Millwall goalkeeper has had his ban extended by the FA to six games for the challenge in the Palace game last week.

shocking that. A genuine mistake, that's all it was.

Joke that the ban has been extended, purely down to the response in the media as well.

Maybe they should be having stronger words with Michael Oliver too, seen as they think it was that bad and he felt it wasn't a free kick.

Did Mane get a 6 game ban for Liverpool when he kicked Ederson in the head? Honestly can't remember, both equally dangerous I'd say, despite both being accidental. Although I'm not sure Mane even got the ball first.

Admittedly a Championship keeper is an easier target for the FA.

And they play Leeds soon. I wonder if that was taken into account.

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:23 pm

Did Mane get a 6 game ban for Liverpool when he kicked Ederson in the head? Honestly can't remember, both equally dangerous I'd say, despite both being accidental. Although I'm not sure Mane even got the ball first.

Admittedly a Championship keeper is an easier target for the FA.

Just googled it and Mane got a three game ban which Liverpool appealed saying it was excessive, FA rejected it but it stayed at three.
6 game ban is shocking he made a genuine error and mis timed a tackle, yes his foot was high but that's going to happen at times in football.
Players who have gone to hurt an opponent deliberately have been given less

williamw1331 wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:28 pm

And they play Leeds soon. I wonder if that was taken into account.

Lukas Jensen is their first choice.

Unlikely to affect the Championship, he was 2nd choice and the main keeper is fit, they play Leeds in match 3 of the ban, so he would be banned anyway, and they play Sheff Utd in match 7, so after the extended ban.

Commy wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:07 pm

Lukas Jensen is their first choice.

I think he’s a good keeper too. I was always impressed with him when he was in our under 21s.

And I think the extended ban is shocking. You only get that for biting someone.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:16 pm

I think he’s a good keeper too. I was always impressed with him when he was in our under 21s.

And I think the extended ban is shocking. You only get that for biting someone.

I'd argue that nearly killing someone is a bit worse than biting them.

He's lucky it's only a 6 match ban.

JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:40 pm

I'd argue that nearly killing someone is a bit worse than biting them.

He's lucky it's only a 6 match ban.

What about when players clash heads and one ends up serious?
Lots of bad accidents happen in football and sport not everything needs further punishment.
He made an error no malice whatsoever

Nearly killing someone? He'll be back playing sooner than Roberts will now.
He apologised, which was accepted, his team lost, he was rightfully sent off and suspended. That should be that.

Michael Oliver didn’t even think it was a yellow.

What a clown.

Ridiculous.

Makes no sense. 3 games was fine given there was no malice, and Roberts acted impeccably afterwards, offering an immediate apology and accepting his punishment

Remember, Keane only got 3 games for the Haaland challenge (until his autobiography came out), and that was as blatant an intended career ender as they come

I am baffled as to why the FA felt they needed to intervene here

It was reckless, definite red, but definitely not intentional.

Media witch hunt strikes. The FA are so weak.

bumba wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:42 pm

What about when players clash heads and one ends up serious?
Lots of bad accidents happen in football and sport not everything needs further punishment.
He made an error no malice whatsoever

I'd say clashing heads is accidental, usually when players both going for the ball in an equal way. You know what you're doing if you go out with your feet like that. It was horrendous

JellyBaby wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:33 pm

I'd say clashing heads is accidental, usually when players both going for the ball in an equal way. You know what you're doing if you go out with your feet like that. It was horrendous

It wasn't one of the best one's for sure it wouldn't have looked out of place in some sort of a UFC arena. When I looked at the footage it reminded me of van damme in his prime in kickboxer.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:14 pm

shocking that. A genuine mistake, that's all it was.

How can him going into a challenge like that be a “mistake”? Sure he might not have meant to hurt the guy, but anyone going that high studs up knows full well that there’s gonna be some pain involved.

It was extremely reckless, and the outcome was awful, and worthy of the ban.

JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:40 pm

I'd argue that nearly killing someone is a bit worse than biting them.

He's lucky it's only a 6 match ban.

So on that basis, if someone suffers a career ending injury in a challenge then he gets a long, long ban. Never for me is a challenge ever going to be worse than biting or spitting.

JellyBaby wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:33 pm

I'd say clashing heads is accidental, usually when players both going for the ball in an equal way. You know what you're doing if you go out with your feet like that. It was horrendous

So by theory every high foot challenge should be a red card and extended ban?
What about overhead kicks when they nearly catch a defender.....6 game ban?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:01 pm

So on that basis, if someone suffers a career ending injury in a challenge then he gets a long, long ban. Never for me is a challenge ever going to be worse than biting or spitting.

Not really. I think it would be very difficult to cause a fatal injury by going in for a normal tackle. Serious injuries are an unavoidable risk.

Charging out of his area at that speed with your leg fully extended at that height was beyond reckless and incredibly dangerous.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:01 pm

So on that basis, if someone suffers a career ending injury in a challenge then he gets a long, long ban. Never for me is a challenge ever going to be worse than biting or spitting.

Crucial point is where it ends up. Mateta got lucky on another day perhaps a different story. It's almost impossible to do that much damage biting or spitting but with the wrong sort of challenge & a combination of bad luck you could kill somebody.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 98876.html

bobinho wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:53 pm

How can him going into a challenge like that be a “mistake”? Sure he might not have meant to hurt the guy, but anyone going that high studs up knows full well that there’s gonna be some pain involved.

It was extremely reckless, and the outcome was awful, and worthy of the ban.

If you ignore the media hype about it and the fact that he plays for Millwall and actually watch the footage, he over reaches to get his foot to the ball and he gets to the ball and kicks it. The extension of his leg after kicking the ball is when he accidentally catches the player on the head.

You should also note that had the palace player not fouled the defender his head wouldn’t have been where it was for the collision.

So yes, it was a mistake.

It's beyond belief to me that anyone can think deliberately biting someone isn't far worse than an accidental challenge

He was going for the ball, misjudged it.

3 game ban was fine

They’ve set a dangerous precedence here

Watching it back he gets the ball and kicks it away because he's outside his area. Palace player barges the defender out of the way so actually commits the first foul and if anything runs into the goalies boot. At worst it can only described as reckless, definitely not intentional and the Palace player is partly responsible for his own demise. A further ban is ridiculous.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:28 pm

It's beyond belief to me that anyone can think deliberately biting someone isn't far worse than an accidental challenge

I'm sure Mateta would prefer to have been deliberately bitten by the Millwall goalkeeper rather than have his head almost taken off.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 3:14 pm

shocking that. A genuine mistake, that's all it was.

He nearly took Matetas head off at his fully body height.

He didn't intend to kick him in the face but charging out at a striker with you foot at face height with a kung fu kick is reckless in the extreme and runs the chance of causing serious injury. He deserves his punishment.

I'm shocked that the ban has been extended to this, no way did the lad go out to cause injury or harm. Football is truly finished as the idiocy of the media takes precedence over reality of a dare I say it 'contact sport'. I'm done with football, I keep trying to pull back from my distain of the game, but just can't. I'll always be a Burnley fan, but shall never go on again.

bumba wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:05 pm

So by theory every high foot challenge should be a red card and extended ban?
What about overhead kicks when they nearly catch a defender.....6 game ban?

No

It was accidental, but perhaps this will make players think twice about going in with their foot so high. That's the only reason I can think the FA have done this - to set an example? I do feel for the lad though, it's been nothing but a witch hunt in the media, probably not helped by him playing for such an unlikeable club.

JellyBaby wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 12:12 am

No

But players know when they go for an overhead kick there's a huge possibility they'll kick the opposition defender in the face.....what's the difference?
Did you notice in the incident that just before the collision Mateta actually pushes the defender out of the way which then actually put him in the keepers line?
If he doesn't unnecessarily push the defender then he doesn't get clattered, it's a genuine mistake.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:23 pm

Crucial point is where it ends up. Mateta got lucky on another day perhaps a different story. It's almost impossible to do that much damage biting or spitting but with the wrong sort of challenge & a combination of bad luck you could kill somebody.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 98876.html

Any collision of heads could kill a player (or both) but would be generally seen as accidental, you are not factoring in the level of intent here.

I can't help wondering if the views in defence of Roberts here would be different were it to have been Aynsley Pears on Lyle Foster in a derby fixture!

Feels like the FA have just listened to the whining of the national media on this one, which sets a dangerous precedent.

Was it a red? Definitely

Was it Schumacher v Battiston levels? Definitely not

Sometimes bad injuries happen, at top level sport you have seconds to react. My guess is that as he came out he thought the ball would bounce a lot lower than it did, but by the time he got there he was already committed.

As a side note, keepers bravely have to dive at strikers feet (risking injury) all the time, it is part of the game. In fact this happened to me as a GK when I was 16 resulting in a hole in my cheek and 30 stitches across my cheek and bottom lip caused by a strikers studs.

JohnMcGreal wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:40 pm

I'd argue that nearly killing someone is a bit worse than biting them.

He's lucky it's only a 6 match ban.

Mane only got 3 games for nearly kicking Ederson's head off in a similar incident.

IMO it's opening a hornets nest when you start introducing a sliding scale of punishment for similar incidents because then it becomes subjective

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 9:08 am

Any collision of heads could kill a player (or both) but would be generally seen as accidental, you are not factoring in the level of intent here.

For me intent is secondary of course I believe that roberts didn't intend on intentionally maiming mateta but for me when you carry out that sort of action you run that risk whether you intend to or not & ultimately it's reckless & out of control.

He didn't nearly kick his head off

bumba wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 8:56 am

But players know when they go for an overhead kick there's a huge possibility they'll kick the opposition defender in the face.....what's the difference?
Did you notice in the incident that just before the collision Mateta actually pushes the defender out of the way which then actually put him in the keepers line?
If he doesn't unnecessarily push the defender then he doesn't get clattered, it's a genuine mistake.

Every incident is different. Depends where the defender is etc. I'd argue most overhead kicks aren't with a straight leg, studs violently thrust forward etc.

If you play against kids or whatever and there's a ball sitting perfectly for a volley but it's at the height of the kid who's going to head it, you don't kick the ball, you realise in the moment that's dangerous and you do something else. My point is, you make a decision in the moment whether your action is that dangerous. So yes, it's possible an overhead kick could be the same , but most aren't

JellyBaby wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 10:59 am

Every incident is different. Depends where the defender is etc. I'd argue most overhead kicks aren't with a straight leg, studs violently thrust forward etc.

If you play against kids or whatever and there's a ball sitting perfectly for a volley but it's at the height of the kid who's going to head it, you don't kick the ball, you realise in the moment that's dangerous and you do something else. My point is, you make a decision in the moment whether your action is that dangerous. So yes, it's possible an overhead kick could be the same , but most aren't

And if Mateta didn't feel the need to push the defender out of the way he wouldn't have got caught when the keeper went to play the ball, what if Mateta had pushed the defender and he'd gone in the keepers line and got caught, would you then blame Mateta?
The keeper has come rushing out and realised he needs to get something on the ball and made an attempt to kick it at a stupid height but there's no intent to hurt Mateta, it's an accident.

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 10:01 am

Mane only got 3 games for nearly kicking Ederson's head off in a similar incident.

IMO it's opening a hornets nest when you start introducing a sliding scale of punishment for similar incidents because then it becomes subjective

A sliding scale based on ratings from the media, in this case.

aclaretinstevenage wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 9:47 am

I can't help wondering if the views in defence of Roberts here would be different were it to have been Aynsley Pears on Lyle Foster in a derby fixture!

If it was accidental as this incident was of course I’d have a similar response.

Rick_Muller wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 08, 2025 12:17 pm

If it was accidental as this incident was of course I’d have a similar response.

Accidental just means it wasn't intentional forget that It's dangerous. Accidents happen all the time that are preventable it doesn't mean without due care & attention it couldn't be prevented. It's a moot point whether it was intentional or not.