He did and he was stupid to do it, I just don't think it was anywhere near as bad as it was made out. Nolan's tackle against Everton was worse. Every single tackle that Lee Cattermole makes is worse.

What exactly did Marney intend to do then? He had one thing on his mind and did it.

Well done for ignoring the points about fagend though, and you talk about me having blinkers on.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise I had to. Reckon Ill have to read that AUP better. The point is you're trying to defend the indefensible. I'm not trying to defend Marney or Fagan because they were also out of order. A thug like Guthrie should have been banned for longer and fined significantly more for his assault on Fagan. Everyone who has seen that tackle agrees except for blinkered Geordies such as yourself.

BTW, calling him Fagend doesn't in anyway support your argument or make you look good. Just thought I'd point that out.

Missing out a point just to suit your agenda is a bit daft though, isn't it?

Please point out where I've defended Guthrie too. I said what he did was stupid. However, it wasn't as bad as it was made out. fagend's seperate assaults (that's how you've described it) at the KC and SJP should have been dealt with a hefty fine and ban, as I'm sure you'll agree. That's a sweeping statement too, saying "Everyone who has seen that tackle agrees except for blinkered Geordies such as yourself". Strange, because when the incident happened there was a big discussion about it on the Other Sports forum where the vast majority agreed it was a three game ban and no more. Carrying on spouting to suit your agenda though.

I don't recall saying it did.

Haway ya geordie daft lad

summed up nicely!!

Brilliant, well reasoned responses.

What agenda is that exactly? I don't have "agenda's" and I don't spout. everything I've said is based on what happended and very popular opinion.

You haven't directly defended Guthrie, but by insisting every tackle ever made in the history of football was worst indicates that you are, and a sign of complete desperation IMO. Why can't you just admit the tackle (or should I say deliberate assault) was a disgrace and move on? FWIW i agree that action should have been taken against Marney and Fagan, but the poor FL procedures (proved by the Guthrie assault) means that it wasn't.

As for the vast majority thinking 3 matches was enough

Popular opinion amongst whom? Hull fans?

Yeah, I insisted every tackle made in the history of football was worse. It was daft, it wasn't on but at the same time it wasn't worthy of an extended ban. The reaction caused by Guthrie's 'tackle' only really came about after it was revealed that fagend had broken his leg. If he hadn't, would there have been the same reaction? No is the very likely answer. It's like last season when Martin Taylor broke Eduardo's leg. It was a poorly timed challenge but should only have been a three game ban and that correctly was the case. If Eduardo hadn't have broken his leg or the images of the injury weren't so graphic, it would have been overlooked and sweeped aside just like most other cases of serious foul play/violent conduct. The injury sustained shouldn't reflect the ban handed out.

Have to disagree with you here Twinny, not a follower of football as you know but when a player is injured through a malicious tackle the punishment should some how mirror the length of time out injured.

I completely agree with you. The Eduardo tackle was badly timed and didn't appear intentional in the slightest IMO. The Guthrie tackle was a clear and deliberate attempt to seriously injure Fagan (that's his name by the way!) given away by the fact that he didn't even attempt to go for the ball and struck him half-way up his leg. So why did they end up with the same punishment? Pathetic, and it's the FLs procedure that's the problem.