Monkhouse

Fensy · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:15 pm **Posts:** 6471

Has been given an additional 2 game ban on top of the 3 games he automatically for his red card against Rochdale. He will now miss the first 4 games of the new season.

Mick Tait's Head Bandage · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2007 5:01 pm

D'OH!

dawlishmonkey · **Joined:** Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 am **Posts:** 1588

he deserves it like

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

That Doolan should get a slightly longer ban than Monkhouse.

townendtimmy · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2007 9:15 pm

we'll cope :sweeeet:

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

chip fireball wrote:

daniel, thats just plain daft.

Did you actually see what Doolan did to Monkhouse? Now that is a real leg-breaker. You could see Monkhouse's leg bend, if that had of bent any more then it would have broke his leg.

MadJohn agrees with me on this, he didn't at first but once he saw the clip he did.

PJ_Poolie · **Posted:** Wed May 16, 2007 9:48 pm

From the footage i've seen Doolan actually tried to break Monky's leg as well. It was a poor challenge from Monkhouse but he was running at pace and the ball bobbled at knee height, it was dangerous and a red card offence but he DID go for the ball IMO, Doolan went for the player in retaliation the big fat knacker.

Tax Paying Poolie · **Joined:** Sat Aug 19, 2006 8:18 am **Posts:** 9053

PJ_Poolie wrote:

From the footage i've seen Doolan actually tried to break Monky's leg as well. It was a poor challenge from Monkhouse but he was running at pace and the ball bobbled at knee height, it was dangerous and a red card offence but he DID go for the ball IMO, Doolan went for the player in retaliation the big fat knacker.

Just watched the tackles again on youtube. They were both dirty, cynical and ugly tackles that deserved the bans they got.

What happened after that was handbags and shouldn't see any punishment, for me.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 36568

... a little hasty aren't we...?

dawlishmonkey · **Joined:** Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 am **Posts:** 1588

bad mood today chip? your own post answers the point about why he deserved an extra ban. but to sell him because he's banned for 4 matches next season.no way .
He was outstanding last season,maybe even the catalyst for all the good things that happened.
give your head a shake mate,it'll all look better in the morning

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

Tax Paying Poolie wrote:

PJ_Poolie wrote:

From the footage i've seen Doolan actually tried to break Monky's leg as well. It was a poor challenge from Monkhouse but he was running at pace and the ball bobbled at knee height, it was dangerous and a red card offence but he DID go for the ball IMO, Doolan went for the player in retaliation the big fat knacker.

Just watched the tackles again on youtube. They were both dirty, cynical and ugly tackles that deserved the bans they got.

What happened after that was handbags and shouldn't see any punishment, for me.

Trust me, the Youtube link isn't clear.

http://files-upload.com/217923/Movie_0002.wmv.html

After seeing that you will realise how bad Doolan's assault was. As a person who has had knee trouble in the past, I feel strongly about Doolan.

Not saying that Monkhouse wasnt bad mind you. Just saying Doolan for me was worse.

GroovyCrimes · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 9:33 am

ADG wrote:

I wouldnt sell Monkhouse

the fact that he wanted to fight every fooker actually put him up in my estimation.....strangely.

If we had had that sort of fight under Scotty we wouldnt have gone down.

I fully agree,the bloke is 100% commited to giving us his all.

Spender · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 10:45 am

ADG wrote:

I wouldnt sell Monkhouse for any amount of money.

He was stupid, and deserves his ban.

That said...............the fact that he wanted to fight every fooker actually put him up in my estimation.....strangely.

If we had had that sort of fight under Scotty we wouldnt have gone down.

On the other hand, if we'd had that sort of fight under Scotty, we'd still have Scotty with his bits of paper and footy by numbers.

Which was shit.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 10:49 am

OK watched it. Monky's initial challenge was reckless and clearly a straight red and deserving of a three game ban, but the second Rochdale player's was unadulterated assault and battery.
He should not only have been sent off; he should have been sent to jail.

Montpoolier · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 10:52 am

Pooliekev wrote:

On the other hand, if we'd had that sort of fight under Scotty, we'd still have Scotty with his bits of paper and footy by numbers.

Which was shiit.

Do you think so? I think Scotty's brief was to at least get us into the play-offs again. Anything less than top half and his job was always going to be on the line at the end of the season, especially with the team playing an unispiring brand of football.

parmopooly · **Posted:** Thu May 17, 2007 2:21 pm

I LOVE EUPHEMISMS - UNINSPIRED INDEED!!! :grin:

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

Monkhouse's ban isn't for the tackle...it's for "violent conduct/behaviour".

In which case Doolan should get a much heavier ban for his extremely dangerous assault and all the stuff that happened afterwards.

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

DanielGaunt wrote:

Monkhouse's ban isn't for the tackle...it's for "violent conduct/behaviour".

In which case Doolan should get a much heavier ban for his extremely dangerous assault and all the stuff that happened afterwards.

The FA website doesn't even mention that Doolan has a hearing...

Fensy · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:15 pm **Posts:** 6471

Maybe he realised that if he requested a persoanl hearing he would be given a longer ban confised

dawlishmonkey · **Joined:** Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 am **Posts:** 1588

DanielGaunt wrote:

Monkhouse's ban isn't for the tackle...it's for "violent conduct/behaviour".

In which case Doolan should get a much heavier ban for his extremely dangerous assault and all the stuff that happened afterwards.

here's the difference. monky did what he did,doolan did what he did. monky gets the red crd and then kicks off with half the rochdale team.doolan gets his red and gets off the pitch.thats what goes in front of the jury.thats why monky gets done for violent conduct and not the initial tackle and thats why DW is pissed off with him

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

dawlishmonkey wrote:

DanielGaunt wrote:

Monkhouse's ban isn't for the tackle...it's for "violent conduct/behaviour".

In which case Doolan should get a much heavier ban for his extremely dangerous assault and all the stuff that happened afterwards.

here's the difference. monky did what he did,doolan did what he did. monky gets the red crd and then kicks off with half the rochdale team.doolan gets his red and gets off the pitch.thats what goes in front of the jury.thats why monky gets done for violent conduct and not the initial tackle and thats why DW is pissed off with him

Monkshouse did a reckless foul and had a fight.
Doolan did an extremely dangerous assault (as the ref had blown his whistle) which hit him right on his knee, which was a million times worst than what Monkhouse did to their player and had a fight.

Both had a fight, so are you saying that Monkhouse's foul was worst than Doolan's kick? Have you seen the footage?

dawlishmonkey · **Joined:** Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:53 am **Posts:** 1588

yep seen it.can't believe you could defend monky's tackle or his actions afterwards.

Mute Witness · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:10 am **Posts:** 3572

dawlishmonkey wrote:

yep seen it.can't believe you could defend monky's tackle or his actions afterwards.

I'm NOT defending Monkey's tackle, I've NEVER defended it.

I'm just saying that Doolan's lunge to the knee is a much worse.

Fensy · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:15 pm **Posts:** 6471

I still can't believe the look of shock on Monkhouses face when he realises he is going to get a red card.

Spender · **Posted:** Fri May 18, 2007 4:20 am

richard head wrote:

Pooliekev wrote:

On the other hand, if we'd had that sort of fight under Scotty, we'd still have Scotty with his bits of paper and footy by numbers.

Which was shiit.

Do you think so? I think Scotty's brief was to at least get us into the play-offs again. Anything less than top half and his job was always going to be on the line at the end of the season, especially with the team playing an unispiring brand of football.

I do, and while that may well have been his brief, he never had any chance of succeeding playing Eufa Pro Licence football in the third division. Having watched Cooper's brand succeed for two seasons he was incredibly arrogant to think he knew better. The world is full of professors with no common sense.

Monkhouse

Gadgies online