By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
My opinion is that if legal proceedings were rumoured or likely to occur, or have been commenced, then the FA would likely have deferred any punishment pending that of a higher authority.
Regardless of what Calvin did and the long term effect it has had/will have on him, the club, our supporters or football in general, it would be an extremely sad day if players start taking opponents to court for incidents which occur on the field of play. (The only exception I wouldmake, would be if there were racist overtones or clear racist abuse)
The floodgates would then be open for litigation of all kinds, and the lawyers would be queueing around every ground withntheir wallets open in anticipation.
If that ever happens, you might as well all pack up and go home. Calvin has been dealt with appropriately, acording to the laws of the game and in a proper manner. That's where it should stop.
“It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooledâ€
No excuses deserved ban. There can be no justification for the actions. Out of character, from my watching I'd say yes but that sort of thuggery has no place anywhere.
After the 12 match ban Calvin will have served his ban and that should be the end of it. Calls for him never to play for the club again are an overaction in my opinion.
Do people really believe there is a risk of public or private prosecution?? This would send shockwaves right through the PFA. What about historical offences? Would we have an Operation Yewtree for footballers? Half the Leeds team from the 1970's would be banged up, not to mention Roy Keane injuring a player then confirming in his own book that he did it deliberately.
My opinion: Calvin is doing the right thing by keeping quiet, RAFC should make an official statement as soon as possible confirming that this is completely out of character for the player but they abide by the decision of the FA.
Furthermore: this had better be a new stance for the FA as regards further offences by ANY player at ANY level. And not just as a scapegoat from lowly Rochdale.
EDIT: And no I don't condone the actions by the way.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2016 12:02]
A pal of mine was playing part time pro with Great Harwood ( I think , it's a while back now ) he had his jaw broken deliberately by an opponent. He took the case to court and won his case. The guy involved was playing for Altrincham at the time. an old time ex pro thug with plenty of previous who I won't name here. People who know non league football will know who I mean. The guy got a heavy fine.
Only just seen the incident, awful decision making from Andrew, the very last player you'd think would do something like that. You can only imagine Clarke has said something in his ear, but its no excuse, and if it was a racist comment he should have just reported it. It has shades of the Zidane headbutt, so out of character. I only hope that similar incidents receive similar bans, surely the FA have set a precedent for the future.
Latent psychopath? A 12 year unblemished career is probably the highest degree of latency ever recorded. Suggest anyone harbouring such thought go for the unfortified cornflakes next time. As for the media, bad news sells. Think back to when you last saw a good news story.
Disagree. Mike has got it spot on. If Calvin can't or won't mitigate his actions, then he's just a psychopathic thug.
Disagree. Mike has got it spot on. If Calvin can't or won't mitigate his actions, then he's just a psychopathic thug.
If you - for whatever reason - were potentially subject to litigation and the legal advice given to you was to make no comment, would you ignore it because someone on this messageboard called you names?
If you can't, or won't answer yes, where does that leave you?
If you - for whatever reason - were potentially subject to litigation and the legal advice given to you was to make no comment, would you ignore it because someone on this messageboard called you names?
If you can't, or won't answer yes, where does that leave you?
Yes, I would. If I were Calvin I would welcome my day in court (IF I had been the victim of racial abuse). I don't believe there's a jury in the land would convict him (even an all-white one). If Clarke racially abused him, he deserved everything he got. But let's be clear, one of them is a violent thug.
Must be terrible not being allowed to go around elbowing people in the head without everyone getting upset about it.
How about a 'We love you Calvin' chant tomorrow to show our solidarity? And put him front and centre on the next promotional poster. Hopefully he's visiting schools during his time off, inspiring the next generation of Dale supporters.
Yes, I would. If I were Calvin I would welcome my day in court (IF I had been the victim of racial abuse). I don't believe there's a jury in the land would convict him (even an all-white one). If Clarke racially abused him, he deserved everything he got. But let's be clear, one of them is a violent thug.
Yes, I would. If I were Calvin I would welcome my day in court (IF I had been the victim of racial abuse). I don't believe there's a jury in the land would convict him (even an all-white one). If Clarke racially abused him, he deserved everything he got. But let's be clear, one of them is a violent thug.
You're determined to find a stick to beat him with, and you're using the race card to do so, which is disgraceful. It's unlikely to be the case that Calvin was racially abused, since as you say, that would've been dealt with very differently. So, in having some confidence that wasn't the case, you're now resorting to cheap name-calling with a complete lack of any insight whatsoever into what motivates human beings to commit certain acts under pressure.
Clarke isn't a violent thug, although like most in his position he's acquired skills in dishing it out. So that makes neither of them a violent thug.
But it's ok, you carry on living in your small, blinkered world. I'm sure nothing I can say would disturb you from your comfort zone.
Calvin's actions, if unprovoked, define him as a thug. If Clarke racially abused him, that defines him as a thug. This issue should not be swept under the carpet.
You're determined to find a stick to beat him with, and you're using the race card to do so, which is disgraceful. It's unlikely to be the case that Calvin was racially abused, since as you say, that would've been dealt with very differently. So, in having some confidence that wasn't the case, you're now resorting to cheap name-calling with a complete lack of any insight whatsoever into what motivates human beings to commit certain acts under pressure.
Clarke isn't a violent thug, although like most in his position he's acquired skills in dishing it out. So that makes neither of them a violent thug.
But it's ok, you carry on living in your small, blinkered world. I'm sure nothing I can say would disturb you from your comfort zone.
No, I'm not.I can't believe his actions were unprovoked. So, naive perhaps.
Calvin's actions, if unprovoked, define him as a thug. If Clarke racially abused him, that defines him as a thug. This issue should not be swept under the carpet.
I would define'thug' as someone who goes around using violence against others, over a lengthy period of time. Acting violently on one occasion is thuggish, but it does not mean that that person is an out and out thug.
No one knows what provoked it except Calvin so how anything ,including psychopathic tendencies, can be ruled out by posters on here is beyond belief.
Psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behaviour, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits. Different conceptions of psychopathy have been used throughout history. These conceptions are only partly overlapping and may sometimes be contradictory.
Calvin has persistently shown this type of behaviour, has he?
Psychopathy is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behaviour, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits. Different conceptions of psychopathy have been used throughout history. These conceptions are only partly overlapping and may sometimes be contradictory.
Calvin has persistently shown this type of behaviour, has he?
Perhaps he's a late developer?
I don't think he is and have not said he is. I , as is the case for everyone but Calvin, do not know what provoked it but taking your detailed definition of a psychopath then perhaps it is fair to rule that out.
The level of disappointment has only increased now it's a day later. Really struggling to think of anything similar during my time as a Dale fan - it all comes back to Calvin being one of those players you can really identify with as a supporter.
One thing that doesn't make much sense is that in the initial statement before a decision was made, the club was in the process of challenging the charge - presumably the bit about three matches being an insufficient ban.
Did we really think that challenging was appropriate? That three matches was sufficient?
The challenge was not appropriate, I doubt a single person here thinks it was. The point is about comparison and proportionality (and the 3 match statement of yours). I'm absolutely fine and in agreement this offence carries a 12 match ban - AS LONG AS it does for everyone. Not just league one Dale but premiership players as well. Everything we've ever seen says that's not the case. Costa simply wouldnt get 12 matches for this (or pretty much anything else) and we all know it.
So because hes black he must've been racially abused? What a load of absolute crap, slander and misinformation. There is NO excuse for what Calvin did, and attempts to paint Clarke as the perpetrator are abominable.
The challenge was not appropriate, I doubt a single person here thinks it was. The point is about comparison and proportionality (and the 3 match statement of yours). I'm absolutely fine and in agreement this offence carries a 12 match ban - AS LONG AS it does for everyone. Not just league one Dale but premiership players as well. Everything we've ever seen says that's not the case. Costa simply wouldnt get 12 matches for this (or pretty much anything else) and we all know it.
The three match statement wasn't mine. From the link: "Furthermore, it is alleged that the standard punishment of three matches that would otherwise apply is insufficient."
What incidents involving Costa can be compared? Genuine question btw, I'm not aware so would be interested to see.
Edit: to clarify - the challenge to which I refer is the one by the club mentioned in the link, not Andrew's.
Jeez. I'm sorry I used the word psychopath now: I was simply trying to be ironic. By implying that, had Calvin not been somehow provoked and had just lashed out at the nearest, random individual then that would somehow suggest behavioural problems. I shall endeavour to be a little less florid in future posts.
The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance.
The challenge was not appropriate, I doubt a single person here thinks it was. The point is about comparison and proportionality (and the 3 match statement of yours). I'm absolutely fine and in agreement this offence carries a 12 match ban - AS LONG AS it does for everyone. Not just league one Dale but premiership players as well. Everything we've ever seen says that's not the case. Costa simply wouldnt get 12 matches for this (or pretty much anything else) and we all know it.
We don't know it until someone else in 2016 or later carries out a similar act.
Saying otherwise is just paranoia at this stage.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
So because hes black he must've been racially abused? What a load of absolute crap, slander and misinformation. There is NO excuse for what Calvin did, and attempts to paint Clarke as the perpetrator are abominable.
Agreed. This is the problem with evidence heard in camera. Speculation inevitably results.
I like Calvin and always have seen what he brings to the team. However, the challenge was disgusting and got the punishment it deserves.
12 matches seems harsh because we're all using Premier league players as examples.
Most premier league examples of off the ball incidents are nowhere near as severe. Wayne Rodney's challenge was used but was not as violent. It was also seen by the referee so cannot warrant action after the game.
We'll have to take it on the chin and know that it means we get what will be effectively a January signing
We don't know it until someone else in 2016 or later carries out a similar act.
Saying otherwise is just paranoia at this stage.
promise i'll let it go now fellas, and respect all opinions here, but this one did come to mind from this year, are either of these guys that much better than Calvin? 3 match bans IIRC, despite one of these having plenty of previous...
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
