.

but Shane's target was the ball.

utterly irrelevant other than to say he shouldn't be charged with assault as well.

[/img]

I agree it was dangerous and he had to go. I'd seen a few posts on here where people seemed to think he had lunged over the ball and caught the player directly so just wanted to clear that up really.

[Ian Royal]

Fair doos. I'm happy to admit I got it wrong originally as well. Much worse than I first thought.

[andrew1957]

To be fair in many matches Long's challenge would be deemed a sending off - but equally I have seen a lot worse challenges result in no card at all or just a yellow. It is the inconsistency that is the problem.

[facaldaqui]

To be fair in many matches Long's challenge would be deemed a sending off - but equally I have seen a lot worse challenges result in no card at all or just a yellow. It is the inconsistency that is the problem.

The problem with Shane's two sending off tackles is the rush of blood to the head. There is too much distance between him and the player he tackles when he launches his swoop, which means he is very likely to mistime. Sudden rushes into the tackle are impetuous and dangerous.

[Franchise FC]

To be fair in many matches Long's challenge would be deemed a sending off - but equally I have seen a lot worse challenges result in no card at all or just a yellow. It is the inconsistency that is the problem.

The problem with Shane's two sending off tackles is the rush of blood to the head. There is too much distance between him and the player he tackles when he launches his swoop, which means he is very likely to mistime. Sudden rushes into the tackle are impetuous and dangerous.

The problem is too much distance, but it's about four inches or so. Inside that distance he has some synapses that lose communication with each other, presumably clouded by some scarlet fog.

[floyd__streete]

Long has learned absolutely nothing from his would-be-leg-breaking petulance at Derby and so is clearly a dopey individual. Appaling challenge Shane, and just as you were finally beginning to get your act together you will now be banned for 4 games. Liability and an idiot.

[Pseud O'Nym]

It's not very long since I, and others, were writing off Wayne Rooney as too thick to ever learn to behave. I wouldn't write Long off yet.

[Southbank Old Boy]

It's an interesting one to look more closely at. His leading leg doesn't actually make any contact with the player when he just misses the top of the ball. Then he is already in the air when the other player steps into where his trailing foot is going to land, and as Shane's trailing leg/foot is turned to the side throughout the tackle he takes out the other player's leg as he lands. It looks like a rash challenge but Shane's target was the ball. He certainly didn't lunge over the ball and take the man. The lunging foot landed on the turf and made no contact. The trailing leg was heading for the turf too until the other player moved quickly forward to reach the ball.

Havent watched it since last night on the TV, but still pretty sure he connected with his leading foot as well as the trailing one. It wasnt a massive connection but it made contact and it was far too late

Just a very poor tackle, and a needless one at that

[Southbank Old Boy]

NOT seen it on the TV. Was in Y21and I think it was Kebe had been harassing their defender
and Long ran from a long way away. He was coming fast, full of enthusiasm, working his
socks off and got it wrong.

Nobody near my seat thought it should be a red. Most were flabbergasted.

Quite prepared to believe that caught by the camera it looks worse and "deserved a red"
but I don't think it was stupidity and it definitely wasn't petulance.

It was a guy on fire having a real go against players who were and had been overly robust throughout the game.

I was most interested to hear the manager. There wasn't the slightest criticism of Long by him.

Snowball,
Are you Long's solicitor as well as his PR man?
A really stupid challenge and those around me in Y21 knew it was a red straight away.
If ever two players summed up the archetypal image of foottballers being thick it was Long and their sub.
Irresponsible play by both men who ought to be fined by their clubs.

Totally agree vic, and I would be amzed if McD didnt at least have a word with Long when he takes the fine off him to point out that we cant afford for him to be doing things like this as its costing us our in form and currently first choice centre forward for a run of important games. If McD doesnt say anything to him he isnt doing his job

Snowbll, the people around you must be as doppy arsed as you then, it was always a red card tackle, and dont be fooled into thinking waht McD says infront of the TV cameras will eb the same as he does to Longs face. McD is just following the managerial text book and not slagging off his players in public

[Franchise FC]

What is sad about this is we really need Long now, he has been on form, and he would be important to us.
This could be our downfall, we were just turning things around and have been on good form.
Now without Long we might struggle, he has been our form player.

Where are the goals going to come from now?

We appear to have scored without him on Saturday !

[CMRoyal]

I think people need to stop talking about "intent" when it comes to dangerous tackles. Yes, setting with the intention of hurting somebody is far, far worse than producing a mistimed, clumsy, stupid tackle.

We've all seen Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo. I'd say that there was very little intent in that tackle, Eduardo was too quick for him. However, his leg was high, his studs were showing; broken leg.

I don't think Long had much intent on Saturday. However, the fact of the matter is, it was a dangerous tackle. Had he made full contact with the player, who knows what could have happened. These dangerous tackles need to stamped out of the game with an instant red in every case. In terms of the ref's decision, intent should not be factored in when looking at career threatening tackles.

It's not like rules such as last man or handball where intent means so much more. Long deserved to go.

Agree 100%. It's typical of the guy - just as he's doing so well he goes and does a dumb thing like this. Now he's got to fight his way back into the team and get back up to speed at a crucial period of the season. I hope Brian stuck his toe up the eejit's backside after the game.

[CMRoyal]

I was most interested to hear the manager. There wasn't the slightest criticism of Long by him.

That was from the school of Steve. Hopefully behind closed doors he's given Shane a right rocket.

[Maguire]

Nobody near my seat thought it should be a red. Most were flabbergasted

lolz, were you in the disabled section or something?

[Terminal Boardom]

I think people need to stop talking about "intent" when it comes to dangerous tackles. Yes, setting with the intention of hurting somebody is far, far worse than producing a mistimed, clumsy, stupid tackle.

We've all seen Martin Taylor's tackle on Eduardo. I'd say that there was very little intent in that tackle, Eduardo was too quick for him. However, his leg was high, his studs were showing; broken leg.

I don't think Long had much intent on Saturday. However, the fact of the matter is, it was a dangerous tackle. Had he made full contact with the player, who knows what could have happened. These dangerous tackles need to stamped out of the game with an instant red in every case. In terms of the ref's decision, intent should not be factored in when looking at career threatening tackles.

It's not like rules such as last man or handball where intent means so much more. Long deserved to go.

It is a number of years since I last read the laws of football. When I started refereeing many years ago "intent" was a key word. Did the player "intend" to handle the ball? Was there intent on fouling a player? A very grey area and if the word intent is removed which I suspect it is, then it falls squarely on the referee's shoulders to mke a snap decision.

But what was Long trying to do when making that challenge on the half way line? Utterly pointless and irresponsible. Further evidence that forwards do not know how to tackle. Was it a worse challenge than Kitson's at Old Trafford? As soon as a player leaves the ground he is walking a tightrope and should expect punishment to be swift. Shame then that the referee in the Doncaster game chose to not show Billy Sharp a straight red for his appalling challenge on Federici. As always, the referees will get stick and abuse for a perceived lack of consistency.